Have You Responded to Part 103

[Lamiunto]

ozzie, I am trying to see in Part 103 where your rights as a 'grass-roots' pilot are being removed. I have gone through the document dozens of times, and as far as I can tell, it is all pretty much the same, just giving us more privileges and allowing people more freedom. You mentioned stall speeds once before, somewhere, I can't remember where, but in 103, it says for a powered aircraft, the stall stall speed must be no more than 45kts, which means anything in between. Then there is a section for low momentum ultralights, with only 1 seat and an MTOW of 300kg, it doesn't even mention a stall speed requirement in this section.

 

In the case of the height you are allowed to fly, it mentions that you may not fly less than 1000ft above the highest obstacle within a 300m radius where your aircraft is over the ground, in a built-up area. That part is pretty normal in my opinion.

 

Then.

 

No less than 500ft above the highest obstacle in a 300m radius where your aircraft is over the ground, in a non-built-up area.

 

This is where something else happens,

 

(3) Subregulation (2) does not apply to an aeroplane or rotorcraft that:

 

(a) is being operated for the direct purpose of a task authorised by the

 

owner of, or a person having legal control over, the land over which the

 

aircraft is flying; and

 

(b) is carrying only people necessary for the task.

 

(Subregulation 2 was the 500ft requirement),

 

So if you own the land which you are flying over, you can fly at any altitude.

 

I have a feeling I am missing your point entirely, can you please explain to me, where specifically in part 103 are your rights being removed.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Hi Shaun,

 

The real issue here is not what 103 states is going to happen - but what may happen down the track!

 

103 is all encompassing and any future change could change things down stream for the component parts of the "lesser bretheren" as part of an overall Order.

 

Under the 95 series Ordinance they were Acts of Parliament specific to their users. As such any change can (and has been) successfully defended under that specific Ordinance.

 

That is what is being given away and it does not matter what 103 says now about protecting rights etc it is what may be done to it in the future!

 

Come on all, can you not see that? Or do you (as what is now the bulk of the membership) just do not care because it will not affect you in the steady emergence of what was an "ultralight" movement into just another level of GA? Well some of us do!

 

It is really a question of ethics and purpose.

 

Tony Hayes

 

 

[Lamiunto]

Tony,

 

I am pretty new to all of this, so bear with me while I learn the ins and outs of politics combined with aviation. :black_eye:

 

So what you are saying is, that the 95 series of documents could be protected from change by the aviators, but a CASR part can be changed on a whim by CASA?

 

Pretty dumb questions, but I have to learn sometime. :;)3:

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

They are not "dumb questions" Shaun by any means.

 

The 95 series of Ordiance was marked for future decease several years ago. Their protection was not (in my opinion) adequately defended by RAAus, nor was a concerted approach via the combined honorary groups (ASAC) that RAAus was only too eager to get out of.

 

You really have to consider why people are doing things and for what reason.

 

I am uncompromising in my opinion - what was once AUF was prostitued by the the powers that be, with inadequate approval of the membership, into RAAus and the consequences of this. To my certain knowledge this has been going on on for over seven years and I once fought it at AUF Board Level.

 

I really do not give a stuff about GA although I am qualified enough in that area - I am deeply concerned about a bunch of whackers that made a world wide statement on what aviation could be responsibly be, made it happen - and it has been taken from them!

 

Why?

 

Tony

 

 

[Lamiunto]

Ok, so the current 95 series is being re-drafted into part 103, with some added benefits. But now that it is a CASR part, if CASA decides to make a change to the part we really don't have much of a say?

 

So CASA really didn't have much power over the recreational industry while it was governed by the 95 series ordinances, but now that it has become a CASA document, they pretty much have a stranglehold on the industry?

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Tony,

 

Please help me here: You say that the exemption orders are there by Act of Parliament. That is entirely contrary to my understanding and the advice that I have received. Can you please point me to the Act (name required in order to find it) and the rough date so that I can go and read it. I am not discounting what you say or the importance of it but my situation is that I now have two profoundly opposing positions that two groups/people I respect have put to me.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

It seems to me that everyone of us has something to loose if for whatever reason our privileges to fly are withdrawn for any reason. Included in "everyone" is the RAAus officers, who are all flyer's as well.

 

As such any attempt to paint an us and them picture should be seen for the foolishness and stupidity that it is! I mean to say, if anyone really believes that there is some form of conspiracy going on please can someone who can obviously see things Oh so much clearer than me tell me what the conspirators would stand to gain.

 

If the issue isn't around conspiracy then I must assume that all the Officers, and all the people here who think 103 is a good thing are totally blind or stupid or naive or all of the above.

 

Now if the poll that this thread is in is anything to go by, then the ratio of sane and powerfully accurate crystal ball gazers to the other sheep is a worry, unless its actually the other way around, in which case "much ado about nothing" might sum this up well.

