Have You Responded to Part 103

[Guest pelorus32]

I was interested in the post by Nick elsewhere in this forum about the low response to the NPRM for Part 103. I wondered why that was and hence the poll.

 

The page is here:

 

http://rrp.casa.gov.au/nprm/nprm0603os.asp

 

And the response page is here:

 

http://nprm.casa.gov.au/default.asp?nprm=0603OS

 

As always please post further comments about your poll response.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Hi Pelorus32,

 

I have voted "NO and do not intend to". You have invited response on reasons and I will oblige.

 

I really do not give a stuff whether 103 is good. bad or indifferent!

 

My total indifference to it is that I do not wish to see the CAO 95 series go that 103 will replace and I am not the kind of person to roll over and say it is inevitable!

 

The 95 series were Acts of Parliament vested in the honorary Group Keepers and could be held by individual groups. This was demonstrated by Paul Middleton a couple of years ago when CASA attempted a unilateral change to 95.55 and were defeated quickly.

 

I think anything of disadvantage to our movement will be lot harder to defend in the future because of the all embracing aspect of 103 - we are no longer in our own pool we are in the sea!

 

I further believe that AUF/RAAus powerbrokers had neither the will nor the balls (or a different agenda) to resist this adequately enough and significantly failed to enlist the group support of ASAC that AUF so willingly pulled out of!

 

Just my views that mean little. We will see what happens.

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Tony,

 

I don't have a remit either way here - I have a personal view but no remit on this.

 

However I'd like to baldly report what was said at Narromine:

 

At the Narromine forums Paul Middleton made it quite clear that the CAOs had no legal validity - the CASRs have legal precedence over the exemption orders. Paul expressed the view that it was luck more than anything that allowed us to wiggle out of the attempt to impose AOCs on RAAus FTFs in the past.

 

Paul continued to say that it was his view and that of the Board that Part 103 provided a firm and legal basis for us, together with Part 149 and that it would prevent easy removal of our privileges in the future.

 

I believe I have paraphrased him accurately.

 

I have no way of verifying that I simply report it.

 

Having said that I understand that there is a strong precedent about this in the RPT and airline area. There was a CAO that said that instrument recency was related to a 90 day period. The CASR said another number - I think 35 days. The end result is that the CAO was overridden by the CASR.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Arnaud]

I hope this won't upset too many people...

 

I noticed the urgent request from RAA to be involved in the process.

 

I took the time to read the whole document; didn't really fully understand what the consequences could be in the near or not so near future but voted YES for the whole package as recommended by RAA.

 

Having recently joined RAA and with very little experience in Recreational Aviation I have to rely on their leadership and good judgment; I also have to give them my support when requested to do so.

 

As the owner of a small business I often have to rely on expert advice and trust the people I consult. If my plumber says the boiler is beyond repair and needs replacing, I'll tell him to go ahead. If in the future the plumber proves to be incompetent or untrustworthy, then I'll look out for another one.

 

So far I am quite impressed by the RAA performance so there is no need to look elsewhere.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Thanks for your response Mike - it was not actually needed as I am on no form of crusade.

 

What you are basically saying is that Middleton reported that the ordinance that was put down by Act of Parliament in 1986 has been made totally invalid by further ordinance that "wipes it out"!

 

Back then Australia stunned the world with forward and lateral thinking that gave recreational aviation in this country a glittering future and ourselves an entirely new aviation movement. It was simple, could be administered simply by simple people and worked - it has worked well!

 

So NO! I am not about to endores or vote for either the whackers that changed the power base and apparently undermined Acts of Parliament, or those that did not fight to stop those essential freedoms going down the gurgler!

 

But as I said, that is just my personal view - so just let it go as that!

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest Crash Lander]

I hope this won't upset too many people...I noticed the urgent request from RAA to be involved in the process.

I took the time to read the whole document; didn't really fully understand what the consequences could be in the near or not so near future but voted YES for the whole package as recommended by RAA.

 

Having recently joined RAA and with very little experience in Recreational Aviation I have to rely on their leadership and good judgment; I also have to give them my support when requested to do so.

 

As the owner of a small business I often have to rely on expert advice and trust the people I consult. If my plumber says the boiler is beyond repair and needs replacing, I'll tell him to go ahead. If in the future the plumber proves to be incompetent or untrustworthy, then I'll look out for another one.

