Problems

[ave8rr]

I hesitiate to shoot from the hip, but in principle there is no reason I can see why appropriate clauses cannot be added to CASR Part 91 to accommodate all existing classes of RAA aircraft. If things go this way, it will need a group of RAA operators to sit down with CASA as a working party and thrash out how it can best be done. So I would suggest that it would be prudent to start pulling together a committee for this purpose, and for that committee to start acquainting itself with how it works in NZ; do your homework, in other words. It's useless approaching CASA unless you have a pretty well-formulated proposal, and you need to learn CASA-speak as well. However I would expect that such a well-prepared committee would get a reasonable reception from CASA. Picking the right political moment would also be wise.

Agree Dafydd. We would then get away from all the varous categories of registration. The system in USA and NZ works and works well.

I am surprised CASA havn't been looking at going down this path for a while. Maybe they ARE awaiting an approach with a proposal?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

How did you find out about it Andy? You seem to be the only one interested in the operations of the RAA.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Agree Dafydd. We would then get away from all the varous categories of registration. The system in USA and NZ works and works well.I am surprised CASA havn't been looking at going down this path for a while. Maybe they ARE awaiting an approach with a proposal?

I don't know that. The idea was put to them a decade ago; I suspect they took the politically-favourable track at that time and waited to see how RAAus would evolve - you cannot say they didn't give it a fair go. However I'm sure they are conscious of this alternative. At this point CASA must be every bit as aware as we are, how precarious RAAus really is. At this point, I am guessing - CASR Part 91 is still in a state of flux to my understanding; it really needs to be re-cast in the FAR mould, rather than the EASA mould, and I've not looked at it lately to see what is happening. So whilst jumping to Part 91 may take some time, I suspect the draft of the new regulation may still be somewhat fluid, so now may well be a good time to start the process.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

How did you find out about it Andy? You seem to be the only one interested in the operations of the RAA.

Because one of the team of malcontents I'm part of is directly affected.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Perhaps the problems coming out of the woodwork at RA Aus are symptomatic of the characters involved in the management of our organisation over many years. Lack of management principles, lack of proper governance, lack of communication and transparency and dare I suggest there may have even been inappropriate influence bought on those in subordinant positions to 'bend' the rules. Suggested or not by me or someone else, the evidence emerging is painting an ugly picture of past transgressions with at least several aircraft approved to a higher weight with invalid documentation. How much pressure was bought to bare on previous Tech managers to approve these aircraft and by whom we might ask? How many previous Tech managers have been the scape goat for incompetent management?

 

The real pity is that the Gliding Federation of Australia has been a good model of self regulation, the Australian Parachute Federation another example of an organisation that after a rocky start appears to have its act together; so why not RA Aus?

 

A real clean out at the Board level in particular the executive (who have single handedly run the organisation) with many of the Board sitting on their hands 'trusting' the executive to make decisions that the Board would ultimately be held accountable for. The day of reckoning is upon us.

 

With a new organisational structure that embodies and enforces governance principles and transparency with the members might just be our only hope. It would behove all members to consider where we are today and at whose hands when they cast their vote in September ... more of the same or a new structure and new management?

 

To restructure under some CASA management completely would be a large and formidable task and I cannot see why CASA would want to get their hands dirty with direct management of the ultralight fraternity. God knows their hands are dirty enough and I am not entirely convinced that CASA aren't implicated in some way in these latest revelations.

 

 

[damkia]

Perhaps the problems coming out of the woodwork at RA Aus are symptomatic of the characters involved in the management of our organisation over many years. Lack of management principles, lack of proper governance, lack of communication and transparency and dare I suggest there may have even been inappropriate influence bought on those in subordinant positions to 'bend' the rules. Suggested or not by me or someone else, the evidence emerging is painting an ugly picture of past transgressions with at least several aircraft approved to a higher weight with invalid documentation. How much pressure was bought to bare on previous Tech managers to approve these aircraft and by whom we might ask? How many previous Tech managers have been the scape goat for incompetent management?The real pity is that the Gliding Federation of Australia has been a good model of self regulation, the Australian Parachute Federation another example of an organisation that after a rocky start appears to have its act together; so why not RA Aus?

 

A real clean out at the Board level in particular the executive (who have single handedly run the organisation) with many of the Board sitting on their hands 'trusting' the executive to make decisions that the Board would ultimately be held accountable for. The day of reckoning is upon us.

 

With a new organisational structure that embodies and enforces governance principles and transparency with the members might just be our only hope. It would behove all members to consider where we are today and at whose hands when they cast their vote in September ... more of the same or a new structure and new management?

 

To restructure under some CASA management completely would be a large and formidable task and I cannot see why CASA would want to get their hands dirty with direct management of the ultralight fraternity. God knows their hands are dirty enough and I am not entirely convinced that CASA aren't implicated in some way in these latest revelations.

