RA Aus issues related to the Lake Hume Accident

[David Isaac]

Folks,

 

This is the thread where we discuss the RA Aus issues that come out of discussion on the Lake Hume accident.

 

General discussion on the accident and the lessons to be learned should remain in the thread on the Aircraft Pilots forum.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Old mate has brought a world of hurt down upon himself and there is three parts of stuff all that RAAus should be held accountable for. That is unless RAAus were holding a gun to his temple and forcing him to go fly in that manner of course.

 

There you go DBI!

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is no good at all, will just split and duplicate a very good learning thread.

 

I'm not sure how we got to this from saying the site was best when it was called Recreationalflying.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Old mate has brought a world of hurt down upon himself and there is three parts of stuff all that RAAus should be held accountable for. That is unless RAAus were holding a gun to his temple and forcing him to go fly in that manner of course.There you go DBI!

Couldnt have said that better myself.Cheers Locksy

 

 

[dazza 38]

It is realy out of RAAus's hands. If he had a Pilot Certificate, and /or the aircraft registered it would have been different.

 

 

[David Isaac]

This is no good at all, will just split and duplicate a very good learning thread.I'm not sure how we got to this from saying the site was best when it was called Recreationalflying.

Agree Tubz, not sure how well this will work splitting the thread like this. I fear it will have its difficulties when the issue tie so closely together.

 

Its is really out of RAAus's hands. If he had a Pilot Certificate, and /or the aircraft registered it would have been different.

Interesting comment Dazz,

I am not so sure it would have anything to do with RA Aus even if the aircraft was registered; I think the key point is the pilot was NOT certified or a member of RA Aus. How could RA Aus be held responsible for a legitimate aircraft being flown illegally by an 'unqualified' person? It would be like holding the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority responsible for an unlicensed person driving a legitimately registered motor vehicle.

 

This Sapphire may have been unregistered for years, it was carrying a very early number '302' and may well have been sitting in some hay barn somewhere close for all we know.

 

It may have been flown for years unregistered and by an un-certificated pilot.

 

 

[dazza 38]

My take on it, is that if he had a certificate and the A/c was registered.Raa would have had to get involved even if only a little bit.At the end of the day CASA calls the shots.This way, even with the sapphire having numbers on the side, doesnt matter to us the RAA.He only had a student Pilots cert and the A/c was not registered.I know that we still look bad to the general public for a little while.They are not going too know any difference unfortunately in the short term.In any sport there are always going to have bad apples.RAA staying away from this IMO is the best thing too do.Doesnt matter what they say to the media it will eventually be brought up in the media IE-RAA pilot etc.

 

People generally have a short memory on these things. In a few months they will forget about the accident.Then in 6 or 12 months time, it will end up in the media again when the court case starts.When that happens it should be about a Bloke flying a unregistered A/c without a Licence.RAA should not be mentioned.

 

Life is all about a play on words, especially with the media the least said the better.

 

 

[pudestcon]

You have to wonder what his thought processes were.... At the risk of sounding crude, he needs to be taken out the back of the hangar and hit over the head with a tyre lever!

 

Pud

 

 

[ahlocks]

Agree Tubz, not sure how well this will work splitting the thread like this. I fear it will have its difficulties when the issue tie so closely together.

Yeah, it's not going to be easy....

 

 

[dazza 38]

You have to wonder what his thought processes were.... At the risk of sounding crude, he needs to be taken out the back of the hangar and hit over the head with a tyre lever!Pud

I agree Pud.I think the guy has probably been flying for alot of years and was never going to play by the rules.My gut instinct tells me that he has gotten away for so long without having a certificate.He has simply not worried about it.If he didnt bin it, he may have got away with it.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I reckon there would be quite a few old ANO 95-10 aircraft out in the bush, only flown over private property at less than 500' and I doubt the flyers are RA Aus members and no one knows about it. I doubt even if we did know there could be much we or anyone could do about it. I am uncertain under these conditions whether or not it is actually illegal if it is over your own property and below 500'.

 

Kaz might know the answer to that one.

 

 

[pudestcon]

I reckon there would be quite a few old ANO 95-10 aircraft out in the bush, only flown over private property at less than 500' and I doubt the flyers are RA Aus members and no one knows about it. I doubt even if we did know there could be much we or anyone could do about it. I am uncertain under these conditions whether or not it is actually illegal if it is over your own property and below 500'.Kaz might know the answer to that one.

