Ultralight Federation mark II anyone?

[webbm]

I think the Old Bar incident is not the only catalyst here. The recent post here regarding "fly at your own risk" stickers seems (to me) driven by the current litigation where RA-Aus and CASA are defendants.

 

 

[cherk]

Let me see if i understand your logic: the failure of RAA to keep forms well led to a current pilot in an airworthy registered aircraft to make a late decision on a go around- something that happens many days in many places- and justhappened to collide with a structure that would not be there if the hot dog stand had been moved 50 metres.

I really see a causal chain there. Actually, no-one does because it doesn;t exist.

the ferris wheel caused the short-comings of the aircraft manufacture! ie; unzipped rivets, lack of suitable edge clearance,zip ties etc,etc,.........and then the excreta hit the rotating thing ..........which made it spread wide and far!!!!!!1:bad_mood:

 

 

[kgwilson]

How can a Ferris Wheel cause the shortcomings of an aircraft's manufacture? The collision with the Ferris wheel demonstrated how strong this airframe is, regardless of a few manufacturing shortcomings. The cabin area was intact. The bits that should have crumpled did, and absorbed most of the energy along with the ferris wheel itself. These things had nothing to do with the crash but authorities look for scapegoats and distractions so it's like pass the parcel in an Irish Pub. Even though a number of the issues (eg licencing & registration number differences) were later found to be wrong it all snowballed into CASA finding major shortcomings in the RAAs processes & procedures. There is still no final report of this crash event though it happened 16 months ago. Why?

 

 

[Guest ratchet]

How can a Ferris Wheel cause the shortcomings of an aircraft's manufacture? The collision with the Ferris wheel demonstrated how strong this airframe is, regardless of a few manufacturing shortcomings. The cabin area was intact. The bits that should have crumpled did, and absorbed most of the energy along with the ferris wheel itself. These things had nothing to do with the crash but authorities look for scapegoats and distractions so it's like pass the parcel in an Irish Pub. Even though a number of the issues (eg licencing & registration number differences) were later found to be wrong it all snowballed into CASA finding major shortcomings in the RAAs processes & procedures. There is still no final report of this crash event though it happened 16 months ago. Why?

Exactly. There seems a real unreasoning fear of CASA that stems from the old days when nothing higher then 2mm of the ground did it without government approval.

 

Well and truly gone.

 

Yes they are a regulatory body and yes they can do things to us but due to the parasite lawyers even they

 

cannot be unreasonable. Not when half the world has higher plane and people densities and us, more

 

shark lawyers and litigation suits and STILL manages to having a viable and vibrant sport aviation industry.

 

We live in a democracy. Are 5000 aircraft and 9000 pilots in Oz going to put up with garbage not inflicted

 

on former russian satellite states? What a joke. And totally indefensible in a modern legal system.

 

We will continue to fly, we will continue to have our freedoms and pen pushers in CASA can insist

 

we fill in the forms correctly--- fine.

 

We have to admit our sins, fix our ways and carry on but this discussion reminds of my mum telling me

 

"just you wait til your dad comes home!". Just you wait til CASA gets you in his headmaster's office

 

and gives you six of the best.

 

Gimme a break.

 

We're adults. Voting adults. Our organisation let us down. It will be fixed. But a basic legal principle is

 

first to demonstrate what harm has been done. There needs to be evidence for action otherwise it is

 

legally indefensible.

 

One harmless near miss does not constitute a case.

 

You know if they pulled the paper work from many GA crashes they;d find plenty wrong. Every

 

mustering helicopter has a log book Tolstoy would love.

 

 

[Guest ratchet]

I think the Old Bar incident is not the only catalyst here. The recent post here regarding "fly at your own risk" stickers seems (to me) driven by the current litigation where RA-Aus and CASA are defendants.

I'm sure things will continue to become more legalistic due to ambulance chasing lawyers. Shame since it's a

 

real problem for training especially. Still i'm sure there will be some amazing insurance product to cope.

