Problems

[Ballpoint 246niner]

It would appear that there are registration problems for a number of European sourced aircraft where RAAus is now repudiating historical RAAus issued type certificates and as such the seemingly only way forward for those members who may well have been historically flying at weights in excess of 544kg are being asked to go back to 470ish Kgs MTOW. Realistically for those in this situation it makes an aircraft that had a useful load that was indeed useful to an aircraft with a useless load. An example being 2 80kg humans and 10L fuel.....I had heard 3rd hand that Flight Designs and at least some of the aircraft that Michael Coates imports have been caught up I this issue. I had also heard that these were being dealt with as they came due for registration. Can anyone confirm or deny? If its true who amongst the members of this site are caught up in this issue?

 

If it were me, and I had a $100k plus aircraft that was suddenly made effectively unsalable, I'd be out looking for blood.....

 

All of the above is sourced 3rd hand it may or may not be true and if you have a Flight Designs or Michael Coates sourced aircraft it may well be worth checking out before the rego falls due and you cant fly......

 

Anyone? Any other aircraft caught up in this issue?

 

Andy

Andy I can confirm that this is in fact the truth and the aircraft in question is a CTLS we cross hire from the owner for school work. It has been given an additional allowance for the BRS of 23.5 kg giving it a MTOW Of 473.5 kg. The empty weigh is over 350kg, so your point remains valid.

 

I believe CASA and the distributors are working with Flight design to resolve this issue.

 

 

[River]

My congratulations to the flow of this thread... Well written questions and informative and non-emotional factural type replies.

 

This is what I believe is how our forum site should flow - good fairdinkum question, replies by individuals who have genuine subject knowledge and everyone either offering further questions/replies all relating to what our aviation is all about. No the unfortunate 'blasts, dummy spits, miss readings and association assassination of individual who whilst may have thought they were doing the 'right thing' were regrettably out-of-their-expertise and had become fortress minded... This period now appears to have boiled over and majors charges are now afoot to bring our house back onto order, thou this WILL take time and we must all be patient and allow for the major admin and culture changes to take effect.

 

Reading this perticular forum threat, it is refreshing to see a well written and level headed talk about our beloved recreatation aviation.

 

 

[Admin]

a bit off topic but Yes River, a great thread and I believe the hard work we have been doing on the site recently to get it all "balanced" is starting to pay off...I haven't gained any friends but the site is well balanced now and working well with some great topics, posts and friendliness

 

 

[turboplanner]

So David and Dafydd, what does this mean for RAA, and the owners of these aircraft?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

To give any sort of answer to that, I need to clarify the definition of maximum take-off weight (MTOW):

 

From the design/certification point of view, the MTOW is the lesser of:

 

(1) The maximum weight for which compliance was demonstrated (to the satisfaction of the certificating authority) with the structural design requirements (of the relevant design standard);

 

(2) The maximum weight for which compliance was demonstrated with the flight handling and stability requirements;

 

(3) The maximum weight for which compliance was demonstrated with the performance requirements.

 

So an increase in the maximum certificated weight generally requires a re-run of just about the entire certification.

 

However, it sometimes happens that the designers anticipate a need to increase the weight in the future, as part of the growth of the product, and if they are that far-sighted, they show compliance during the original certification at a higher weight than they request for the actual certification, or perchance than the category weight limit that happens to apply at that point in time in their part of the world. Not many are this far-sighted, but one can hope.

 

Because the certification of (especially) a composite airframe relies wholly on physical testing, this means all the relevant tests - which are normally witnessed by the certificating authority - would need to be done for some higher weight than that for which certification was finally granted.

 

If this fortunate situation happens to apply in the case of an aircraft type that is caught up in the current RAA debacle, the possibility of a subsequent increase in weight being endorsed by the original certificating authority (which will have the records of the original testing on file) is a real possibility, in the terms of the Gary Carr email.

 

If this fortunate situation does not exist, then the only possibility would be for the manufacturer to re-run his certification at a higher weight - which would cost him pretty much the same as certificating a new model. You do not need to be an expert to judge the liklihood of this; however it's not impossible.