 

So far I am quite impressed by the RAA performance so there is no need to look elsewhere.

Same boat for me too. I saw the request to support it, and as a new member I read it through, but did not understand it completely. I trusted that the organisation that we are all members of had our best interests in mind, so I voted yes as recommended by RAA.

 

 

[Ben Longden]

I completed the thing last night... Took a few mins and answered yes to everything. If anyone from the board is reading this, please be aware I am taking your trust completely in commenting positively on this.

 

Ben

 

 

[Jabby]

Thank you all for the discussion, I, too am a fairly new member of RAA and as far as I can see you have to trust someone, and who better to trust than Middo and his wonderful team, So give it a go Guys and help them to help us Happy Flying Mike

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Life is full of compromises and while it's not everything we could ever hope for, what is on offer is pretty close. I appreciate the confidence and trust that has been placed in the team and myself and we are endeavouring through the minefield of Canberra to pursue the best possible outcome for the organisation.

 

The number of members in the RAAus is close to exceeding the total combined membership of all the other players involved and with this in mind some of their reactions to the NPRM have been less than favourable, particularly as some of their membership bases are in decline, so every one of our responses certainly helps the case.

 

Alliances change and CASA is not necessarily the dark side any more, in fact they see us as a role model for self-regulation, not a bad outcome for our organisation.

 

 

[rick-p]

I read it, understood it and said yes.

 

Whereas it is my job to understand such things there are of course those who don't, which is no slight on them.

 

Such people, as many hereinbefore have said, rely on the one's they employ and place there trust in to do this for them and rightly so.

 

The RAA people are not going to do anything willfully and negligently, they make their decisions based on the best outcome available at the time.

 

The advice given by the RAA should be relied on as it is the best advice you can get in all the circumstances.

 

If you don't trust their advice who's advice are you going to trust and follow?

 

The RAA is an interested player in our passtime not CASA nor the Government of the day, it is the RAA who will give the best advice to us no one else.

 

The majority of the people who run RAA are themselves recreational pilots so ask yourself would they wish to shoot themselves in the foot and lose what we all now enjoy.

 

Just my two bob's worth.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

I have voted "No - I feel I need more information".

 

In spite of being more thatn 70 pages the descriptive document for Part 103 I read a few months back was too high level and vague to be able to form any firm opinion about it.

 

 

[Knighty]

Hi Guys

 

I havent the time nor the bloody patience for reading lengthy documents, I fly to enjoy, not to get involved on the political arena (I will only get involved when I need to and have a tenacious nature when I get warmed up and started!). Can someone give me the abreviated deal on what I am supposed to vote against/for. Please remember ABREVIATED fellas. Probably too darn late now anyway??? Been busy on the home front family work n all. You all know how it is.

 

Thanks

 

Knighty

 

 

[Lamiunto]

Hi GuysI havent the time nor the bloody patience for reading lengthy documents, I fly to enjoy, not to get involved on the political arena (I will only get involved when I need to and have a tenacious nature when I get warmed up and started!). Can someone give me the abreviated deal on what I am supposed to vote against/for. Please remember ABREVIATED fellas. Probably too darn late now anyway??? Been busy on the home front family work n all. You all know how it is.

 

Thanks

 

Knighty

Hey Knighty,

 

You have until the 2nd of July to respond, and it takes 5 minutes with their online response form, no posting or printing pieces of paper and posting. Simply click on a few check boxes, fill in your details and click submit.

 

Go here to get to the form:

 

http://nprm.casa.gov.au/default.asp?nprm=0603OS

 

RA-Aus believes (and so do I) that part 103 is a very good thing for the recreational flight community as a whole, and recommends that you simply reply in agreement to each section that CASA asks.

 

You don't even have to put in any additional comments (I didn't )

 

- Shaun

 

 

[Knighty]

Thanks Shaun but this still doesnt answer my question unfortunately. I have never been one just to sign a form without knowing what the content is because I was suggested to do it. Until I know exactly what I am signing for, I am going to remain sitting on my hands for now!

 

What is the guts of this 103, am I still allowed to perform repairs on my A/C, do I fly at no more than 500ft above built up areas??? you can get my drift, I am not trying to be a smart you know what.

 

Knighty

 

 

[Arnaud]

As citizens, shareholders, club members, etc.. we all have to delegate our authority...sometimes with disastrous consequences (did I mention Irak ?).