To incorporate the aircraft back into the CASA fold per Dafydd's posts would be the most cost effective and appropriate way of controlling and maintaining governance issues. Currently we have duplicate governance from CASA and RAA, one of which has been shown to be not up to the task by a long shot.

"If you want a job done correctly, do it yourself"

 

 

[David Isaac]

To incorporate the aircraft back into the CASA fold per Dafydd's posts would be the most cost effective and appropriate way of controlling and maintaining governance issues. Currently we have duplicate governance from CASA and RAA, one of which has been shown to be not up to the task by a long shot."If you want a job done correctly, do it yourself"

That may be so and is probably my personal preference, but the question still needs to be answered: If the GFA and APF can successfully self govern why cant RA Aus? Why cant it be fixed once and for all?

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not going to just blame one yet. I just don't let CASA off the hook that easily. Some non CASA will eventually run it. Casa don't want it . It is time to fix this show or take some other action. You don't sink a ship just because the crew didn't sail it well, you Courts Martial the crew and modify the ship .Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

... Now please excuse me, I'm off to fly my experimental motorized Blanik.

Great to see you have kept the wonderful Blanik flying, Dafydd. I'd be interested in the engine installation.

 

 

[Teckair]

That may be so and is probably my personal preference, but the question still needs to be answered: If the GFA and APF can successfully self govern why cant RA Aus? Why cant it be fixed once and for all?

The GFA and the APF have not gone down the road of trying to reinvent the GA wheel that's why. If we had of stayed with affordable ultralights only none of this would have happened. The AUF was hi-jacked and destroyed by people with their own agenda and warnings that it was happening were ignored Many of the members did this to themselves.

 

 

[damkia]

That may be so and is probably my personal preference, but the question still needs to be answered: If the GFA and APF can successfully self govern why cant RA Aus? Why cant it be fixed once and for all?

The GFA and the APF have not gone down the road of trying to reinvent the GA wheel that's why. If we had of stayed with affordable ultralights only none of this would have happened. The AUF was hi-jacked and destroyed by people with their own agenda and warnings that it was happening were ignored Many of the members did this to themselves.

Agree totally.

It is all about numbers too. How many people actually are registered with those two operations? I would suggest no where near as many as there are in the RAA.

 

 

[David Isaac]

The GFA and the APF have not gone down the road of trying to reinvent the GA wheel that's why. If we had of stayed with affordable ultralights only none of this would have happened. The AUF was hi-jacked and destroyed by people with their own agenda and warnings that it was happening were ignored Many of the members did this to themselves.

Given the recent evidence Richard it is not that easy to argue against your logic. Although I started GA at age 17 (1970), I have had a long passion for rag & tube aircraft with little wheels on the tail. I fell in love with Ultralights in 1982 when I first flew Lee Wakelin's Frank Bailey designed Mustang. Today my favourite is probably the Drifter. My Auster is really just a big ultralight LOL. In a bizarre way my Javelin and Auster are related LOL.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

To incorporate the aircraft back into the CASA fold per Dafydd's posts would be the most cost effective and appropriate way of controlling and maintaining governance issues. Currently we have duplicate governance from CASA and RAA, one of which has been shown to be not up to the task by a long shot."If you want a job done correctly, do it yourself"

I merely observed that the situation as it is evolving, will supply an opportunity to go either way. I would not make any choices until a proper study of costs and benefits has been done. Please do not pre-judge the situation; get off your proverbial and get enough facts to do a proper analysis. Then the better answer will become clear. The current problem has arisen fundamentally because nobody did this before setting up the RAA in the first place. It is quite true, however, that setting up a duplicate publicate service sector can only add costs. Yes, the GFA does it much better, but the membership numbers are falling and the already considerable costs are rising. The mechanisms for importing aircraft and issuing airworthiness certificates are already in place in CASR Part 21; why try to duplicate them, when it has been demonstrated that RAAus has made an unholy mess of it, for which RAA will inevitably be liable? I'd export that problem, if it were my decision.

 

 

[damkia]

...I would not make any choices until a proper study of costs and benefits has been done....

We know the costs of CASA (by way of simple GA, or Experimental administration through SAAA), we know the resultant effectiveness of CASA

 

We know the costs of RAA (by way of the myriad of licening types and confusion), we know the resultant effectiveness of RAA

 

We have the data.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

We know the costs of CASA (by way of simple GA, or Experimental administration through SAAA), we know the resultant effectiveness of CASAWe know the costs of RAA (by way of the myriad of licening types and confusion), we know the resultant effectiveness of RAA

We have the data.

Then the answer should be obvious.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree, so let's hear it?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Great to see you have kept the wonderful Blanik flying, Dafydd. I'd be interested in the engine installation.