 

I understand in the US you can purchase insurance to cover the possibility of someone whom you sold your

 

homebuilt to, suing you. I don;t know how the yanks still fly but they do.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Or, maybe people setting up vertical structures in a flightpath could ask someone. Apparently councils have toput fence warning signs up because gravity has been known to operate in the vicinity of cliffs. But sticking metal

up in a flightpath poses no danger to anyone.

IMHO there was one significant direct causal link in this accident and it has nothing to do with R A Aus or our accident rate:

An obstruction in the splay of a published active (and advertised as such for the Old Bar festival) Aeroplane Landing Area (ALA) with NO displaced threshold markings. Who the hell in their right mind would authorise such a placement?

 

Yes absolutely as Kaz has stated, it is the responsibility of the PIC to ensure safe operation into any landing area. We may never know if the pilot sought permission to use the ALA (which is a requirement) or if any advice was given by anyone or the ALA operator to the PIC as to the obstruction.

 

We could debate the skill of the pilot in this instance, perhaps he should not have used this ALA, but a single question should be asked; if the Ferris Wheel had not obstructed the splay, would the aircraft have departed without any impact? As ugly as the go-around attempt was alleged to have been, from the evidence and photographs that indicate no other obstructions behind the Ferris Wheel it would appear so. Is that not what clear splays are in place for?

 

I have seen plenty of pilots both GA and RA Aus stuff up approaches and go-arounds into various ALAs. Are any of us exempt from stuff ups? Warnervale (Wyong Shire) is an ALA, so are most small town landing areas, a suitably sized paddock for the performance of an aircraft intending to use it can be an ALA. Some of the examples of stuff ups I have seen would have ended in disaster if the splay had been obstructed. That is the very reason splays are required for and ALA to be a legitimate.

 

This whole incident has been blown out of proportion, because of issues identified following the accident that IMHO had absolutely no direct causal link in the accident. The casualties will be far and wide and an Australian manufacturer with identified and rectifiable issues may well be hung out to dry by the very organization that should support them by assisting with measures to remedy their issues. Is this organisation complicit in the issues identified? From what has been revealed in the audits, it may well be.

 

So why the blame game, the issues have hopefully been identified, lets collectively foster fixing the issues, put this incident behind us (much easier since there were no injuries) and lets us move our organisation forward to a better future. All eminently possible.

 

Perhaps a significant impediment to this will be the ghouls and 'blood suckers' who want to maintain the blame game.

 

 

[Tiger]

I the past years we all took responsibility for our own actions / inactions.

 

All everyone now want to do is blame someone else for tgheir "stuff up".

 

These day they in effect keep using the phrase " not my responsibility" it is XXXXX's responsibility. Ducking for cover.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Im not convinced that what happened at old bar and what happened between CASA and RAAus had any relationship at all. Im told that the original audit was one that was advised and planned well in advance of the old bar incident.

 

So trying to tie the 2 together when there isnt an established link will have us ducking down rabbit holes and missing the real trail that we should be looking at.

 

That isnt to say that old bar isnt intersting, it is, but in its own right not as a related event.

 

Andy

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Interestingly, the wife of the Ferris Wheel pilot told me that she would only let him buy a plane if it had Morgan on it.

 

She knows he only survived unscathed because of the strength of the airframe.

 

He now owns Garry's original Cheetah.

 

The plane was in no way at fault.

 

Garry doesn't use cable ties on fuel lines anymore, but they didn't fail either.

 

However, there has been a witch hunt going on since then, and Garry's business has suffered as a result. Garry is now moving away from RAAus. They have failed to provide support and assistance to an important local manufacturer, thus failing a large part of their charter.

 

They did provide plenty of anti-assistance, so it wasn't simply inaction.

 

 

[DWF]

Im not convinced that what happened at old bar and what happened between CASA and RAAus had any relationship at all. Im told that the original audit was one that was advised and planned well in advance of the old bar incident. ....

I agree Andy.

 

If the Old Bar incident had not occurred the CASA audit would still have happened. The record deficiencies would still have been discovered.

