Problems

[turboplanner]

...See above, likely to get you before a Judge maybe.

 

 

[facthunter]

I would recommend that you take it in good faith and intent. I wouldn't want the moderators job, and they are ordinary folks just like you and me. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

I have said before, and I will say it again. CASA have no interest of taking over RAA or the management of RAA registered aircraft. CASA want RAAO,s to succeed. If RAA fails then another RAAO will have to take over. This information comes straight from John Mccormick , in a interview he had with a Australian aviation magazine.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I have said before, and I will say it again. CASA have no interest of taking over RAA or the management of RAA registered aircraft. CASA want RAAO,s to succeed. If RAA fails then another RAAO will have to take over. This information comes straight from John Mccormick , in a interview he had with a Australian aviation magazine.

Then I suggest the question be asked of John McCormick's successor. I suspect that the question may also be of interest to the current shadow Minister for Transport.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Why?

I know I reported it.

 

The discussion to date had been generic and informative without necessarily delving into specific incident areas that are, have been or shortly will be tested in court.

 

We were told at the Feb 9th EGM in Canberra by the RAAus Grand poobar lawyer that we could not talk about specific cases because they were sub judice. I didn't agree and felt that as we were all parties to the case by being a member of the organisation being sued we were entitle to some discussion, but I'm not a lawyer and that discussion was not to be. So I felt that the discussions here were at odds with what we were asked as members to not discuss.........

 

We were told in Feb that the announcement made last year here http://www.raa.asn.au/2012/10/legal-matter/ was as much as could be discussed. while your post may well have been entirely within the info that was in the public domain but I felt that it was opening Pandora's box and things that followed may well have not been so constrained.

 

Its not that the post wasn't relevant, in another X years or months or days even it may be very relevant to discuss.

 

Andy

 

 

[damkia]

Quite honestly the one thing that keeps popping in to my head as far as the RAA from CASA's point of view is "Cut your losses".

 

 

[Oscar]

The administrators/moderators of any forum have the right to remove any post - that I accept. However, since I did not introduce anything that was sub judice, hearsay, privileged in law, outside the public domain or personal opinion, I reiterate that what was contained in my original post was information germane to the operation of an aircraft in a condition outside of its approved weight limits and some background on the circumstances relating to how one such aircraft achieved registration with the RAA. There are owners of aircraft who - right now - have found that they are in breach of the limits if they operate their aircraft at the weight limits which (I presume) are contained in their POH and appear on their aircraft's placards. Some have had their registration suspended until the approved weight limit placard is affixed to their aircraft - and (also presumably) their POHs amended). Other cases will no doubt follow.

 

Too passionate? What level of passionate is appropriate for the death of an individual due to being in an aircraft in which he would not have been had the proper weight limit been applied? If you had purchased a vehicle on the reasonable belief that it was approved for six passengers, one of your family had then died in a crash, and then you had been informed that actually, it was only approved to carry four so the other two were not in reality supposed to have been in there , just the paperwork had been stuffed up - would you be content to say 'oh, well, shit happens?' (This is in no way a personal attack, but a genuine question pertaining to what limits we deem appropriate to the passage of information, for the general consumption of forum members).

 

Let me make another point: if the ultimate defence for failure to observe rules and regulations for the certification/registration/operation of [RAA-class] aircraft is that 'flying [one of these] is an inherently dangerous activity', then what legal power does any of these rules and regulations have? If, in the ultimate legal position, you have taken it upon yourself to engage in an 'inherently dangerous activity' and hence your belief that by adhering to the rules and regulations you have been employing falsely a judgement that the obvious risk involved was acceptably low was rendered legally invalid - would you fly?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The administrators/moderators of any forum have the right to remove any post - that I accept. However, since I did not introduce anything that was sub judice, hearsay, privileged in law, outside the public domain or personal opinion, I reiterate that what was contained in my original post was information germane to the operation of an aircraft in a condition outside of its approved weight limits and some background on the circumstances relating to how one such aircraft achieved registration with the RAA. There are owners of aircraft who - right now - have found that they are in breach of the limits if they operate their aircraft at the weight limits which (I presume) are contained in their POH and appear on their aircraft's placards. Some have had their registration suspended until the approved weight limit placard is affixed to their aircraft - and (also presumably) their POHs amended). Other cases will no doubt follow.Too passionate? What level of passionate is appropriate for the death of an individual due to being in an aircraft in which he would not have been had the proper weight limit been applied? If you had purchased a vehicle on the reasonable belief that it was approved for six passengers, one of your family had then died in a crash, and then you had been informed that actually, it was only approved to carry four so the other two were not in reality supposed to have been in there , just the paperwork had been stuffed up - would you be content to say 'oh, well, **** happens?' (This is in no way a personal attack, but a genuine question pertaining to what limits we deem appropriate to the passage of information, for the general consumption of forum members).