 

In saying that we all stand to loose, lets put that into perspective, some because of their standing in the flying lifecycle stand to loose their training cost, and others, like many of us here, potentially in excess of $100k because of the investment in our own aircraft.

 

Because of that exposure that I chose to have, I am looking to the future in anything that is presented to us, as indeed I believe the RAAus elected officers are also doing.

 

I also believe that while we, the membership, can be reasonably informed, in reality none of use can be as informed as the RAAus officers who attend, on our behalf, most of the behind the scenes discussions that get the consultative NPRM to where it is today.

 

Bottom line, if forum participants have no faith in the RAAus team then stand for election rather than filling these forums with innuendo and FUD and "dip sticks" (deepest respect meant...Of course) which todate has never been backed with anything that even closely resembles facts, but know that my vote is definitely not coming your way. In my eyes your behaviors here have have meant that the credibility required for my vote is sorely lacking!

 

Apologies to all for the emotion, and my hat is of to the RAAus Officers who read the BS here and have managed todate to hold back their human instinct to scream out at the injustice that is being level at them.

 

And with all that said. I wont have another thing to say on 103 until there are some supporting facts presented. Instead I'll focus on some other windmill that needs a fool and his aircraft to charge at!

 

Over to you guys!

 

Andy

 

 

[Lamiunto]

Andy, (with a lot of respect to Tony) I agree with you completely.

 

I have never been one to give in to conspiracies, or believing that the powers that be are out to get you. So, in relation to this, I believe that since CASA seems to be restructuring almost everything, they believe it is time to streamline their operation and get everything into nice readable and organised piles of information. Now they can simply say, for example, part 103 and 149, off to the ultralight industry pile, simple as that. At the moment, they have to gather all the exemptions, together and hope that they have found everything.

 

Just because something "may" or "can" happen down the line doesn't mean it will. Why, on this earth, would CASA want to disturb or break down the fastest growing area of aviation on the planet, not just in Australia? Australia started it, and now it is moving it up further, leading the pack for the rest of the world to follow (I hope).

 

Like I heard one of the others students at my school say, CASA is not the big evil monster that some believe, they actually really are just there to look out for the best interest of the whole country, and they may do that slowly at times, but they do get there in the end.

 

If you look at other areas that CASA is working on, it actively says it wants to take more of an active roll in RPT and even hand over GA to self-administration, now why would they be doing that, spending all that money on reforming everything, if they wanted to turn around and destroy the sport and recreational industry?

 

 

[John Brandon]

Hi Tony,Please help me here: You say that the exemption orders are there by Act of Parliament. That is entirely contrary to my understanding and the advice that I have received. Can you please point me to the Act (name required in order to find it) and the rough date so that I can go and read it. I am not discounting what you say or the importance of it but my situation is that I now have two profoundly opposing positions that two groups/people I respect have put to me.

 

Regards

 

Mike

I've added this to save Tony from a possible apoplectic fit —

All CAOs take the form of delegated legislation subordinate to the Civil Aviation Act 1988. They are drafted by CASA’s Office of Legal Counsel, checked by the Attorney General's department and then tabled in both houses of Parliament where, unless there is a motion for disallowance, the CAO is automatically enabled after 15 sitting days. Thus though not an act of Parliament in itself, parliamentary involvement is constitutionally required in the promulgation of a CAO.

 

I don't think this particular path [i.e. Parliamentary acts] is very rewarding so perhaps it could be discontinued?

 

John Brandon

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I've added this to save Tony from a possible apoplectic fit —All CAOs take the form of delegated legislation subordinate to the Civil Aviation Act 1988. They are drafted by CASA’s Office of Legal Counsel, checked by the Attorney General's department and then tabled in both houses of Parliament where, unless there is a motion for disallowance, the CAO is automatically enabled after 15 sitting days. Thus though not an act of Parliament in itself, parliamentary involvement is constitutionally required in the promulgation of a CAO.

 

I don't think this particular path [i.e. Parliamentary acts] is very rewarding so perhaps it could be discontinued?

 

John Brandon

Thanks John,

 

I guess that the point that I was trying to get to here is this:

 

There are two opposing views - one that Part 103 is less strong than the Orders and one that says that the orders are less protective than Part 103.

 

My understanding is that the latter is in fact the case. There is certainly Australian precedent where Orders have existed and been in conflict with the Regs. In those cases the Regs have been seen to be the deciding factor.