 

Failing either of these options, the owners now have a single-seat aircraft. They can seek redress from either the vendor (good luck!) or they can try a joint action against RAA/CASA for negligence, or they can simply put up with it. I would be extremely annoyed if I were in this situation myself, but I believe the above is the reality of the situation.

 

So far as the RAA is concerned, it has in two instances to my personal knowledge, arguably overstepped its authority as defined by CAO 95.55 by accepting an aircraft type at a higher weight than the certificated weight; I can only assume that this is also the case for all the other affected types. In one of these cases, it can be proven that it did so on the basis of invalid data, some of which was fraudulent. Again, I can only assume that this may also be the case in other instances. In such a situation, I would imagine that the RAA could be shown to have been negligent and thus liable. So the implications would appear to me to be potentially disastrous for the RAA. I would expect CASA to also be liable, because it is ultimately responsible for the actions of the RAA. The question must also arise, in view of the high turnover of Technical Managers, whether the RAA management exerted undue pressure on the Technical Managers.

 

Whether or not RAAus can plead Caveat Emptor will depend, I suggest, on the significance placed by the Court on the fact that the RAA registration and the Flight manual are the only authoritative information available to a purchaser that the increased MTOW is valid.

 

 

[facthunter]

While a lot of the details seem complex , it must be obvious that the manufacturer is the prime/only source of the data that allows an increase in AUW. The individual without enormous resources could not put a case for increase of weight . Making assumptions of surplus strength etc have no validity. The limit weight is at the basis of all the design parameters.

 

A dual use for aerobatic manoeuvers ( specified) for a utility aircraft with lower weight and Cof G limitiations also applying is a special case but the weights etc are more restrictive, not less.

 

I note your point re frequency of Techman changes Dafydd.. A point I have raised many times. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

So on the strength of this excellent information from Daffyd Llewellyn, should not the RA-Aus be immediately notifying all of the affected aircraft owners that their registration is withdrawn effective immediate until amended flight manuals and MTOW placarding is submitted for re registration. I know this will cause immense pain and frustration, but I don't see where RA Aus can take any other consideration. What if there is an accident and the 'over weight' is flagged as a factor in the accident ... where does that leave OUR organisation?

 

One also has to ask the question as to what pressure the Tech Managers may have been under from Importer/distributors to have the higher weight capacities 'certified' for Australia, after all without such weight increase these aircraft are virtually single seaters and would be unsaleable in Australia. As much as it is not pleasant for some aircraft owners, it seems our new Tech manager is on the money and that is going to make him very unpopular with many for simply doing the proper job expected of him.

 

I feel immensely sorry for the affected aircraft owners, I cant imagine that the small sales volume in Australia will stimulate any foreign manufacturer to go through the re-certification process for a higher weight given the cost outlined by Daffyd Llewellyn above. Such re-certification would certainly be a solution, but an unlikely outcome.

 

Makes 95-10 and 95-25 seem like a walk in the park compared to this very sad discovery.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF a new broom revisits those categories, it will find some issues too, surely? Nev

 

 

[Thirsty]

The Flight Design web site states the empty weight of the CTLS is 326Kg with BRS and MTOW is 600Kg. Where do the figures of 400 something Kg MTOW come from?

 

 

[David Isaac]

The Flight Design web site states the empty weight of the CTLS is 326Kg with BRS and MTOW is 600Kg. Where do the figures of 400 something Kg MTOW come from?

Probably the original European Type certificate, 450Kg European limit, plus 25Kg for the BRS if fitted.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

IF a new broom revisits those categories, it will find some issues too, surely? Nev

Manufacturers of these aircraft are very likely to have, or be considering, a higher-weight LSA variant. This may offer some opportunities, but there are two difficulties with that path:

 

Firstly, the retro-active application of the higher weight would only be possible if it can be established by the manufacturer that there is no physical alteration between the two models. It is very easy to add a few layers of cloth in the layup, to provide the added strength - and if anything of that sort is done, then the earlier production aircraft will not be eligible for the weight increase. This rests upon tight control of the documentation of what is termed "design conformity" between the models, and that discipline is often lacking in an inexperienced manufacturer. Secondly, it would involve the manufacturer in satisfying the certificating authority rather than merely satisfying himself - which is likely to be difficult to do retroactively.