 

If the CASA audit had not occurred (at the time it did) the records of the aircraft in the Old Bar incident would have (probably) been checked.

 

Was there any deficiency found in that aircraft's record? [i have not seen an account of the incident and the following investigation.]

 

I think the temporal juxtaposition of the two events is purely coincidental.

 

People are jumping at shadows and the big bad boogyman [aka CASA].

 

DWF

 

 

[facthunter]

Perhaps the nature of U/L, RAAus flying is not understood, particularly by the higher-ups in CASA. I am only going by what they have said and actual comments made and never retracted, or explained, therefore I am skeptical of their good intentions and sympathy with the way we fly. Runciman and Tizzard don't have a great depth of experience in what matters, either. Runciman does fly a basic plane.

 

There were points of concern in the organisation. The prang at Benambra didn't help. There may have been others that just build up a case if that is what you are trying to do. You just watch and wait, and eventually you have enough evidence..

 

The Ferris wheel incident was very public. ( Shouldn't have been there, full stop) and it as a consequence exposed some other "concerns" that had nothing to do with the crash, but that is how it goes. It would confirm the need for action. CASA have to look as if they are doing things. I know plenty of cases where they were just "nasty" and they should not act like that. They have a bottomless pit of taxpayer's money and can outlast anyone, short of foreign governments , in court.

 

They do NOT have to help anyone in the industry. At the end of the day they are the REGULATOR with ALL that means.

 

This is not an optimal situation for us, and we could be treated harshly and 9.000 people would soon become a handfull as most would just walk away. Comment in overseas magazines might be a bit embarrassing for australia who have just gone from being well placed in the U/L field to non existent, but no one would care. UN wouldn't take up the case, so let's get real about what to do. Don't kid yourself about what power you have. It's virtually nil.

 

Your best option is to have a switched on organisation acting for you, to strike a decent deal and proper understanding with CASA. ( Not palsy walsy drinking mates). think I first mentioned this when this forum started years ago. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I agree Andy.If the Old Bar incident had not occurred the CASA audit would still have happened. The record deficiencies would still have been discovered.

If the CASA audit had not occurred (at the time it did) the records of the aircraft in the Old Bar incident would have (probably) been checked.

 

Was there any deficiency found in that aircraft's record? [i have not seen an account of the incident and the following investigation.]

 

I think the temporal juxtaposition of the two events is purely coincidental.

 

People are jumping at shadows and the big bad boogyman [aka CASA].

 

DWF

Not sure we should totally ignore CASA, I have been speaking with Lee Ungermann at CASA for some time, it would be foolish to ignore as an important stakeholder as CASA in all these current events. Furthermore, I reported that CASA is concerned and I believe that to be true, whether their concern can turn into any real action remains to be tested, and I dont propose to give them any grounds to test it.....there have been a number of organisations that have tried and failed when testing CASA......Ignore a bulldog with a hungry look on its face at your peril!!

 

Anyone that has the ability to wave the "they were being unsafe" flag around cant be ignored. Media and general public understanding can just stretch to understand that bland statement anything beyond that such as details......not interested move on. To suggest that 9000 pilots have any real political sway.....dreaming!!

 

There are 150 seats in the house of reps, so assuming a roughly equal spread that means we have the ability to swing votes by 60 per seat......I know pollies dont want to leave anything to chance but if the majority of seats are decided on a majority of 60 then Australia is in for another rough 3 years!!

 

Andy

 

 

[DWF]

Andy,

 

I am not saying we should "totally ignore CASA".

 

RAAus (as well as the rest of aviation) has to play by the rules and develop a harmonious relationship with the regulator.

 

What I was trying to say is that some posts on this forum have been over reacting and alarmist.

 

David

 

 

[David Isaac]

Im not convinced that what happened at old bar and what happened between CASA and RAAus had any relationship at all. Im told that the original audit was one that was advised and planned well in advance of the old bar incident.So trying to tie the 2 together when there isnt an established link will have us ducking down rabbit holes and missing the real trail that we should be looking at.