 

Let me make another point: if the ultimate defence for failure to observe rules and regulations for the certification/registration/operation of [RAA-class] aircraft is that 'flying [one of these] is an inherently dangerous activity', then what legal power does any of these rules and regulations have? If, in the ultimate legal position, you have taken it upon yourself to engage in an 'inherently dangerous activity' and hence your belief that by adhering to the rules and regulations you have been employing falsely a judgement that the obvious risk involved was acceptably low was rendered legally invalid - would you fly?

As the person who started the thread, and who has tried to make owners aware of the whole overarching issues I can find no fault with your logic, merely the fact that we went from generic forward looking alarm to specific historic incidents where I believe writs had already been issued......we were rapidly in danger of becoming the proverbial bull in the China shop where the China shop is owned by the Judge presiding and I'm told he doesn't take well to bulls........ Your post of itself may not have broken a single piece of china, but the next one may very well have and all that was needed to prevent that was to get us all out of the shop and back to forward looking alarm....

 

It may well have been over reaction by me and possibly other s and possibly subsequently moderators but its a judgement call and my ass was crying "Protection required"

 

Andy

 

 

[Admin]

Please do not discuss moderation in the forums...if you wish to lodge an appeal then do so with the Chief Justice, the honourable (???) Sir Ahlocks

 

 

 

[David Isaac]

Sir Ahlocks ... Sir Lockslie ... Sir Arrrrhlocks .... sir .. oh never mind

 

 

[turboplanner]

Oscar, you are not getting it - discussing that live case here in public, and particularly things which might or might not be central to the case, and which could give either side an advantage could see you and anyone else called before the judge and given a sentence. It's his Court, not yours and he decides what is contempt not you. I'd say in your last defiant post you were sailing extremely close to the wind. If you want to discuss things like weight limits, that's easy, just have a general discussion about scenarios other than the live case.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I suspect that this thread has just about reached its useful conclusion. However, there is still one aspect that I do not understand. To explain this I will have to give some history:

 

I was the very first AUF Technical Manager (when the technical issues were formulating something more or less along GFA lines, of which I had some experience), and in those days the basic legislation was the Air Navigation Orders, under which the only way the AUF could have existed was via an exemption. The AUF HAD to be made to work or the entire activity would have been exterminated by the Dept. of Transport; those were the days of HORSCOTS. It was a case of getting things out from behind the gum trees and allowing two-seat trainers to exist so people did not kill themselves trying to learn how to fly 95.10 single-seaters with zero instruction. Hardly the "golden era". There were wire-braced Drifters and Thrusters and the first Lightwings, which were tolerated via CAO 95.25. Flying was finally allowed above 300 feet.

 

Most people regarded the AUF as something that the CAA had foisted on them, which they would prefer to go away. However, in those days, the official attitude was that idiots who flew aeroplanes had to be protected from themselves even if it meant amputating their arms, so there had to be some sort of identifiable organisation about the movement.

 

Then came the CAA, and the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and CAO 101.55, which allowed the under-450 Kg Skyfoxes and Jabirus. This started the rapid growth era, and also the arguments about "affordable ultralights" versus "real aeroplanes".