 

If the higher weight variant is a type certificated model, the second of these difficulties goes away - but the first one remains.

 

The game is far from played out yet; but delving into these possibilities is hardly the function of the RAA Technical Manager, who is surely up to his eyebrows as it is. David Isaac is quite correct that the poor fellow has no freedom in these matters. And I agree that letting the cat out of the bag in small dribbles, as each individual aircraft comes due for re-registration, is asking for trouble - look at S 8.2 of the Civil Aviation Act.

 

 

[facthunter]

Agree Totally Dafydd. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hello Dafydd

 

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment but am having problems correlating them with your comments re s8.2 of the Civil Aviation Act... What is the text of the legislation you re referring to, please?

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

My congratulations to the flow of this thread... Well written questions and informative and non-emotional factural type replies.This is what I believe is how our forum site should flow - good fairdinkum question, replies by individuals who have genuine subject knowledge and everyone either offering further questions/replies all relating to what our aviation is all about. No the unfortunate 'blasts, dummy spits, miss readings and association assassination of individual who whilst may have thought they were doing the 'right thing' were regrettably out-of-their-expertise and had become fortress minded... This period now appears to have boiled over and majors charges are now afoot to bring our house back onto order, thou this WILL take time and we must all be patient and allow for the major admin and culture changes to take effect.

Reading this perticular forum threat, it is refreshing to see a well written and level headed talk about our beloved recreatation aviation.

Communication is the key, with it we can evaluate and inspect from all angles.....without it we can either sit back fat dumb and happy or, knowing enough to understand that things are not at all well. we can point scream and shout. Clearly I'm of the group that believe in the latter, but only while the great majority of the membership have their head in the sand.

 

When I started the nostradamus thread RAAus had been told that the previous insurer would not renew our insurance again. Further the exec chose to ignore the subcommitee recommendation for the insurance (I was part of that subcommitee) and go with the existing broker and that broker was having all sorts of problems getting an insurance company to take our business. At the time I posted we were close to the end of the 1 month extension the previous insurer provided us and there was no alternate on the horizon. Failure to get insurance in place would have shut us down immediately....We were days away from that outcome.

 

The existing broker did in the end find an alternate insurance firm that covered us, but in doing so, with the full disclosure required, many existing or coming issues are excluded from cover. Hopefully the full disclosure for the new insurer also went to the existing insurer and having occurred while insured with them will be covered by them. That said, they made the determination that RAAus was an organisation that they felt was from a risk management perspective, was no longer acceptable to them.....What does that tell the members? What should you take from that?

 

Are members aware that the premium for the new insurance is nearly double what it was? What does that tell the members?

 

It tells me that us that have been pointing and shouting that all is not well, and that those running the place arent doing a good job of it no matter their intention. Intentions count for sh!t, its all about results!! never seen an audit failure by CASA yet that said Fail, but the team intends well!

 

Those affected by the issues in this thread, are by numbers a minority within RAAus, but unless we find a way to fix the problem then minority or not they have the ability to sink RAAus for all of us if they choose to.........but for a few days and an 11th hour outcome from our existing insurance broker we were all grounded!!! and I'll bet almost no body knew that, and many would look at my posts and just shake their heads saying "he's at it again!!!"

 

which brings me back to my starting position, Its all about communications and we haven't been getting any of it that is timely and good quality. How many more of these unexploded land mines exist just waiting for someone to stumble over???? In a real business of this size with the criticality of what we do, you have an internal Audit capacity to answer that question before CASA come knocking with their size 12's on thumping the ground for landmines...... The claim that our members reps are just volunteers doesn't cut it, and has been proven in court to not cut it many times before for voluntary organisations.

 

Unless things change, and soon, we are all likely to be grounded for an extended period in the next 12 -36 months. I don't know how I can do any more to make people understand this.

 

Vote out a an existing less than stellar performer and put someone in who has the necessary skills to run RAAus as we must run it! Even then, with the 2 year cycle, it still may take too long to get the changes happening that we need.