 

As for reading the fine print and agreeing to it: ever gone through mortgage documents or insurance policies ?

 

We have to rely on RA-Aus to make what is the best decision at this particular moment in time. I trust my fellow aviators and support them even if some small bits and pieces I would myself handle differently.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Knighty

 

To read the document and understand it will take you in the order of an hour.

 

If you dont want to read the whole thing, at the begining of the document is an exec summary. I'd suggest that you read that.

 

Given the importnace of the change, and the fact that the document will change your ability to "fly to enjoy" I suggest that when you get to the end of the exec summary you keep on reading.

 

My take on 103, is that is an excellent compromise position. I.e. RAA didnt achieve everything that they wanted, however what was proposed is significantly better (in my opinion) than what is in place now.

 

My view aligns with what RAA are saying, however they are almost diametrically opposed to what some others are saying so you'll need to form your own opinion and more importnatly let CASA know what your formed opinion is, via the feedback mechanism.

 

There is a long debate on this subject here http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7072 in addition to details as to where to get the document to review.

 

Sorry mate, there is no 5 minute powerpoint to help you that I know of.

 

If reading the document is just not possible for whatever reason, but you do want to be involved then take the results of the poll that this thread introduced, apply a reasonableness test to the data there and use it to form your view. Personally I couldnt do that, however each to his own.

 

Andy

 

 

[Lamiunto]

I think it would be a good idea to have a powerpoint for this Andy. Maybe not really, but like a two column table that shows the current regs, and then the proposed ones, basically showing for instance the increase from 544kgs to 600kgs MTOW. And then any extras that is being presented, like the CTA endorsement. Then of course what restrictions are being removed as well.

 

I think that something like a head-to-head comparison would help wonders.

 

 

[Knighty]

Bugger!!!

 

Okay lads, you have convinced me to have a sqiz at this darn 103 thing. I have just worked a 25 hour shift however I will send the kids to bed and have a strong coffee, what the hell I have been tied up in the office all day anyhow, another few more hours on the computer aint going to hurt now will it?

 

Knighty

 

PS. Still worries me a bit how no one could give me a straight answer, curiosity has kicked in now.

 

 

[John Brandon]

Bugger!!!Okay lads, you have convinced me to have a sqiz at this darn 103 thing. I have just worked a 25 hour shift however I will send the kids to bed and have a strong coffee, what the hell I have been tied up in the office all day anyhow, another few more hours on the computer aint going to hurt now will it?

 

Knighty

 

PS. Still worries me a bit how no one could give me a straight answer, curiosity has kicked in now.

The short explanation: basically the version of the proposed Part 103 accompanying the NPRM preserves everything that RA-Aus has fought for and which the members currently enjoy [i.e. nothing really changes] but it still leaves room open for future needs. Read the following http://www.raa.asn.au/operations/regulations.html#part_103

Take note of my notes 3 and 4 and apply a little lateral thinking to give you just a couple of instances of why you need the NPRM to go through as is.

 

John Brandon

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

then why change anything?

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

then why change anything?

Hi Ozzie,

 

I reckon that we've been here before...:;)3:

 

Knighty this will answer some of your questions as well. There are two parts to the answer about what Part 103 is:

 

The first part IMHO answers Ozzie's question as well:

 

The current regs are a set of exemption orders. They exempt RAAus pilots from various of the rules. That has two problems: The first is that the "rules" - that is the CASRs are still there - they haven't changed.

 

The second problem is that there is strong precedent that the CAOs - which is what the exemptions are - are subservient to the CASRs.

 

That means that we are operating under exemptions that, in some views are not terribly strong, and that indeed may not stand up if challenged.

 

That is an unsatisfactory basis for us in my view. Thus the NPRM is proposing to put in place a CASR which governs the conduct of what we do. This creates a positive rule - it says in effect "you can do x, y and z but not q and t" - to replace the existing exemptions.

 

That's all good as far as I'm concerned.

 

The second bit is the actual content. I believe that it does not in any way diminish what we have. Others have pointed out that there are in fact enhancements such as greater MTOW.

 

However there are a group of members who feel that we are losing our connection to our minimalist roots and placing the organisation at risk. I know that Tony and Ozzie have both expressed concern about the proposed rule. I leave them to comment.

