Aerial Work

[aro]

I suspect, this follows from the exemption to Part 5 of the CARs (CAO 95.55. 3.1(a)). This is a rather curious exemption; it means RAA is NOT conducting flying training under the CARs, but under its Operations Manual. I suspect this will prevent RAA training organisations from being able to issue RPLs - if it does not, the gymnastics involved on CASA's part are something I await with bated breath . . .

I would read the exemption to part 5 as allowing you to fly without the qualifications required by part 5 (PPl/CPL etc.), and therefore allowing you to fly with a RAA issued pilot certificate.

 

It still seems that RAA is considered to be providing flying training, as CAO 95.55. 3.1(f) specifically allows advertising of flying training without an AOC. To me, 95.55. 3.1(f) suggests that there should be a matching exemption allowing the actual flying training to occur without an AOC.

 

Perhaps there is an Instrument somewhere allowing it - oh dear, CAO 95.55 is already an Instrument, Instruments on Instruments perhaps. If you get the impression that I think the regulations are a mess, and that a pilot can't be expected to interpret them or use them to work out what is and is not allowed, you would be about right.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I would read the exemption to part 5 as allowing you to fly without the qualifications required by part 5 (PPl/CPL etc.), and therefore allowing you to fly with a RAA issued pilot certificate.It still seems that RAA is considered to be providing flying training, as CAO 95.55. 3.1(f) specifically allows advertising of flying training without an AOC. To me, 95.55. 3.1(f) suggests that there should be a matching exemption allowing the actual flying training to occur without an AOC.

Perhaps there is an Instrument somewhere allowing it - oh dear, CAO 95.55 is already an Instrument, Instruments on Instruments perhaps. If you get the impression that I think the regulations are a mess, and that a pilot can't be expected to interpret them or use them to work out what is and is not allowed, you would be about right.

Are you applying logic? What possible justification is there to do anything of the sort?

 

 

[poteroo]

I suspect, this follows from the exemption to Part 5 of the CARs (CAO 95.55. 3.1(a)). This is a rather curious exemption; it means RAA is NOT conducting flying training under the CARs, but under its Operations Manual. I suspect this will prevent RAA training organisations from being able to issue RPLs - if it does not, the gymnastics involved on CASA's part are something I await with bated breath . . .

Unlikely that FTF's could issue RPL's as these would have to be via either an integrated or a non-integrated training organisation, (under CASR Part 61). The non-integrated organisation will not need an AOC, and can be run via adopting a CASDA supplied template. I see the best situated flying schools being those where there is an RAAus FTF co-located with a GA non-integrated school. The FTF flying records would allow the GA school to convert the PC to a RPL with some confidence. Anyway, it's all going to depend on info that I think CASA have not yet divulged.................probably reading these threads for new ideas!!

 

happy days,

 

 

[nong]

I guess the next question is how can the taxman condone an activity that's deemed illegal by casa , another gov . department ?When push comes to shove .

And since when is the taxman allowed to knowingly tax illegal activity?

 

Still confused Mike.

Since a case the 1920s and generally supported by subsequent court cases.

 

 

[Teckair]

Since a case the 1920s and generally supported by subsequent court cases.

Yes that is correct, back when brothels were illegal they used to pay tax and and the tax dept accepted the payments.

 

 

[metalman]

SAAA don't have the MASS of numbers we do. (or HAD). Australia is the same size to cover for anyone who operates. While competition is a good thing, being divided when the whole group is not very large is not productive. ALL "non commercial" groups have a lot in common. When you serve the public for reward there MUST be more surveillance/control. Keep the case for US being free of unnecessary/excess control. It's our strong point of differentiation. Nev

I can see the SAAA numbers increasing as pilots head for some of the faster experimentals that fall into the RPL allowances , RV's , glasairs, even some of the fatter kitfoxes and jabirus , and if you can do your own maintenance GA is cheaper year to year for ownership , and with the current dramas a lot less hassles

 

 

[facthunter]

The SAAA plane of choice is some form of RV. (excellent accurate kits with a good new engine package deal made from Al sheet). Carbon Cubs are coming along too, but they (SAAA) CAN build very complex things with a lot of inspections and mandatory courses required. I don't know how new SMS requirements affect them, but they must I reckon. Paperwork doesn't by itself create safety. The processes decided on must BE effective, not just ticking boxes. THAT may just pass the buck down the line and overdone makes the game not worth it. Many of the attitudes and practices that I have observed to be unhelpful, may not change because some people will not change. Enforcement applies to all whether they require it or not. Nev

 

 

[metalman]

The SAAA plane of choice is some form of RV. (excellent accurate kits with a good new engine package deal made from Al sheet). Carbon Cubs are coming along too, but they (SAAA) CAN build very complex things with a lot of inspections and mandatory courses required. I don't know how new SMS requirements affect them, but they must I reckon. Paperwork doesn't by itself create safety. The processes decided on must BE effective, not just ticking boxes. THAT may just pass the buck down the line and overdone makes the game not worth it. Many of the attitudes and practices that I have observed to be unhelpful, may not change because some people will not change. Enforcement applies to all whether they require it or not. Nev