 

The Morris enquiry into the CAA ("Plane Safe") revealed (1993) that the CAA was in a state of "civil war"; the Keating Govt. created CASA and Leroy Keith set about putting it into some form of order. Attitudes slowly started to change. Dick Smith published "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" - which pointed out the mess due to "regulation by exemption". Minister John Sharp started the Review of regulations in 1996, to completely overhaul the Australian aviation regulatory structure, to get rid of regulation by exemption - "you can't do that unless. . ." became "you can do that provided . . .".

 

Certain people realised that the ultralight movement offered them a private empire, and the RAA was formed. People like Bill Whitney and myself started pointed out that the 450 Kg limit made the aeroplanes too fragile, and that they were mainly operated overweight anyway, so in due course the weight limit went up to 544 Kg. Jabiru and Lightwing up-graded their aircraft to that weight limit. RAA flying schools started to pop up all over the place.

 

CASR Part 21 came into effect in 1998, and paved the way for a truly bilateral airworthiness agreement with the FAA (finally achieved in 2005) which finally dragged CASA into the 21st century. It's still blinking its eyes and shaking its head. The Review of Regulations went off the rails after Part 21 was achieved, mainly due to Dick Smith, and has still not been fully sorted out; but there has been an enormous change in fundamental attitudes since the AUF was first formed. We are at last recognising that the rest of the World exists.

 

During all this period of turmoil, the recreational aviation sector was most definitely better off, away in its quiet corner under the 95-series CAOs. However, the ultimate push for a part 103 would have put it in a straight-jacket (two sizes too large to be constricting at the time, but a straight-jacket just the same). That was set aside, so there is still room to breathe. It needs to be re-thought. The 95-series CAOs represent the last remnant of the "regulation by exemption" era. The "time of isolation" is obviously going to come to an end, one way or another. In sensible places like NZ, it never existed.

 

The pattern of the RAA pushing for increased limits (weight, airspace, whatever) belongs to the "isolationist" era.

 

So what I do not understand, is why people want to continue with a structure that belongs to the past? People talk about fixing the ship, rather than sinking it. I see that the "ship" is a figment of the imagination - and an expensive one, at that. People talk about CASA not wanting to "take over the RAA" - when that is meaningless- the RAA is a myth that exists only in your minds, and is for the moment enshrined in CAO 95.55. If the RAA goes bankrupt, CASA will have to cancel CAO 95.55 - and the myth will disappear like a soap-bubble. Do you want to blow another soap-bubble, or grow up?

 

 

[David Isaac]

Well sounds like we should get an intelligent group of people together, formulate a solid Plan and go talk to the men at CASA.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Creating change?

 

 

[terryc]

Raa is not broken, it's been bungled by incompetents but it's not broken. There is no need to sink the ship. Their might be a need to settle all outstanding matters and start the journey again, if this means spending all the reserves then so be it. If we go down the path of blending with GA then we will discover what expensive really is. What we have with Raa is what I think most flyers want and add to that an increase in weight and maybe access to controlled airspace and we will be where we have been aiming for, don't blow it now. Raa [us] needs to accept the mess we find ourselves in and set about fixing it with gusto and that needs a change of a large part of the board. This can't happen unless we find a way to communicate with 90% of members that don't use this forum. This only counts with the things I know and the things I know I don't know but my opinion might change when it comes to the things I don't know I don't know. [ I knew I'd get to say that one day]

 

 

[Admin]

This can't happen unless we find a way to communicate with 90% of members that don't use this forum.

Can you give me an idea how you came up with this 90% figure?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Terry, I happen to agree with you; it may be possible to save RAA.

 

There certainly should be a discussion with CASA, if only for the simple reason that the people elected to represent the members are not communicating to them. That discussion would probably provide an accurate assessment of where RAA stands in CASA's eyes, the state of audits etc.

 

Although the musk glands of the empire builders swell at times like this, the existing RAA structure allows the current situation to be repaired, changes made, oversight beefed up etc.