 

I believe that this is a good rule and should be supported. Note that it also relies on Part 149 which is about the administration of the movement as opposed to the operations which is Part 103. I am very concerned that despite repeated promises we have not to my knowledge seen the NPRM for Part 149 yet. And it is supposed to close on 2 July.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest sypkens]

Mike / Techman,

 

I have asked elsewhere in the forum regarding NPRM149 whether we should support it (i.e. can we get a synopsis of what it is trying to achieve?). I have responded to 103 but not being sure how 149 is different to 103 I am unsure what to do?

 

Regards,

 

Jan

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Everyone,

 

I have just rung CASA for an update on Part 149. The upshot is as follows:

 

1. Part 149 is getting closer to release but is still at least 2 weeks from release for consultation;
    
    
   
2. It is still intended that the closing dates for Part 149 and Parts 103 and 105 will all line up. It seems to me that that may mean an extension of the closing dates given that it will be pretty close to July by the time Part 149 goes out for consultation;
    
    
   
3. Once the consultation closes the outcomes are reviewed internally by CASA and all going well they go to the Attorney General's Dept for drafting. The AGs have limited drafting resources available and are unable to get more so they are a limiting factor. This suite of parts - 103, 105 and 149 are very high on the priority list - only the Maintenance suite and Alcohol and Other Drugs have higher priority.
    
    
   
4. In any event it looks highly unlikely that these parts will get through Parliament before the election.
    
   

 

I think that is a fair summary of both the conversation and also my inferences from the conversation - my inferences are mainly around timing.

 

BTW before you ask - Part 105 is parachuting but falls within Sport Aviation which is what the three parts are collectively titled.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Mike, THANK YOU. At last a bit of clarity on the subject. Other than the usual "but it is good for you so vote it in".

 

So as Mike has stated that the exemtions can clash with the rules., and leaves some grey areas that the dept wants to remove. But this has to be done without ANYONE losing out. This cannot be just for the majority but for all.

 

As for the heavy end end i say go for it.

 

But as for the lighter end i find it hard to accept, as some of the older types just don't have the performance to get up there. they may be the minority but they should be catered for because they are still flying. To place them in a catagory/airspace with higher performing aircraft and expect them to operate as they do is potentionally dangerous. I would prefer the lightweight aircraft catagory to be split. with the real slow lighties to be kept below the faster aircraft. For instance take a 35 mph cruise lighty with a climb rate of 150fpm. open frame low profile wing making it hard to see. Mix it with some 100kters and there is a recipe for disaster. I don't know what the traffic is like in the area that others fly from, but in the area that i operate from i have in a six nm radius, two NDB's, four airports two drop zones and a entry exit point for a light aircraft lane. and i am pretty much in the centre of the intersection of everyone moving between these points. Gets pretty crowded at times. Even had the roulettes holding over the house for 10 minutes 2 weeks ago. So i would like to have the option of remaining under 500ft at times. not having to share the circuit with rotary wings or others if i find myself at an airport. the option of less regulation and costs, ect., and to bring us into line with the nanolight weightshift catagory. 80kg empty. IE simple rules for simple aircraft is what they are stating. Needs more work.

 

What is also of concern is just what the RAAus is going to do with the new rulings. Casa may approve the provision for formation aerobatics , engine types and numbers ect. but will the RAAus open this up for there pilots or will it only be available for vh types. Casa may put a gate at the fence but will it be unlocked.

 

it will be interesting to hear the SAAA's comments on this nrpm. they wern't very happy with Middo last time they spoke up.

 

If you do not understand what it is all about then do not go on someone elses recommendation. read it(both the nrpm and others posts) again and again untill you can make your own decision. just because middo and the gang are great mates does not really imply that it is good or bad. When it comes to the nitty gritty it is all politics. And with what i have seen happen over the last 35 yrs i am not quite as trusting as i was in my youth.

 

ozzie.

 

thought for today

 

'If the present trend continues, with minimum aircraft continually growing in weight, power and performance, and with fully enclosed cockpits and increasing instrumentation, they will become more and more like conventional sport aircraft and additional rules and regulations will be required to control them.

 

There will then be a steady increase in costs, paperwork and bureacracy which will slowly but surley drive people out of the sport.

 

finally, when the few who are left end up flying around ultralight Pipers and Cessnas we will realise too late that we have gone to far and have mearly re-invented the aeroplane.'

 

Gareth Kimberley

 

Oct 1988

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Withdrawn