Problems

[terryc]

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

Ian, I plucked it out of the air to represent the idea of a large portion of members not using this site, to put it better I maybe should have used the words and not tried %s. It would please me no end if the numbers were the other way around because we could then include them in the discussions. I'm not a supporter of this idea that every one is apathetic I rather think that they just done know. I wish we had every bodies email address so we could direct them to this site in general and this thread in particular. This idea you treat members like mushrooms and feed them appropriate mushroom food has worked well for the board of Raa and has meant little opposition until the meeting in february . Why is it that with the recent changes we still have a problem with communication when they know our feeling on this.

 

 

[turboplanner]

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

The same thousands of fellow members who vote in elections and lobby for you now?

 

 

[Admin]

Ian, I plucked it out of the air to represent the idea of a large portion of members not using this site

This may help Terry:

 

 

Over 16,000 different people (unique visitors) accessed the site last month spending on average 9mins on the site. Plus we can see that 81% of those visitors come from Australia. We also know that "Registered" International Users based on the Country selected in their settings is 7% of total registered users. We also know that on average 400 registered users (doesn't include guests) log in to the site every single day...some daily, some every few days, some once a week etc.

 

With those number we can ask the question "What kind of person would come to a Recreational Aviation web site?"

 

I wonder then whether it is just apathy as the figures represent a huge amount of aviators visiting the site

 

 

[Guest airsick]

The same thousands of fellow members who vote in elections and lobby for you now?

Organising a collective voice amongst 10,000 individuals is a hell of a lot harder than having a lobby group that does it for you. That's why lobby groups exist...

 

 

[turboplanner]

I realise that, my subtle point was where's your lobby group now?

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I realise that, my subtle point was where's your lobby group now?

Sorry, I missed that. I tried to make that point in my original post, I think I said that RA-Aus is rubbish at that right now!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The RAA exec is so far from reality of doing a good job its hard to see how the RAA can turn the situation around in the short term. The RAA needs wholesale management changes but 90% of the membership can't or don't care enough to create that change. Its a bad situation to be in but that's the situation the RAA is in.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

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?

 

I did not say CASA was perfect - far from. However in many regards, I suggest they are less worse than what we are seeing from RAA at present. If you operate in the mainstream of aviation, you are subject to the same rules as everybody else. If those rules are objectionable, you are likely to have the whole pilot population with you; and as factfinder pointed out, AOPA is the principle lobby group for the private sector. As far as the RPL medical issue is concerned, the fine differences are something that needs to be discussed when/if the RAA membership starts to look seriously at the possibility of moving to CASA. There are probably a bunch of such topics - I suggest you make a list of them. In regard to reportable conditions, I had prostate cancer eight years ago. As a consequence, I have to keep a running check on my PSA levels and supply the data to the DAME when I go for a medical. Is that so unreasonable?

 

 

[Guest airsick]

No one is saying whether it is reasonable or not. And the problem is not one that will arise at the time of changeover either. The problem comes when you need a group to represent a specific set of aircraft owners, pilots or whatever. When was the last time AOPA represented rag and tube? When was the last time they looked at licence/certificate requirements in the recreational (versus PPL) sector?

 

Real problem? I don't know. But none of us here have a crystal ball so I'd rather hedge my bet and have all 10,000 pilots and aircraft owners on the same page speaking through a unified body well ahead of when any such problem does arise.

 

I'm not saying that CASA isn't the best option but I'd like to consider the whole story before jumping in and saying "yeah, let's hand it over to them". We could do a lot worse (and be stuck with a busted RA-Aus for example) but we can also do a lot better. Our system isn't broken (it's not perfect either of course), RA-Aus is broken.

 

CASA does a lot of stuff right but the simple fact is that their mandate is safety. It's not the promotion of aviation, pilot rights and privileges, etc. This won't magically change if we all get handed over to them...

 

 

[turboplanner]

The problem is the engine failure happened a couple of years ago and the ugly ground is starting to rush up.

 

 

[facthunter]

Dafydd. ANYTHING would be less worse than we have now with RAAus. You are used to dealing with the CASA and aeroplane certification . Most people here just don't want to be involved in that, and I agree they shouldn't have to beyond complying with understandable rules. I leave the REGS etc to the Aviation Lawyers and they can argue amongst themselves as to what they really mean while pilots in the field have to struggle to please the next FOI that turns up to do some type of audit.. CASA are not the most user friendly lot. It varies. I don't criticise every individual who works for them but it is very variable. Maybe more now that in bygone days. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

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

Sounds like the role RA-AUS could take up when they don't have to focus on regulations and registration. The main difference being it's optional for recreational pilots to join the association if they so believe RA-AUS can represent their interests/views (ie a lobby group)

 

Note: I'm not saying CASA would be better then the current system, I don't think there is enough information out there to make such a conclusion at this stage (both in terms of what CASA would do and what the hell is going on within RA-AUS).