I hear ya,,,SAAA is getting better but there is a lot of entrenched ideas( sounds oddly familiar) in the organisation, it will be interesting to see how it pans out over the next few years,,,,

 

 

[poteroo]

I can see the SAAA numbers increasing as pilots head for some of the faster experimentals that fall into the RPL allowances , RV's , glasairs, even some of the fatter kitfoxes and jabirus , and if you can do your own maintenance GA is cheaper year to year for ownership , and with the current dramas a lot less hassles

But remember you pay an annual membership fee to SAAA, ($180 odd - nearly same as RAAus), whereas you pay no annual fee to CASA. It may be that RPL's become administered by one of the larger self admin groups, (RAAO), such as SAAA - in which case you pay annual fees for your cheaper medical! Gotcha!

 

happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

Every transaction you do with CASA costs. There is no equivalent of the insurance that comes with pilot membership of RAAus and no equivalent of the magazine either, nor do you have any say about what they do to you. Not apples with apples, CASA -RAAus. CASA is the Authority. That is all it is. ALL RAAus has to do is get running and restore confidence that it will be working sometime soon. This uncertainty has been going for years now. I don't entirely blame RAAus Just MOSTLY.. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Every transaction you do with CASA costs. There is no equivalent of the insurance that comes with pilot membership of RAAus and no equivalent of the magazine either, nor do you have any say about what they do to you. Not apples with apples, CASA -RAAus. CASA is the Authority. That is all it is. ALL RAAus has to do is get running and restore confidence that it will be working sometime soon. This uncertainty has been going for years now. I don't entirely blame RAAus Just MOSTLY.. Nev

OK, what transactions are involved in operating under CASA, and how do they differ from operating under RAAus?

 

There's registration - which is a one-time thing. My aircraft is already VH-registered, so I don't have to pay anything more on that score. There's a class 2 aviation medical - which cost around $200 for the DAME and $ 75 for CASA to issue the medical certificate. There's a biennial flight review. There's Oz runways. There's insurance. There's no membership or pilot certificate renewal cost. There's no difference in the maintenance cost in my case. So what else is there?

 

 

[metalman]

I wasn't actually comparing the two, you don't have to be in the SAAA to use an exp VH aircraft, you don't even have to join to do the MPC ,it's cheaper if you join ,but you don't have to.

 

If you go RPL then there's no class 1or 2 medical, not sure what a drivers licence medical will cost, and so for me my insurance covers flight and hull risk as well as a public liability component , for $1800 a year( it includes my RV6 for ground risk) so I doubt it would be cheaper if it was RAA reg ,and I can do the maintenance myself.

 

Rego was $135 for ,,,ever,,,, I have a couple of things that need to be done regularly rad 36 and 47 ( I think that's the numbers) but if you want to go into CTR then you need to have them in your RAA reg aircraft too, other than that I'm kinda thankful I got screwed around by RAA and went VH with mine, it's not an option for everyone,,, ,,,,,,,hang on soon it will be !

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I wasn't actually comparing the two, you don't have to be in the SAAA to use an exp VH aircraft, you don't even have to join to do the MPC ,it's cheaper if you join ,but you don't have to.If you go RPL then there's no class 1or 2 medical, not sure what a drivers licence medical will cost, and so for me my insurance covers flight and hull risk as well as a public liability component , for $1800 a year( it includes my RV6 for ground risk) so I doubt it would be cheaper if it was RAA reg ,and I can do the maintenance myself.

Rego was $135 for ,,,ever,,,, I have a couple of things that need to be done regularly rad 36 and 47 ( I think that's the numbers) but if you want to go into CTR then you need to have them in your RAA reg aircraft too, other than that I'm kinda thankful I got screwed around by RAA and went VH with mine, it's not an option for everyone,,, ,,,,,,,hang on soon it will be !

Yeah, AD/rad/47 has to be done every two years. Rad 36 has been cancelled - I don't see any requirement for recurrent checking of modern VHF-COMs - and I don't particularly want to go into CTR, but occasionally it may be necessary . . . I don't need to do a maintenance course, I already have what i need in that area.

 

 

[TK58]

I wasn't actually comparing the two, you don't have to be in the SAAA to use an exp VH aircraft, you don't even have to join to do the MPC ,it's cheaper if you join ,but you don't have to.If you go RPL then there's no class 1or 2 medical, not sure what a drivers licence medical will cost, and so for me my insurance covers flight and hull risk as well as a public liability component , for $1800 a year( it includes my RV6 for ground risk) so I doubt it would be cheaper if it was RAA reg ,and I can do the maintenance myself.

Rego was $135 for ,,,ever,,,, I have a couple of things that need to be done regularly rad 36 and 47 ( I think that's the numbers) but if you want to go into CTR then you need to have them in your RAA reg aircraft too, other than that I'm kinda thankful I got screwed around by RAA and went VH with mine, it's not an option for everyone,,, ,,,,,,,hang on soon it will be !