 

Put another: I don't see that there is any basis for an argument that says that the movement will be less well protected by Parts 103 and 149 than it is now by the exemption orders. Indeed quite the reverse.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

PS: I'm sorry if my original post caused any distress - to Tony or anyone else - that wasn't the intention. However I do feel that it's "a minute to midnight" on this subject and the matter of the relative merit of the legislative instruments has been hanging around for a long time unresolved. M

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Hmmm! I do not want to be pedantic here nor make a big issue out of anything. As I repeatedly have stated - I do not give a stuff about 103, I am simply not interested in it!

 

Thank you John for your usual clear summary. Have no fear about myself having any kind of fit – I have a sense of inevitability about this situation that is far beyond the views of a single person, or even a substantial group of people.

 

Equally I believe the questions raised by Mike (Pelorus32) are both apt and valid. My comment Mike, regarding “Act of Parliamentâ€Â, was really just casual use of semantics on my part and not “deadly accurate†– so my apologies for that! I think it reasonable to say that anything in this country that is enforceable under law has to be seated in some kind of Act of Parliament – is there any need for any of us to make a precise issue of it, if so why?

 

So let me use some examples that are a bit clearer. These also address other comments made on this thread:

 

(a) For 13 years I have been flying and instructing most enjoyably and affordably in simple aircraft that have enabled me to allow access to many others to also share. What control documentation we had appeared to be quite adequate and was working well – so why the need for change?

 

(b) We are an organisation that is primarily about safely operating airworthy aircraft and were steadily (as a movement) getting more credence for doing so. Our control documentation allowed us to do that – so why the need for change?

 

© Is it simply because CASA wanted to “join the rest of the world†in organisation when our ultralight movement had already laid down a blue print for how accessible aviation actually could be and was doing it? So why the willingness to discard regulatory cover that was uniquely ours and could be defended as such?

 

(d) I do not propound “conspiracyâ€Â! If there was one it is over and done with now and we deal with the consequences. But Andy@Gawler may have been less charitable with his comments if he had been behind the scenes of AUF a few years ago as it was translating via a very clear background plan into what became RA-Aus.

 

This is not simply a case of the members not being aware of what was happening, at the time the majority of the Board itself did not realise that we were only days away from losing our main office in terms that we then knew it and that both our managers would be crammed into one small sub-office and AUF was destined to be just a member of a larger board of management! It took myself cross examining the CEO of AOPA and then the Editor of AOPA magazine, in an open Board meeting, to get things on the table and in the open. That did not stop our current magazine editor being forced to resignation the following day at an illegal “Board Meeting†none of the rest of us knew about! That was overturned but the damage was done and the magazine went to AOPA – and lasted only months! Conspiracy? Dear me! Who could ever imagine such a thing in an open honorary body?

 

(e) Comments, and activity, regarding the integrity and intentions of CASA leave me confused! At a personal level I have never had any difficulty with them, only helpful cooperation. Yet for many years CASA were the “enemy†and were openly abused and reviled in our national magazine – a process that was continuing until only months ago. There was felt need to fight them at every step over the “CASA Review†and that cost us dearly in terms of our combined CEO/Ops Manager being under intolerable pressure doing too much and most importantly cost us seven valuable years for essential Ops and Airworthiness development! So what has changed, and why?

 

(f) On the question of if CASA would attack us – well they apparently did, not too long ago! Sufficient for AUF/RA-Aus to hit the emergency button when CASA illegally introduced an amendment to CAO 95.55 and it was quashed – by Parliament - under the conduct required under that Order! That is a fair bit of clout!

 

I was interested in Mike’s comment that I will quote – “There is certainly

 

Australian precedent where Orders have existed and been in conflict with the Regs. In those cases the Regs have been seen to be the deciding factor.â€Â

 

So with this issue over 103 – there is no “conflict†if the Orders have actually been terminated and replaced with new Regulation, and that Regulation is amended by NPRM etc (in which we will be only a minority interest party in the whole world of aviation) then what do you imagine could happen – given what has already been tried, but we were able to defend because the Order was specific – but it cost us thousands of dollars to do so? I simply do not see where we are coming out ahead.- and we have yet to see 149, which is the really interesting one!!!!

 

So no wars or sedition from me guys! You may bear in mind that I am the guy who has been several times asked to head up a break-away movement from RA-Aus and I have steadfastly refused. Division is going to be counter-productive. But that does not mean I am not prepared to express my views on what has happened, and how it has happened!

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So, many months have passed, 149 has come out and in my case been responded to.

 

Anyone got any news on what is happening, or what the prevalent feelings are that have been submitted in the NPRM feedback?

 

Anyone got any information as to what the likely next steps, and their associated timeframes are, once the NPRM closes the public comments timeframe?

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Andy,

 

I was told by CASA earlier in the year that the Sport Aviation package was second in their priority listing behind Alcohol and Other Drugs - why is anyone's guess. Anyway that's their priority and the issue then becomes the Attorney General's Dept and their drafting resources. They are very short of legal drafters and can't find anyone who wants to join them, therefore it is likely to be sometime next year before the drafting has been done and the stuff is ready for parliament.