 

 

[facthunter]

It's completely hypothetical anyhow if they don't PLAN to. WE make to many assumptions here, and the real world out there doesn't care. I pointed out years ago the problem with having an organisation that had the conflicting role of regulating and representing the same people. I also said that some good rules needed to be formulated to define the relationship between the two bodies. With a very good management It would be possible but we didn't get that did we? Anyhow navel gazing is not useful now. CASA holds most of the cards Talk to them.( BUT not about them running it). Who talks to them? A delegation of some kind, carefully picked. There is no reason for it to be secret from the current board and some from the board might like to be on it . Some from the board shouldn't be on it.. They had their chance.Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

This info is 6 years old on the CASA website and perhaps it is not their current direction but here it is:

 

CASR Part 103 has been designed to provide a set of �simple rules for simple aircraft� using criteria that define (limit) the mass, speed, momentum and complexity of those aircraft. Part 103 consolidates, in one set of regulations, all the necessary operating, licensing and maintenance rules for the aircraft it applies to. Whilst containing some essential rules that are administered by CASA - including direct copies of the fundamental operating rules from CASR Part 91General operating and flight rules - it also details how administering organisations will establish procedures for the aircraft they administer.Part 103 will also establish a 'parallel pathway' for CASA to administer these activities when individual participants, for whatever reason, choose not to participate as members of an administering organisation.

Because people who engage in sport and recreational aviation are voluntary participants in aviation activities, whereby they have indicated an understanding and acceptance of the risks of participation, sport and recreational aviation activities would attract a lower regulatory priority and intervention by CASA beyond the need to protect the public on the ground and other airspace users from the effects of those activities.

 

The proposed rules minimise the risks to which the public and other airspace users are exposed, and provide for their administration, to the greatest extent possible, by industry organisations to be authorised under another proposed ruleset: CASR Part 149Recreational aviation administration organisations.

I wonder what their current schedule is?

[facthunter]

Maybe they don't know either. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Its the RAA's role to ask the question

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Yes, well, you are starting to formulate a pretty good set of basic questions. Yes, go and talk to CASA - you will only learn more than you know now. I'd start by drawing up a table of leading questions, with a column for the CASA answer and a column for the RAA answer. You don't have to put your cards on the table at first; you need to start a dialogue and see where it leads. But do, please, do some basic homework in the regulations before you start. You collectively seem to have a lot of pre-conceived notions, some sound, some wild. You could do a lot worse than having a chat with Spencer Ferrier, also. He's the AOPA legal adviser, and he's been around a whole lot of this for almost as long as I have. I'm somewhat out of touch with the latest CASA thinking, because quite candidly I don't give a damn these days, pretty much. It all goes around and around, and I'm tired of it. I hope you manage to get somewhere, to salvage something useful out of the mess. The best answer may be to introduce certificates of airworthiness into the RAA system, and let CASA handle that part of it, so the liability goes away; and hang onto the RAA parts that have the most value (If you can find any when you really look hard at it). However, as (if my memory serve me) Sam Goldwyn-Meyer said, "Include me out".

 

Good luck,

 

Dafydd

 

 

[djpacro]

"Include me out".

I hear that a lot these days from experienced pilots, LAMEs and engineers. Hopefully enough with the appropriate knowledge and skills will remain to support the industry and help others get up to speed.

[TK58]

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.

You seem to be assuming everyone in GA land is a happy camper and has no desire for change/improvement. If that was true why does AOPA exist? There is value in a collective voice for those with common interests in any scenario in my view.

 

 

[TK58]

I wish we had every bodies email address so we could direct them to this site in general and this thread in particular.

If RAAus was communicating openly with the members it shouldn't be necessary to direct them anywhere else.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

You seem to be assuming everyone in GA land is a happy camper and has no desire for change/improvement. If that was true why does AOPA exist? There is value in a collective voice for those with common interests in any scenario in my view.

No, of course everyone in GA land is not happy - they never are. We're losing too many airports, for a start. But AOPA is complaining that it's losing membership, which either means people have given up on them - or people are not feeling belligerant at present. I have no idea which.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

You seem to be assuming everyone in GA land is a happy camper and has no desire for change/improvement. If that was true why does AOPA exist? There is value in a collective voice for those with common interests in any scenario in my view.

My point was not that lobby groups are not necessary - but that a lot of what RAAus does as "lobbying" is in reality merely to get some of the CAO 95.55 exemptions reversed, in order to extend RAAus operational scope. In those cases, that does not, to my way of thinking, merit too much credit - it's more in the nature of a con job, counting on the ignorance of the membership. CASA often gets things wrong, and there's a constant need to point this out - but I'm far from impressed by the performance of RAA in this regard. Also, I would observe, from direct experience, that it's not the number of people that count, so much as the quality of the argument.

 

 

[TK58]

My point was not that lobby groups are not necessary - but that a lot of what RAAus does as "lobbying" is in reality merely to get some of the CAO 95.55 exemptions reversed, in order to extend RAAus operational scope. In those cases, that does not, to my way of thinking, merit too much credit - it's more in the nature of a con job, counting on the ignorance of the membership. CASA often gets things wrong, and there's a constant need to point this out - but I'm far from impressed by the performance of RAA in this regard. Also, I would observe, from direct experience, that it's not the number of people that count, so much as the quality of the argument.

I'd certainly agree that RAAus has done a pretty poor job of representing members' interests over the past few years.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Y'know, one of the best reasons to put RecAv back into the CASRs seems to me to be that falsification of documents - e.g. for a C of A for an imported aircraft - would come under S 83A of the Crimes Act 1958 (up to 10 years imprisonment); and whilst RAAus cannot readily invoke that, CASA can and will. I can't think of a better way to keep the importers honest.

 

 

[David Isaac]

But has there been any documents that could be proven fraudulent or has it been more a case of the RA Aus acceptance of documents that do not meet the legal requirement for acceptance?

 

Clearly there would be an impetus from manufacturers to have RAAus accept documents. I would assume that impetus may have been exerted with some considerable influence at times and that may have included putting pressure on elected representatives to influence technical staff.