I reckon you are correct David - and they will continue to 'fly under the radar' unless they do something like the pilot on Lake Hume. But how would you know unless you asked them directly if they were certificated or not. The aircraft is a bit different because you could ask where the registration plastic card is. That's if you were on their property.

Out here in the wild west I don't have a problem with unlicenced and/or unregistered aircraft as such where the pilot operates on his own patch of dirt - remember a patch of dirt out here can be 10s of thousands of acres. I do have an issue if, like the guy on Lake Hume, the uncertified pilot starts venturing further afield and doing beat ups or buzzing people.

 

Pud

 

 

[David Isaac]

And to add to that Pud, there are also a number of unregistered C150 type muster planes out there as well. Is it a case of private property ... secret plane business. Of course you would be up sh!t creek with no paddle if there was a prang involving serious injury or death.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I reckon there would be quite a few old ANO 95-10 aircraft out in the bush, only flown over private property at less than 500' and I doubt the flyers are RA Aus members and no one knows about it. I doubt even if we did know there could be much we or anyone could do about it. I am uncertain under these conditions whether or not it is actually illegal if it is over your own property and below 500'.Kaz might know the answer to that one.

I reckon there there could be 500 or more peeps flying without rego or certificate.Just a guess though.I have deduced this number because we have 9600 odd financial members, but if somebody joined today their membership number would be 26 thousand something. That leaves approx 16 plus thousand people who have in the past held membership, but do not now.Take out the honest people who have decided to give up flying, etc.I think there would still be a small percentage out there not doing the right thing.

[FlyingVizsla]

And to add to that Pud, there are also a number of unregistered C150 type muster planes out there as well. Is it a case of private property ... secret plane business. Of course you would be up sh!t creek with no paddle if there was a prang involving serious injury or death.

Probably not many unregistered GA aircraft as the rego is perpetual and free - you have to actually apply to have it deregistered. I don't think there is any cross referencing by CASA to see if the aircraft get their annual service. But I guess if you lost your medical and didn't want anyone inquiring too much you could tell CASA it was written off. Unlike RAA, where numbers are not reallocated, GA rego letters are reallocated to another aircraft. In the early days some RAA numbers were doubled up - for example 0114 was allocated to 10-0114 and 25-0114. Now the number is unique. In the 1990's I knew several unregistered ultralights being flown regularly. AUF visited one bloke who was snapping off TV aerials and landing on our town roads. Another bloke broke nearly every bone in his body doing low level aeros and put his family is a very difficult position; no income & no compensation.

 

AUF/RAA rego only started in 1987 and it took a couple of years for most aircraft to be registered. There was resistance to what was seen as a restriction on the freedom of flight.

 

Sue

 

 

[David Isaac]

Thanks Sue,

 

I should have clarified that GA registration does not expire, but the maintenance releases certainly do and that was what I meant to clarify. Of course you could fly a GA aircraft with a 'fudgy' maintenance release and no one may know about it.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Unregistered (or those with lapsed rego) would be hard to trace, especially if they kept away from busy RAA places. Somewhere people might look at rego cards or cross check rego numbers with the RAA website. Even the public are better informed these days and expect to see rego numbers on wings. But there's nothing to stop someone building their own and flying it around the back-of-beyond without any reference to RAA or SAAA. The answer would be more cross checking, reporting, reconciling - but that would cost a fortune and involve more paperwork and cost the members dearly.

 

There would be no insurance - but that might not be an issue with a single seater where the pilot is the owner and will bear the consequences of his actions. The insurance problem becomes more accute if the aircraft is being used intensely by many eg in a flying school. There would have to be an assessment of the extent of the problem and the cost of discovery. RAA members would have to subsidise the effort but the result would have to be handed to CASA & police to pursue with no return to RAA. Even if you did see an unregistered aircraft, how could RAA find out who owns it?

 

Sue

 

 

[Guest Robert Cocks]

Hi All,

 

I just would like to add to Sue's comments, in 2002 I wanted to find out the numbers of Volksplanes in Australia, some were VH and some were RAA numbered, I then went to the source of the plans and asked them the numbers of plans sold and mailed to Australia, the answer was about 52 or 53 more than registered or were registered so the question is did those plans get used, potentually there are 52-53 Volksplanes flying that are unregistered, we may never know? What about aircraft manufacturers here in Australia that are now out of business, how many aircraft or kits did they produce? I know of one in the Sydney metro area that of all the factory built around 25 aircraft that all have "disappeared", there is records of thier sale and to whom but there was no follow up to find them or what happened to them by CASA or RAA, I wonder why?