 

By that time, like it or not, we will have a new government. I hope that won't be a problem as some of us have put some effort into briefing the current opposition on this.

 

I recall that at the time I received that info from CASA I posted - I think in this thread - so you may find more info on the timing in that post. I have no reason to expect that anything will speed the process!

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest browng]

I watch this whole drama with interest. My main hope is that by some means as yet not clearly defined, I will be relieved of the requirement to take two biennials in order to exercise the privileges of both my PPL and Pilot Certificate, potentially in identical aircraft with different writing on the tail. I stopped renewing my Pilot Certificate two years ago because of this waste. In my opinion there are so many contradictions and absurdities in this duplication, that a radical overhaul is required. In the UK you could get a PPL (D) which is the equivalent of a Pilot Certificate, or a PPL (A) which a normal PPL. If you hold a PPL (A) this includes a PPL (D), but not vice versa. Both are issued by the equivalent of CASA, while allowing the equivalent of RAAus, (the PFA), to manage airworthiness issues for appropriate types. We need something like that, or an FAA RPL to replace the Pilot Certificate, and that RPL should be encompassed by a PPL, with endorsements common to both. Why for example did I need training and endorsement to operate a CSU on my PPL, but a Pilot Certificate holder requires no such endorsement?, an improperly operated CSU can kill with little effort, try 'going around' if you forget to set it fully fine on downwind. I greatly admire the work that RAAus do, but this dual system is cumbersome and unnecessarily expensive for dual rated pilots. I can see the benefit of the RAAus controlling airworthiness on suitable types, but I still don't think we have it right on pilot certification.

 

 

[facthunter]

Dual BFR's

 

As has been discussed before, in some circumstances the one process will do both, but this is not be practically available to many VH and RAAus dual qualified people. There must be a mind-bending array of possibilities for the future,for small aircraft and with extra complexities coming along with some of the more ambitious (hopes) proposals. (dreams). Some of these would appear to be unachievable (see TOSGcentral ) comments, without the risk of losing some of our essential freedoms that are available because of our operational simplicity, and that to me would be obvious, as you cannot operate safely without the training and the equipment suitable to your task.

 

We are in a state of great growth and change, potential and challenge, there will be many areas of overlap till it is sorted out and while it is very important to us, I can easily see that it is NOT keeping the heads of CASA awake at night.

 

With the BFR, I can't see why the PPL couldn't cover the RAAus cert. provided you remain current with RAAus aircraft. Surely this could be done by agreement, or are the flying schools too hungry for their dollar?

 

On the matter of charging for flying, the hourly rate for RAAus and VH. seems to be almost the same, or at least the gap seem to be diminishing. Who's got it wrong? Comment's folks?

 

Cheers nev....

 

 

[Guest browng]

On the matter of charging for flying, the hourly rate for RAAus and VH. seems to be almost the same, or at least the gap seem to be diminishing. Who's got it wrong? Comment's folks?Cheers nev....

In reality, except for regulatory costs such as an AOC, the cost should be pretty much identical. We now have a situation where many types, e.g. the Gazelle, Sportstar, Jabiru, and even my 0-200 powered Jodel can be registered in either category, but even if the instructor is dual rated the training organization must keep two virtually identical aircraft on line, as training for a specific rating must take place in an aircraft registered in the appropriate category. In many cases the difference between the aircraft is only a paper reduction in MTOW. A simple solution would be to remove the requirement for an AOC where the VH registered type also qualifies for RAAus certification, and to allow training/renewals to take place in a 'dual' registrable type as 'dual' certification, i.e. if I do my biennial in a Gazelle, it counts for both my PPL and my Pilot Certificate. The issue of RAAus 'types' is rapidly becoming moot, and in my opinion was always a little artificial, my J3 Cub or an Evans VP1 share most of the characteristics of an 'ultralight' anyway, e.g. low power, high drag, low penetration and high angles of descent, while a 160 knot 'Carbon Sting' with retract and a CSU is in practical reality more of a 'GA' type than a C152. A pilot trained on a Drifter can get into just as much trouble in a high performance type like the Sting, as a pilot trained in a C150 can get into in a low performance type like the Drifter. The FAA have got it right with the RPL (which is encompassed in a PPL), and the LSA category, we only seem to be addressing half the equation.

 

 

[facthunter]

Costs

 

All true browng, the big rush to RAAus was for cost reasons I thought. The main cost-saving is when you own your own non-factory built aircraft, where you can modify/repair it yourself, but this is available with VH experimental as well.

 

Where the aircraft are common to both categories, I can understand the price similarity, but some of the larger (4 seat) are not much dearer. Regards Nev...