 

As a member my yearly costs are of the order of $300 ish for membership and aircraft registration. Given that we have to fix years of neglect I cannot see how we can continue on that pittance....To me I would see that we need my$300 per year to be closer to $500 per year in order to end up with a sustainable well run organisation. In the past there was one Techman....I believe we now have 5 in that part of RAAus alone.....They have to be paid for some how!

 

Andy

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Section 8.2 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 says:

 

(2) CASA:

 

(a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession;

 

(b) shall have a seal; and

 

© may sue and be sued in its corporate name.

 

Note: The Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 applies to the CASA.

 

That Act deals with matters relating to Commonwealth authorities, including reporting and

 

accountability, banking and investment, and conduct of officers.

 

If CASA is sued as a consequence of a failure of RAA to disclose that its registration of an aircraft was invalid (work it out yourself)

 

 

[TK58]

I was talking to my local rep at Old Station and he says the bottle kneck is CASA having someone there only 2 days a week to do all the approvals.

So 7 months after this debacle began it's CASA's fault we're still in crisis mode? Sorry, not buying that. The member rep's response just further highlights that our Board have failed to recognise the scale and complexity of the problem and to commit sufficient resources to its resolution. The revelation of anomalies in type acceptance certificates adds an extra dimension (and must be an absolute nightmare for the owners involved), but it's consistent with the root cause of the whole debacle - years of sloppy administration and poor oversight coming home to roost.

 

 

[facthunter]

Surely IF the approval can only be by a CASA person and their availability is limited THAT is the problem at this stage. There really needs to be a proper and truthful explanation for this state of affairs. CASA have grounded Other outfits. I believe THAT should only be in extreme circumstances. I'm NOT saying that is not the case with us I just don't know and when it only comes up at renewal time I smell something. It's either really important or it's not Nev

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Surely IF the approval can only be by a CASA person and their availability is limited THAT is the problem at this stage. There really needs to be a proper and truthful explanation for this state of affairs. CASA have grounded Other outfits. I believe THAT should only be in extreme circumstances. I'm NOT saying that is not the case with us I just don't know and when it only comes up at renewal time I smell something. It's either really important or it's not Nev

RA-Aus were getting Dean Tompkins trained up to be, like Neville Probert, a person approved by CASA (NOT a CASA person). However about a week before the recognition was to be given to Dean he was sent home to SA. He was quite surprised when that happened as he was having a lot of success on knocking over the backlog and was about to have a hell of a lot more.

 

Pity . . . .

 

 

[facthunter]

Thanks AR. The obvious question arising from that is, Why? by whom and for what reason? This is not the time to worry about the odd dollar... Nev

 

 

[damkia]

What is needed is publication of the full CASA audits, not simply a few of their eventual recommendations. Members of the RAA should have full access to all of these issues though the Minutes of Meetings transcripts, whether they be full AGM's or all Board meetings ( http://www.companydirectors.com.au/Director-Resource-Centre/Organisation-Type/Organisation-definitions per Daffyd's link and what should have been in the Constitution of RAA).

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

What is needed is publication of the full CASA audits, not simply a few of their eventual recommendations. Members of the RAA should have full access to all of these issues though the Minutes of Meetings transcripts, whether they be full AGM's or all Board meetings ( http://www.companydirectors.com.au/Director-Resource-Centre/Organisation-Type/Organisation-definitions per Daffyd's link and what should have been in the Constitution of RAA).

They already have been, they were published just prior (by a day or 2) the Feb 9th meeting. They have some redacted parts where personally identifiable parts are, but they are on the NEWS section of the RAAus website. Readem and weep at the ineptitude and lack of control they show!!!

 

Has everybody looked at these???? You as a member absolutely should. The problems aren't just of a year or two, but many many years!

 

Furthermore, understand that today we still haven't passed this audit there will be one or more (god help us if its more!!!) follow up audits before CASA and us will then start looking at other aspects of what it is that RAAus is supposed to be doing...assuming we are still around.

 

Links follow to save you finding them on the RAAus site (if you do find them they are a few layers deep before you get to the PDF links

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/RAA-pages-1-50.pdf

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/RAA-pages-51-100.pdf

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/RAA-101-150.pdf

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/RAA-151-186.pdf

 

 

[damkia]

Many thanks...