 

Subject to disclosure of all the known risks and financial contingent liabilities, it seems there are just a series of down to earth decisions to be made. Any fraud needs to be referred to police, any contravention of the Associations Incorporation Act needs to be referred to the department of Justice, any mismanagement of members funds needs to be investigated, by ACT police if necessary), non compliant aircraft need to be grounded immediately to prevent any future liability, management oversight whether by volunteers or paid personnel needs to be incorporated into the structure, short term action to correct the CASA Audit requirements needs to be put in place before there is a fifth Audit and so on. This is just prudent management action, which many pilots who hold responsible positions would understand. And above all there needs to be action taken to ensure members representatives transparently communicate with the members. It would have been far better for all this to have come out in a controlled manner two years ago, than the inevitable bursting of the dam which is taking place now.

 

The only problem you have in doing this Terry, is getting your fellow members to pay attention, otherwise the critical mass is rolling down the hill to what seems like a logical conclusion with CASA, but that would restrict many of the people who are flying now in various ways, such as licensing and the type of aircraft available - it would be a different world.

 

 

[ave8rr]

The only problem you have in doing this Terry, is getting your fellow members to pay attention, otherwise the critical mass is rolling down the hill to what seems like a logical conclusion with CASA, but that would restrict many of the people who are flying now in various ways, such as licensing and the type of aircraft available - it would be a different world.

Turb's, why would this be a problem? No reason why a small rag and tube single seater cant be registered VH. These aircraft are flying in both USA and NZ under the Rules. Australia has moved over to the "Rules" system for most parts of aviation now so to continue with ANO's with ref to Rec aviation should cancelled.

I agree with Dafydd in all he has raised. This is one way forward and NO duplication of rules and regs.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I was talking generally. USA is USA, NZ is NZ, and none of us can predict what CASA, or even the Minister would do here - we might have some very logical ideas in our minds - but just look at the RPL medical mess.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

One thing that has been ignored in this thread is the power of a collective voice. To be frank RA-Aus has done a rubbish job of this in recent times but one of the reasons that we came as far as we did in terms of gaining access to airspace, rights to carry passengers, etc. is because we had someone advocating for us. RA-Aus has, in the past, been that collective voice. They are in effect a lobbyist representing the views of 10,000 or so members. If we were to come under the direct supervision of CASA who will be that voice? CASA certainly won't be. AOPA probably doesn't care too much about rag and tube types.

 

While I know of many people that take issue with CASA being the big evil corporate giant I have never had any issues myself. At the same time, however, CASA has never held out a hand to me and said, "hey, do you want to have the rights to do x, y and z?". If RA-Aus is repaired and run properly with some good guiding principles in place then not only can they give us the pieces of paper that say we can fly, they can also go to CASA with the weight of 10,000 members and put forward a collective view.

 

That's something very few alternative models can offer and something worth thinking about in my opinion...

 

 

[fly_tornado]

There seems to be an attitude that the "powers that be" only mission is to crush recreational aviation. I believe this view has been created by the RAA exec to cover their failures and incompetence, its known as blame shifting. CASA needs constructive input to reach the correct outcomes but I don't think the current RAA exec is capable of providing it.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Tread carefully - I gather many [obviously not all] people have yet to deal direct with CASA direct - if complaints/approaches etc lead to the demise of RA-Aus [even with its current problems] then we will regret the day. Read : delays, fees/costs, dictatorial, big Govt. Dept, little apprecition of costs to small operators etc.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

One thing that has been ignored in this thread is the power of a collective voice. To be frank RA-Aus has done a rubbish job of this in recent times but one of the reasons that we came as far as we did in terms of gaining access to airspace, rights to carry passengers, etc. is because we had someone advocating for us. RA-Aus has, in the past, been that collective voice. They are in effect a lobbyist representing the views of 10,000 or so members. If we were to come under the direct supervision of CASA who will be that voice? CASA certainly won't be. AOPA probably doesn't care too much about rag and tube types.While I know of many people that take issue with CASA being the big evil corporate giant I have never had any issues myself. At the same time, however, CASA has never held out a hand to me and said, "hey, do you want to have the rights to do x, y and z?". If RA-Aus is repaired and run properly with some good guiding principles in place then not only can they give us the pieces of paper that say we can fly, they can also go to CASA with the weight of 10,000 members and put forward a collective view.