 

..... It was the crash that led to the discovered issues within RA Aus.

Andy, I don't recall saying anything about the Ferris Wheel crash triggering the audits, I don't hear anyone saying that; what I did say is above.

The audits would occur as a part of normal process.

 

What the Ferris Wheel incident opened up was the can of worms surrounding the management of LSA approvals by RA Aus, even though this was a separate issue it became an issue of the audit process. To say there is no link to the issues CASA has with RA Aus is fanciful.

 

 

[David Isaac]

..... However, there has been a witch hunt going on since then, and Garry's business has suffered as a result. Garry is now moving away from RAAus. They have failed to provide support and assistance to an important local manufacturer, thus failing a large part of their charter. They did provide plenty of anti-assistance, so it wasn't simply inaction.

That is the information I have been told directly as well and that is shameful. No problem is insurmountable, every thing can be rectified with appropriate assistance, is that not our organizations charter? Or is it easier to use the manufacturer as a scapegoat?

 

 

[Guest ratchet]

IMHO there was one significant direct causal link in this accident and it has nothing to do with R A Aus or our accident rate:An obstruction in the splay of a published active (and advertised as such for the Old Bar festival) Aeroplane Landing Area (ALA) with NO displaced threshold markings. Who the hell in their right mind would authorise such a placement?

 

Yes absolutely as Kaz has stated, it is the responsibility of the PIC to ensure safe operation into any landing area. We may never know if the pilot sought permission to use the ALA (which is a requirement) or if any advice was given by anyone or the ALA operator to the PIC as to the obstruction.

 

We could debate the skill of the pilot in this instance, perhaps he should not have used this ALA, but a single question should be asked; if the Ferris Wheel had not obstructed the splay, would the aircraft have departed without any impact? As ugly as the go-around attempt was alleged to have been, from the evidence and photographs that indicate no other obstructions behind the Ferris Wheel it would appear so. Is that not what clear splays are in place for?

 

I have seen plenty of pilots both GA and RA Aus stuff up approaches and go-arounds into various ALAs. Are any of us exempt from stuff ups? Warnervale (Wyong Shire) is an ALA, so are most small town landing areas, a suitably sized paddock for the performance of an aircraft intending to use it can be an ALA. Some of the examples of stuff ups I have seen would have ended in disaster if the splay had been obstructed. That is the very reason splays are required for and ALA to be a legitimate.

 

This whole incident has been blown out of proportion, because of issues identified following the accident that IMHO had absolutely no direct causal link in the accident. The casualties will be far and wide and an Australian manufacturer with identified and rectifiable issues may well be hung out to dry by the very organization that should support them by assisting with measures to remedy their issues. Is this organisation complicit in the issues identified? From what has been revealed in the audits, it ma

 

So why the blame game, the issues have hopefully been identified, lets collectively foster fixing the issues, put this incident behind us (much easier since there were no injuries) and lets us move our organisation forward to a better future. All eminently possible.

 

Perhaps a significant impediment to this will be the ghouls and 'blood suckers' who want to maintain the blame game.

Too right.

 

Let's just get on with this, fix it so we can all keep on flying.

 

All this fighting is too hard and energy draining. I'm sure after the usual finger pointing and blame game

 

is vented even CASA wants this all to go away so we can get back to business as usual.

 

And let's face it, usual was pretty good and definitely safe.

 

 

[Guest ratchet]

That is the information I have been told directly as well and that is shameful. No problem is insurmountable, every thing can be rectified with appropriate assistance, is that not our organizations charter? Or is it easier to use the manufacturer as a scapegoat?

True. Whether the audits are a regular process or a more detailed look was triggered by the crash, anyone would

 

be hard pressed to show that any incident over the past 5 years was directly caused by noncompliance

 

with record keeping and documentation standards.o

 

If a manufacturer is producing unsafe a/c then that is a matter for pilots to report issues just as with ADs.

 

Or it's a problem with the inspection process.

 

RAA can't be blamed for not having information not provided to it.

