RAAus Fails CASA Audit Again

[fly_tornado]

Didn't the CEO sack Steve Bell over this issue?

 

 

[Admin]

I could not agree with you more. Indeed, where would RA-Aus be if this Forum did not exist to expose their actions?? May recreationalflying.com long continue!(Thanks again to Ian and Corinne for this site)

It has always been our pleasure and YES, it will always continue, the more it is tried to be brought down, the more determined I get, the RAAus have never realised that...

 

 

[dodo]

Anyone think it a bit odd that CASA pays RA about $100,000 to regulate/administer pilots and aircraft, and now we have had to hire an ex-CASA bloke who will probably cost a bit more than $100,000, to simply manage the aircraft registrations for some months?

 

This, to me, suggests we need to look over the regulatory requirement, and possibly re-negotiate with CASA. $100,000 is about what is costs to maintain one (moderately paid) staff member for a year (once you include salary, super, rent, office equipment, telephone and electricity etc.), and I don't think anyone would suggest RA should be able to self administer on one staff member. If RA has to have hard negotiations with CASA about registration, perhaps they should bring up the issues of regulatory complexity, and what that inevitably costs. I can't see CASA giving money away easily, but they might be a bit more thoughtful in the demands they put on RA-Aus, if RA could itemise what a particular requirement will cost.

 

dodo

 

 

[Mick]

I have been away for a few days so just cathing up on this thread.

 

There have been quite a few comments re LSA and it's role in all this.

 

Having imported and registered an LSA aircraft I took the time to study the rules of LSA, something very few have done considering how many own or fly LSA registered aircraft.

 

When it was introduced it was assumed ( and many were lead to believe ) it was just like std RAAus but with 600kg MTOW ( which std RAAus did not have at that time ). It is actually a totally different beast as far as aircraft requirements go especially when it comes to the dreaded paperwork.

 

The biggest difference is that LSA aircraft do not have to have a Type Certificate, instead manufacturers have to certify that their aircraft meet the appropriate ASTM's. A Type Certificate is a very costly thing to come by, so the idea was to enable manufacturers to reduce costs by not putting their aircraft through this process. Most European and some Aussie manufacturers jumped on this to statisfy the USA & Aussie markets, but they still had to have a Type Certificate for the European countries who had no LSA. At that time most European countries were limited to 450kg or 472.5kg with a ballistic chute, so those weights were all the Type Certificates showed.

 

When Std RAAus got 600kg most thought LSA would start to dissapear, but for Std RAAus you must have that Type Certificate and if it only shows 450kg, that's all you are allowed to operate at. So most European aircraft ( and alot of aircraft from Bundaberg ) are still registered LSA.

 

Because LSA's have no Type Certificate, each aircraft is approved individually. With a Std RAAus type it costs lots to put the first one on the register and each one after that is much cheaper. As LSA's are individually approved it costs the same to register the 100th one as it did to register the first one. For those that have suggested RAAus should be charging more to put an LSA on the register because of the extra work involved, that is exactly what has been happening since LSA began. It costs almost 10 times as much to put an LSA on the register as any Std RAAus aircraft that already has the type accepted by RAAus. This cost is not seen by most as it is built into the customer price of the aircraft by the importer / dealer.

 

One of the traps with LSA is that if the manufacturer is found not to be totally complient with all of the ASTM's then their aircraft can be deemed non-complient and be moved from SLSA ( factory built ) to ELSA ( experimental ) or even possibly de-registered. The other trap is if a manufacturer goes broke and no longer supports the design with Safety Bullitins etc, then the SLSA aircraft will become ELSA's.

 

Another trap is that once an aircraft is LSA, it cannot be transfered to any other category.

 

A popular misconception about ELSA is that there is a 51% rule like Std RAAus 19- class. THERE IS NO 51% RULE IN ELSA! This was done so that manufacturers can supply highly pre-fab kits without the liability of supplying a factory built aircraft and so builders could buy a "kit" at a level of pre-fabrication they were comfortable with.

 

The LSA category is not to blame for the current problems, it has it's rules that for good and/or bad are different in many more ways than I have mentioned above. It is the responsibility of those operating under these rules, and those administering the rules to know them and work within them.

 

 

[Bernie]

Good post Mick

 

 

[ave8rr]

When Std RAAus got 600kg most thought LSA would start to dissapear, but for Std RAAus you must have that Type Certificate and if it only shows 450kg, that's all you are allowed to operate at. So most European aircraft ( and alot of aircraft from Bundaberg ) are still registered LSA.