 

If only one percent of those survived and are flying unregistered then that adds up to quite a few.

 

Finding owners may not be all that difficult, copies of sales invoices from manufacturers and plan sales organisations, import and shipping documentation held by the Federal govenment and import agents are just a few.

 

The International and National fraud protocols could be used as a model for this investigation, all these tools are valid and workable. I had the occasion to use them to track down a C185 that was "written off" here in Australia then later sold as airworthy in the USA, it took seven months to find it but the paper trail was fairly easy to follow. I got the first clue that was the export of this aircraft's parts Exclusively in a 40 foot container.

 

Bob.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Welcome Bob.Great information in your first post.Looking forward to you posts in the future.Cheers

 

 

[Guest bullrout]

If RAAus formed a splinter group for single seat aircraft [exactly like the 95.10 rego was for]that are flown for fun and over unpopulated areas,that has realistic fees without the magazine thats all about plastic fantastics anyway.You would probably find a lot of these "rogue pilots"as they have been called would welcome registering and relicenceing of these <500 or so aircraft you talk about........................

 

 

[turboplanner]

What's going on here? The main thread, where further news should be posted is closed down, and the discussion transferred here?????????????????

 

 

[ahlocks]

It's pretty straight forward. The closed thread has diverged way beyond the original topic and export/importing the wayward posts between appropriate forums is not practical. Start a new topic in the respective forums if you wish.

 

RAAus specific issues i.e. registration and membership compliance and grass roots v's plastic politics here

 

Incident related i.e. how, where, when, why and how to avoid doing the same on www.recreationalflying.com

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Probably not many unregistered GA aircraft as the rego is perpetual and free - you have to actually apply to have it deregistered. I don't think there is any cross referencing by CASA to see if the aircraft get their annual service. But I guess if you lost your medical and didn't want anyone inquiring too much you could tell CASA it was written off. Unlike RAA, where numbers are not reallocated, GA rego letters are reallocated to another aircraft. In the early days some RAA numbers were doubled up - for example 0114 was allocated to 10-0114 and 25-0114. Now the number is unique. In the 1990's I knew several unregistered ultralights being flown regularly. AUF visited one bloke who was snapping off TV aerials and landing on our town roads. Another bloke broke nearly every bone in his body doing low level aeros and put his family is a very difficult position; no income & no compensation.AUF/RAA rego only started in 1987 and it took a couple of years for most aircraft to be registered. There was resistance to what was seen as a restriction on the freedom of flight.

 

Sue

Sue RAAus rego numbers can now be reissued. This was done after a stink was raised into how the Thruster and Scouts -001 regos ended up on the ex pres and ex ceo aircrafts. Numbers were changed, original owners tried to reregister their aircraft after rebuilds and found numbers had been transfered. The ruling changed after complaints lodged. GRRRR.

I flew for years without being a member of AUF just had to write a letter to CASA and tell them one will abide by their rules. Then along came RAAus and it became "you will or we throw you in pokey" No one asked me for my opinion on the deal. Up for another 185 dollars next month. Lets see 4 lts an hour @ 1.50 lt into 185 = several years of flying.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Sue RAAus rego numbers can now be reissued. This was done after a stink was raised into how the Thruster and Scouts -001 regos ended up on the ex pres and ex ceo aircrafts. Numbers were changed, original owners tried to reregister their aircraft after rebuilds and found numbers had been transfered. The ruling changed after complaints lodged. GRRRR.I flew for years without being a member of AUF just had to write a letter to CASA and tell them one will abide by their rules. Then along came RAAus and it became "you will or we throw you in pokey" No one asked me for my opinion on the deal. Up for another 185 dollars next month. Lets see 4 lts an hour @ 1.50 lt into 185 = several years of flying.

It's decisions like that, that confuse things. Probably too many knee jerk reactions and opportunistic "opening the gate to let the horse out" and then closing it before anyone else could take advantage of it. The legacy is what we have to live with. There needed to be some sensible, forward thinking decisions made and adhered to. Doesn't always happen when you have a changing Board and personalities. I agree with your sentiments. If an aircraft owner is unhappy with RAA is there an alternative?

 

Sue

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Alternatives? Not as such.