 

Point is all these things can be fixed and identification of problems is actually healthy in the long

 

run.

 

Not having any is even better but this is the real world after all.

 

 

[68volksy]

Perhaps we could simplify all this "what caused the accident" discussion and where RA-Aus had any influence with a look at the first two points that the ATSB is investigating futher:

 

1. examination and assessment of the conduct of the pilot’s training and issue of the pilot’s certificate

 

2. assessment of the ergonomics of the Sierra cockpit, including the control locations and indicators as they might have contributed to the development of the accident

 

Seems they've glossed over the whole "placement of the ferris wheel argument" and gone straight to why the pilot decided to or came to fly himself into it. Just because it was there doesn't mean he had to fly into it in my view.

 

The main liability issue around all this seems to be the failure of RA-Aus to properly educate the public and pilots about what a "factory built" aircraft actually means in the RA-Aus spectrum (effectively nothing) and the experience and competence that a "Pilot Certificate" holder can reliably be said to possess.

 

As i said before if CASA decides to walk away clean then we're the ones who'll have to rebuild the shattered reputation. There are so many regulation changes coming from CASA over the next 5 years that will cut into the RA-Aus "core market" that it would seem that RA-Aus may end up being "persuaded" to once again looking after the rag and tube pilots that it was first created to serve.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Volksy, this particular crash was discussed with some valuable conclusions in its own thread, which contains a lot more fact than I've read here.

 

This thread is about an alternative body to manage affairs, particularly of Rag and Tube Aircraft.

 

The Morgan Sierra is not one of those, but the incident (see the real thread) has a publicity effect.

 

Beware of several people over the last few months hijacking threads to blur the immediate issues which need to be fixed now.

 

 

[Pilot Pete]

Yes ....getting back to the topic of an alternate governing body. In one way it seems that 95.10 class of aircraft could do with a different rulling body with simpler rules and regulations, but on the other hand , how would this effect schools that use different types of aircraft for teaching.

 

Would the seperate body still come under the umbrela of RAAUS or would it be a different entity.

 

What about the cost of training, rego, endorsments and the like ?

 

 

[68volksy]

Right - back to the matter at hand!

 

My current thinking is that RA-Aus may naturally find itself drawn back towards its grass roots membership base with the way CASA is heading. With the introduction of the RPL (and further changes in the pipeline), massive changes coming to the way that GA flying schools operate & how they're regulated and a big influx of LSA aircraft the "plastic fantastic" side of RA-Aus looks set to diminish greatly over time. That seems to be the aim of CASA at this stage anyway. The only difference that may remain is the ability to do some of your own maintenance on your aircraft if it's RA registered although there are huge changes coming in this area too I believe.

 

There is also the SAAA to take care of the home-built side of things. Their relationship with CASA over the years appears to have been solid. There also appear to be a lot of CASA staff who are members of the SAAA to help them with getting things right. Wouldn't be surprised to hear that the SAAA gets a slightly broader responsibility if they're keen for it.

 

It's quite apparent that soon we'll have GA pilots who are not required to have a medical being trained at schools who are not required to hold an AOC by instructors with much reduced requirements flying newly registered aircraft (with very similar capabilities to the old GA aircraft and no annual registration fee) that are much cheaper to maintain and run but staying out of controlled airspace and only carrying 1 passenger... Sound familiar?

 

 

[bilby54]

The last thing I want is another organisation to have to set up shop with.

 

The need to fix the current problems that have been identified wether through unfortunate accidents or irregular audits is what is required and has been discussed at length in this post. Yes, some people in the organisation have stuffed up, some should not have been there in the first place and an air of mystery surrounds the inner workings of the RAAus workings but it is fixable so lets get on with fixing it.