Be delighted to discuss it, but this thread is hardly the place. I suggest you see http://www.glidingcaboolture.org.au/MotorBlanik/motorblanikindex.htm and Armcom.com.au + Blanik

 

 

[gandalph]

As a small aside: while the owners and operators of many imported RAA-class aircraft may be apprehensive about what might happen to their weight limits, the same cannot be said for the owners and operators of our dear old, home-grown, stalwart of the recreational aviation scene: Jabirus (and no, I don't work for Jabiru, I just part-own one). They can confidently plan to continue as always, flying and training etc. in their aircraft.

Oscar, I thought I saw an earlier post from you where you quoted a NSW Coroner's assessment of evidence given at the Smith/Guthrie Sting crash inquest but I don't seem to be able to find it. Did you withdraw the post for some reason? Can you repost it?

 

 

[Admin]

Oscar, I thought I saw an earlier post from you where you quoted a NSW Coroner's assessment of evidence given at the Smith/Guthrie Sting crash inquest but I don't seem to be able to find it. Did you withdraw the post for some reason? Can you repost it?

The Moderators thought it best to remove it

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

May I pose a question?

 

In the event that the operation of recreational aeroplanes was subsumed into CASR Part 91 and the training for recreational pilot licences (I assume an initial straight issue in exchange for an RAA pilot certificate) was placed in CASR Part 61, the issue of registration certificates came under CASR Part 47, the issue of certificates of airworthiness came under CASR 21 subpart H, maintenance authorities came under CASR Part 43, and Airworthiness Notices were replaced by ADs under CASR Part 39, then in precisely what way would CASA be "getting its hands dirty" over recreational aeroplanes? All these functions are already being performed by CASA every day; bear in mind that a VH C of R is issued in perpetuity - it does not have to be renewed every year; so the CASA cost-recovery charge happens only once. Same for licences, however if required, a class 2 medical has a biennial cost. If this sort of scenario existed, what would be the raison d'etre for a recreational aviation association? None, in regard to administrative or regulatory matters, so far as I can see. A lot of what RAAus does is make-work so that they can use it as a revenue source. The magazine is fairy-floss anyway, so that would be no loss.

 

So precisely what benefit does the RAAus way of doing things truly provide? The only significant issue seems to me to be in the maintenance area.

 

 

[Oscar]

Oscar said:[/url]↑

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a small aside: while the owners and operators of many imported RAA-class aircraft may be apprehensive about what might happen to their weight limits, the same cannot be said for the owners and operators of our dear old, home-grown, stalwart of the recreational aviation scene: Jabirus (and no, I don't work for Jabiru, I just part-own one). They can confidently plan to continue as always, flying and training etc. in their aircraft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oscar, I thought I saw an earlier post from you where you quoted a NSW Coroner's assessment of evidence given at the Smith/Guthrie Sting crash inquest but I don't seem to be able to find it. Did you withdraw the post for some reason? Can you repost it?

 

 

 

 

 

No, I did not withdraw it - it was removed - presumably by the Forum Administrator. I have been given no reason why it should have been removed, and the quoted part of the Coroner's Findings is a publicly-available document referenced on this site: google: sting aircraft goulburn crash coroner and it is the second item you will retrieve. 

 

I am quite strongly aggrieved at this censorship without reason(s) being supplied. I believe that the information I gave - especially since the current situation prime facie appears to replicate the earlier situation of a weight substantiation being invalid according to the requirements that have to be met, by the same aircraft importer - is a valid piece of information for the owner/operators of those aircraft. If this site practices censorship without appropriate reason, then it is, frankly, of limited use to forum members.

 

 

 

Incidentally - your avatar: are you a previous owner of that aircraft? I ask, because I am now a part-owner of it!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Oscar]

The Moderators thought it best to remove it

Why?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Oscar, I presume the moderators removed it because of a current lawsuit relating to that crash. Perhaps the Coroner's hearing will play no part in this case, perhaps it will - we don't know, and in view of a couple of accidental blurts already, it's better to be safe than risk contempt of Court. At times where there is not a live case the moderators have allowed open discussion.

 

 

[Admin]

No, I did not withdraw it - it was removed - presumably by the Forum Administrator.

There are 4 Independent Moderators and they discuss and act on things including if a post gets reported by another user...so NO, the Forum Administrator did not remove it however the Forum Administrator stands behind and supports all decisions made by the Moderators

 

 

[gandalph]

Oscar, I thought I saw an earlier post from you where you quoted a NSW Coroner's assessment of evidence given at the Smith/Guthrie Sting crash inquest but I don't seem to be able to find it. Did you withdraw the post for some reason? Can you repost it?

OK just been told by the moderators that they thought it best to be removed. Too passionate maybe.....