One of the traps with LSA is that if the manufacturer is found not to be totally complient with all of the ASTM's then their aircraft can be deemed non-complient and be moved from SLSA ( factory built ) to ELSA ( experimental ) or even possibly de-registered. The other trap is if a manufacturer goes broke and no longer supports the design with Safety Bullitins etc, then the SLSA aircraft will become ELSA's.

 

Another trap is that once an aircraft is LSA, it cannot be transfered to any other category.

A good post Mick, a couple of queries though. I understand that the early Foxbat aircraft have had a weight increase as the manufacturer has supplied an amendment to the certificate. the higher weight means a slightly less "G" factor. Is this the same for some of the Jab aircraft and possibly others?

Re a manufacturer dissapearing (going broke or discontinueing that type) then what does this do to that LSA aircraft currently on the RAAus register? You say a LSA certified aircraft cannot be re registered ELSA and given say a 19 category registration. This could make an aircraft worthless. Something to think about when purchasing an aircraft that is 24 Registered?? Perhaps RAAus / CASA should publish some guide lines re this. I could buy your aircraft today and be grounded tomorrow Hmmm.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Mick]

I understand that the early Foxbat aircraft have had a weight increase as the manufacturer has supplied an amendment to the certificate. the higher weight means a slightly less "G" factor. Is this the same for some of the Jab aircraft and possibly others?

Mike, I am not sure how this may effect Jabs. I am guessing that the Foxbats may have been rated to a higher "G" rating to achieve a certain weight figure, this may have been higher than the +4 & -2 that LSA specifies as a minimum. A lower "G" rating would allow for an increase in weight.

 

 

[Mick]

Re a manufacturer dissapearing (going broke or discontinueing that type) then what does this do to that LSA aircraft currently on the RAAus register? You say a LSA certified aircraft cannot be re registered ELSA and given say a 19 category registration. This could make an aircraft worthless. Something to think about when purchasing an aircraft that is 24 Registered?? Perhaps RAAus / CASA should publish some guide lines re this.Cheers

Mike, an SLSA ( 24-XXXX ) can and will become a ELSA ( 19-XXXX ) if it becomes non-complient. No LSA can become Std RAAus or Std VH.

 

Just to make all of this more confusing there is a VH SLSA and VH ELSA. Aircraft can be transfered from VH LSA to RAAus LSA and visa versa pending LAME / L2 inspections and the manditory heap of paperwork.

 

A manufacturer discontinueing a type will not cause any problems as long as they are prepared to continue supporting they type with Safety Bulletins and monitor the airworthyness of the type. It is when that support & monitoring is no longer there ( manufaturer goes out of business ) that the aircraft will become ELSA ( 19-XXXX ).

 

 

[Mick]

I could buy your aircraft today and be grounded tomorrow Hmmm.Cheers

Mike, if you want to buy my aircraft today drop me a PM, I can almost guarentee that it won't be grounded tomorrow!

 

 

[Ches]

To all Recreational Flying Forum members

 

recreational flying letter 1.doc

 

recreational flying letter 1.doc

 

recreational flying letter 1.doc

[Tiger]

Hey Ches what is this??? You discovered some back door to the Board !!!??

 

I didn't thik it was this bad. I know I said to watch this space but BOY o BOY.

 

What do others think of this latest post by Ches??

 

 

[turboplanner]

Pretty consistent with what some of us have been saying for 18 months.

 

150 members eh? wonder whether more than 10 voted.

 

The ""letter" is anonymous, and not addressed to anyone; it carries no weight at all

 

Why is it that the Members who are the owners of the Association and stand to have to perhaps shell out a lot of their personal money/cease flying because they simply stood back and knowingly let all this happen (that's the Association's owners, not the board members and not the employees), and still circulate anonymous stories - that won't cut it as formal communication to anyone?

 

 

[David Isaac]

Good letter and it puts forward the notion the membership have collectively had enough.

 

I think it potentially falls short in that it makes statements of expectations of the Board but does not demand that the Board respond with explanations or demand more transparency of the Board.

 

I would encourage all clubs to write to the Board to express in their own terms their level of frustration and clearly state their expectations of the Board (our representatives) and demand an explanation of how we ended up in this mess and what they are doing about it.

 

Why is there any need for it to be anonymous, it should be published here as an open letter like I would encourage others to do.

 

 

[Tiger]

turboplanner I have now sighted a copy of the letter via another source and confirm it is authentic, has all the members of the Board (I think) on the header and also included CEO and Ops and Tech and was signed by their club secretary. I feel that someone has posted a shortened version of the letter here.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Again, what's the bloody mystery? doesn't the Club want anyone to know its concerned?