 

That's something very few alternative models can offer and something worth thinking about in my opinion...

All right, let's look at that one. Let's look at controlled airspace, as a useful example:

 

Under CAO 95.55, RAA aircraft are exempt from CAR 207, which means you do not have to comply with, inter alia, CAO 20.18, which specifies the equipment required for various classes of operation. CAO 20.18 Appendix 1 specifies the requirements for private operations under VFR. You do not have to carry a transponder. Your radio and your transponder do not have to be periodically tested to ensure they are working properly. You are exempt from CAR 83 in regard to radio licences and procedures. You are also not required to have at least a Class 2 aviation medical certificate - and so on. So to gain access to controlled airspace under VFR, the RAA had to lobby - and what did it get? It got CAO 95.55.5.2, which requires these additional things. If you were operating under VH-registration, the regulations require those things - and you do not need to lobby for them, you simply look up the regulations and comply with the ones that apply for your operation. You can elect to stay in Class G airspace in which case you do not need anything more than is normally fitted to an RAA aircraft anyway - the only difference may be in the need to keep certain instruments calibrated at specified intervals.

 

The necessity to lobby for things is a direct consequence of operating under an exemption basis. If you operate in the mainstream, you are not exempt - so you do not need a lobby group.

 

 

[facthunter]

AOPA exist to perform that function and at times without strong action from them, bad decisions would have gone unopposed. At the moment there appears to be a better relationship but if one doesn't keep a good look at what is going on regardless of WHO the governing body is, you will get some unpleasant surprises from time to time. Individual pilots have little say without some representation or membership of a functioning body dedicated to their interests. Nev

 

 

[Guest airsick]

All right, let's look at that one. Let's look at controlled airspace, as a useful example:Under CAO 95.55, RAA aircraft are exempt from CAR 207, which means you do not have to comply with, inter alia, CAO 20.18, which specifies the equipment required for various classes of operation. CAO 20.18 Appendix 1 specifies the requirements for private operations under VFR. You do not have to carry a transponder. Your radio and your transponder do not have to be periodically tested to ensure they are working properly. You are exempt from CAR 83 in regard to radio licences and procedures. You are also not required to have at least a Class 2 aviation medical certificate - and so on. So to gain access to controlled airspace under VFR, the RAA had to lobby - and what did it get? It got CAO 95.55.5.2, which requires these additional things. If you were operating under VH-registration, the regulations require those things - and you do not need to lobby for them, you simply look up the regulations and comply with the ones that apply for your operation. You can elect to stay in Class G airspace in which case you do not need anything more than is normally fitted to an RAA aircraft anyway - the only difference may be in the need to keep certain instruments calibrated at specified intervals.

 

The necessity to lobby for things is a direct consequence of operating under an exemption basis. If you operate in the mainstream, you are not exempt - so you do not need a lobby group.

The airspace thing was a reference to not being able to fly above 300ft, across roads, etc. as it was many years ago. These restrictions have been relaxed. But let's look at the CASA world for a moment and what they propose under the RPL.

 

An RPL holder can exercise the rights of that licence as long as they have a medical certificate from a doctor stating they are fit enough to operate a motor vehicle. That's not too onerous on the surface but look at the conditions that surround that requirement. If you suffer from a reportable condition you must, within 7 days, report that incident to CASA. If you don't it's an offence. What happens after that though is interesting - the medical certificate I referred to earlier is now defunct. It is no longer valid and the pilot can no longer exercise their rights to fly.

 

Under RA-Aus requirements it's a little different. If you suffer from one of the same set of conditions the are also restricted from exercising the privileges of your pilot certificate. If, however, you get a statement from a doctor saying you're fine to drive then you can once again fly.

 

This is one of many subtle differences between the RPL and RA-Aus pilot certificates. Dig a little deeper and you'll find more.

 

My question stands - who is going to lobby for the protection (and extension) of your current privileges if CASA takes over?