 

 

[kaz3g]

Section 8.2 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 says:(2) CASA:

 

(a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession;

 

(b) shall have a seal; and

 

© may sue and be sued in its corporate name.

 

Note: The Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 applies to the CASA.

 

That Act deals with matters relating to Commonwealth authorities, including reporting and

 

accountability, banking and investment, and conduct of officers.

 

If CASA is sued as a consequence of a failure of RAA to disclose that its registration of an aircraft was invalid (work it out yourself)

Thank you Daffyd. That's all I read into the section, too.

 

Perhaps I was being too obtuse? I was looking to have you make the nexus between the effect of the legal personality of CASA and the failure of RAAus to advise CASA of potential risk based on your in-depth knowledge of the processes and agreements in place between them. I hadn't been able to locate a mandated obligation to do so in the documents available to me until now.

 

In the 2010 version of the Deed of Arrangement between CASA and RAAus (I have nothing more recent) there are provisions dealing with Auditing and Monitoring. While the major thrust of the Deed seems more aimed at accounting for the money contributed by CASA than good management, clause 9.2 states:

 

"If at any time, in the opinion of the Responsible Officer or Specified Personnel, the Schedule Functions are not being carried out with due diligence and competence and in an efficient and effective manner, or in accordance with this Deed, the Organisation must take all action necessary to minimise further expenditure in relation to the Schedule Functions and to inform CASA immediately."

 

I can see no "penalty" for failing to do so, however.

 

While I have reservations about the enforceability of indemnities, I also note that clause 13 states that RAAus indemnifies CASA in respect to claims arising from the Organisation's ...negligent... acts or omissions.

 

It seems to me, based on the above, that it is encumbent on the General Manager (and the Tech Manager) to notify CASA of these latest issues (and probably many more) without delay. It also seems to me that RAAus is likely to carry a very large part of any future financial burdens if it can be shown that it was negligent in its performance of its aircraft registration functions.

 

Regards

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

What is needed is publication of the full CASA audits, not simply a few of their eventual recommendations. Members of the RAA should have full access to all of these issues though the Minutes of Meetings transcripts, whether they be full AGM's or all Board meetings ( http://www.companydirectors.com.au/Director-Resource-Centre/Organisation-Type/Organisation-definitions per Daffyd's link and what should have been in the Constitution of RAA).

As Andy has said the full CASA audits have been published by RAA - I must admit to being stunned that so many members who are directly affected couldn't be bothered reading the comments we made, or dismissed them, and are now expressing surprise at what was perfectly clear.

 

RAA has a board of management Damkia; they are not directors, and management is management, not directors oversight. This common mistake, I believe is one of the root causes of members not reacting two years ago when some of the present issues came out.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Thank you Daffyd. That's all I read into the section, too.Perhaps I was being too obtuse? I was looking to have you make the nexus between the effect of the legal personality of CASA and the failure of RAAus to advise CASA of potential risk based on your in-depth knowledge of the processes and agreements in place between them. I hadn't been able to locate a mandated obligation to do so in the documents available to me until now.

 

In the 2010 version of the Deed of Arrangement between CASA and RAAus (I have nothing more recent) there are provisions dealing with Auditing and Monitoring. While the major thrust of the Deed seems more aimed at accounting for the money contributed by CASA than good management, clause 9.2 states:

 

"If at any time, in the opinion of the Responsible Officer or Specified Personnel, the Schedule Functions are not being carried out with due diligence and competence and in an efficient and effective manner, or in accordance with this Deed, the Organisation must take all action necessary to minimise further expenditure in relation to the Schedule Functions and to inform CASA immediately."

 

I can see no "penalty" for failing to do so, however.

 

While I have reservations about the enforceability of indemnities, I also note that clause 13 states that RAAus indemnifies CASA in respect to claims arising from the Organisation's ...negligent... acts or omissions.

 

It seems to me, based on the above, that it is encumbent on the General Manager (and the Tech Manager) to notify CASA of these latest issues (and probably many more) without delay. It also seems to me that RAAus is likely to carry a very large part of any future financial burdens if it can be shown that it was negligent in its performance of its aircraft registration functions.

 

Regards

 

Kaz

Thanks, Kaz - I don't have that document; however you are obviously correct.