 

This is a classic case of divide and conquer - if Clubs had the guts to stand up and speak in their own names the fixes and personnel changes would come thick and fast.

 

 

[David Isaac]

If it is a shortened version then it is misrepresenting what is really being said. Please put up the full version.

 

 

[winsor68]

Hey... Get real guys. Of course a Club or a member of said club is going to be concerned about posting anything on Recreational Flying... The Executives actions recently would have anyone worried.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Well I am NOT worried and I am no shrinking violet.

 

We do live in a country where the sanctity of free speech is still held as a right.

 

So why shouldn't anybody else feel free to speak in the same way.

 

The club has obviously already sent the letter to the Board, which is now officially acknowledged as correspondence and legally acessable to ALL members.

 

 

[djpacro]

.... Perhaps RAAus / CASA should publish some guide lines re this...

Easy to read CASA Advisory Circulars aplenty on their website.

... A lower "G" rating would allow for an increase in weight.

Landing gear strength to be considered also .... plus a swag of other stuff in the ASTM to prove compliance with at the higher weight.

[winsor68]

I think the fact that it is members asking the above questions shows just how out of control things are... the members really don't know what is going on regarding the regs we fly under. This is the BIG problem... it is one of CULTURE. IMO

 

 

[Camel]

PLEASE READ. http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Section-1.01-Organisation-and-Administration.pdf

 

QUOTE. " The day-to-day administration of the RA-Aus is the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer, who functions in accordance with the directions issued by the Excecutive Members of the RA-Aus Board. "

 

I am a long time RA-Aus member and believe the CEO and the board have a responsibility for our problems. I want to see the damaged fixed such as LSA aircraft that were deregistered. What are the achievements that our CEO has done ? I would like the full explanation why Steve Bell was put under pressure regarding LSA aircraft ? because the story I got was he was trying to help and fix the problems !

 

I want RA-Aus to be the best organization and be proud of it but I have to defend it from GA knockers, I am GA as well.

 

RA-Aus members should take an interest and vote on issues and selection of Board members.

 

GA pilots should not knock RA-Aus as I think it will survive and prove to be a valueable training pre GA, to knock it may put GA further out of reach and ultimately destroy GA as well.

 

 

[Fatman1238]

Mike, an SLSA ( 24-XXXX ) can and will become a ELSA ( 19-XXXX ) if it becomes non-complient. No LSA can become Std RAAus or Std VH.Just to make all of this more confusing there is a VH SLSA and VH ELSA. Aircraft can be transfered from VH LSA to RAAus LSA and visa versa pending LAME / L2 inspections and the manditory heap of paperwork.

 

A manufacturer discontinueing a type will not cause any problems as long as they are prepared to continue supporting they type with Safety Bulletins and monitor the airworthyness of the type. It is when that support & monitoring is no longer there ( manufaturer goes out of business ) that the aircraft will become ELSA ( 19-XXXX ).

E/LSA are not 19-xxxx they are E24-xxxx as they are not amateur built ie:19-xxxx. I think it's in the RA-Aus technical manual, just happen to be talking early this week with the Tech guys at the RA-Aus office.

 

 

[robinsm]

If the day to day functioning of the Raa Aus is the responsibility of the CEO, then he should return his salary and depart with his tail between his legs after this current debacle. Obviously the day to day operations, and the implementation of the rules and procedures, is to much for him to oversee. Replace the contents of the drinks cabinet at his expence. ( I mention the drinks cabinet constantly because I have met the CEO 4 times and each time he had a glazed expression, was unsteady on his pins and was slurring his words. He may have suffering from some illness each time or.........!) On each ocaision I was informed that if I had a problem I was to feel free to contact him as he wanted to know what the members were doing.?

 

If management at Raa Aus could cut the crap, political bulls..., and "business lunches" and just do their jobs then garbage like this should not happen. Not happy Jan!!!

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I wish some one would actually have definate facts on this ELSA thing. I know of 1 aircraft that will be registered as a ELSA and it will have a 19 rego....and that came from the Tech guys at RAA...I am told

 

 

[ave8rr]

I wish some one would actually have definate facts on this ELSA thing. I know of 1 aircraft that will be registered as a ELSA and it will have a 19 rego....and that came from the Tech guys at RAA...I am told

Thanks Mark. I asked the question a few posts back as I have not been able get my head around all this. We have now been told LSA can be moved to ELSA (19-xxxx) if the manufacturer goes out of buisness by some, can't by others as aircraft was not amateur built (which I can understand). Seems to me that this is far from simple.

Cheers