 

As for the Old Bar incident, I have commented in another post that ATSB did not want to investigate it but were requested to do so for political reasons generated by the intense media scrutiny (Circus??) and the families of those on the fair ride. They were of the of the opinion that it was pilot error as it was the second attempt at a touch n go..... and the ferris wheel should not have been positioned where it was. Let's move on people

 

If you want a vote then mine is with the Nay's

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Volksy

 

In another thread about the 2012 financials I recently (yesterday) posted member growth figures that I actually believe. They show that over the last 5 years our sector of aviation has had a year on year growth of 16%. There are many businesses that would look very enviously at that sort of sustained growth rate.

 

Now, dont know for sure but feel pretty safe in the assumption that the growth isnt in the 95.10 sector.

 

Therefore any suggestion that the remaining LSA and non LSA plastic fantastics are just going to go away to me isn not supported by the statistics available to us.

 

Furthermore as I understand it an RAAus pilot certificate as yet doesnt enable one to have a GA RPL so a suggestion that in fact CASA is setting up in competition doesnt ring true either as if you need a full PPL to then fall back to an RPL you still have to stump up the near on double $ at the front end....or am I missing something? When CASA announces that pilot certifiactes issued by RAAO's are all that is needed to establish a CASA issued RPL then at that time I think we have competition truely in place and RAAus needs to be more concerned (than it should be already!)

 

Andy

 

BTW Not required to have a medical is probably technically wrong, they are required to assure that they hold the medical standard required to drive a car, how a non medically trained person can prove that without a medical is beyond me...... Its true that medicals to establish ability to drive a car are nothing like a DAME conducted medical but they are none the less administered by a Dr.... Im a Type 1 Diabetic so do this every year..... anyone else who isnt required to undergo a medical every year to drive by the state vehicle licensing authority, needs to look very carefully at the medical requirements of an RPL and ask themselves can they truely comply with the wording around the medical if they dont see a Dr....... (Actually just read a post by Col Jones... for RPL there is a CASA form the Dr has to fill out...so ignore the No proof aspects of my post.....)

 

 

[coljones]

>>>>> snip snip snip >>>BTW Not required to have a medical is probably technically wrong, they are required to assure that they hold the medical standard required to drive a car, how a non medically trained person can prove that without a medical is beyond me...... Its true that medicals to establish ability to drive a car are nothing like a DAME conducted medical but they are none the less administered by a Dr.... Im a Type 1 Diabetic so do this every year..... anyone else who isnt required to undergo a medical every year to drive by the state vehicle licensing authority, needs to look very carefully at the medical requirements of an RPL and ask themselves can they truely comply with the wording around the medical if they dont see a Dr.......

The draft regulations referring to the CASA RPL and SPL draft 61.360 (Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences — medical certificates — recreational and student pilot licence holders) talks about a DL style medical - which requires a DL certificate from a medico, any medico, not just a DAME.

 

The current CASA DL medical (introduced by way of exemption) has limitations as to informed passengers and height etc and is, I presume, the standard proposed for the new RPL. Also the new DL Medical will set the standard for flying (exercise of privileges) for all licence types (RPL,SPL,PPL,CPL,ATPL) if you have only a DL medical certificate

 

 

[68volksy]

Hi Andy,

 

You're quite right the growth in RA-Aus is not in the 95.10 sector. CASA has introduced the RPL to help pilots who have flown GA aircraft for many years stay in the GA regime. I too think it's safer letting people fly what they're used to rather than forcing them to retrain and fly totally different aircraft. From what I see at the local flying school there has been a huge number of GA pilots come through the door who can't get their medical and want to get their RA-Aus certificate. I'm not saying RA-Aus will feel the change straight away but that stream of new members has now been stopped.

 

There are many changes coming to the GA training area and splitting of training schools into those that train commercial pilots and those that train recreational pilots I believe with reduced requirements for the recreational schools. Along with this are changes coming to the licences themselves starting in the full introduction of the RPL. The initial change made by way of exemption that coljones mentions was a little treat prior to the rest of the changes coming through. This is all in an effort to make GA flying more accessible and should reduce costs substantially.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to find the DL medical becoming a requirement to holding an RA-Aus Certificate in the not too distant future if RA-Aus ever gets on top of the paperwork backlog. Although that's a feeling more than from any discussions i've had.