As I understand it, you can only maintain a VH Experimental aircraft if you built it and you've done the SAAA MPC course. If you bought it (as opposed to building it), it's the same as any other VH aircraft - you can't maintain it unles you're a LAME with the appropriate authorisations. Given the majority of RAAus members are buyers rather than builders, the pros of the RPL would be offset by the cons around maintenance.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

As I understand it, you can only maintain a VH Experimental aircraft if you built it and you've done the SAAA MPC course. If you bought it (as opposed to building it), it's the same as any other VH aircraft - you can't maintain it unles you're a LAME with the appropriate authorisations. Given the majority of RAAus members are buyers rather than builders, the pros of the RPL would be offset by the cons around maintenance.

Not if it's a glider or motorglider operated under GFA. You have to have the appropriate GFA qualifications.

 

 

[Pete Greed]

Picking up on Oscar's original point:

 

The past fifteen to twenty years has seen unprecedented engagement between government and the community based sector. By ‘community based sector’ we mean community organisations that started life as independent local operations with a charter to serve/service local people.

 

Essentially voluntary organisations, their governance and management was merged and operated under a true committee of management structure (they were the thinkers as well as the doers.) – they were the formal and informal Clubs and Associations that, in part, defined Australia’s social well-being/society and established the liveability of communities.

 

Their organisational structures ranged from democratic to dictatorships and everything in between. Political correctness had not been invented, and when disputes did arise the locals alone sorted out the problem. Local leadership was a feature of successful governance and management.

 

It was no surprise that as some of these organisations began to take on wider responsibilities, the success and efficiencies of their operations grew, and with governance (strategic direction) flowing directly from the people themselves, what presented was a winning combination; a combination that presented a real alternative to the previously highly inefficient and expensive government models of service delivery.

 

When government services were contracted out about twenty years ago, community based providers responded by bidding into what was a for- profit market. Their successful bids were characterised by newly constructed service provider constitutions and organisations comfortable with their own ability to locally research, designed and maintained programs - projects that incorporated flexible delivery involving minimum regulation and minimum program documentation.

 

Without exception, the community based service providers significantly out performed their public service counterparts. This also resulted in considerable savings to the Australian taxpayer.

 

At least part of that success was because the bulk of their own inherent resources, added to the funds made available under government contracts, were allocated to the job at hand without the expense of having to justify their reason for being. Unfortunately in a short space of time the community based service provider, having neglected to advocate and negotiate for their own existence, exposed a serious strategic error of judgment – a neglect of governance responsibility that caused many of the impediments that now constitute the relationship, between community based organisations and government. So now on one hand we have government regulation solely determining the shape of provision/service and on the other a push by government for the community based sector to comply via corporate law while tied to a contract.

 

Put simply, the terms of the contractual relationships with government were developed by the very departments replaced by the tender process - departments that quickly invented the regulation and compliance systems that have put a strait-jacket on so many of today’s small business enterprises.

 

This was the business environment that the AUF/RAAus found itself confronting when it established its deed of agreement with the government via CASA - pre-determined systems and regulation that now control our destiny, and a limited will by our leaders to renegotiate the terms of engagement. That, however I believe, is changing and there is an opportunity for the RAAus Board to connect with both the government via our politicians, and through the administrative/management arm of RAAus to CASA. Governments will distance themselves from the voters at their own peril

 

Never in history have ordinary people been in the position to be so informed. However without strategies and a formal plan to work towards, the application of that knowledge will mean nothing and do nothing. All of us have a role to play in creating change. Some of it will be cultural/ philosophic , the other technical/operational. Lets make sure we have the right mix of both.

 

Pete

 

 

[Guest nunans]

I recently chatted to a person who has never been in anything smaller than an A320 about the idea of getting his RAA cert/Plane. As I ran through all the possibilities of what he could use the proposed plane and licence for when he would get them, it swiftly merged into just one remaining purpose. To fly around for fun or (with no pressing deadlines) he could kind of travel around packing light and go from airport to airport, getting a taxi if he wanted to go into town and have a look.

 

For anything else he is still better off in his car or going the whole hog and getting CPL/CIR. $$$

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I recently chatted to a person who has never been in anything smaller than an A320 about the idea of getting his RAA cert/Plane. As I ran through all the possibilities of what he could use the proposed plane and licence for when he would get them, it swiftly merged into just one remaining purpose. To fly around for fun or (with no pressing deadlines) he could kind of travel around packing light and go from airport to airport, getting a taxi if he wanted to go into town and have a look.For anything else he is still better off in his car or going the whole hog and getting CPL/CIR. $$$

Yes, that's pretty correct in my experience; you cannot be working to a deadline if you use a personal aircraft for travel under VFR. Nevertheless, with some flexibility in planning, one can get quite a lot of use under these conditions; but you need to understand the weather in the area you wish to operate, in some detail. I've done quite a bit of this sort of flying, and it's most useful for an out-and-return of a couple of hundred miles, within no more than a couple of days, so you can complete the exercise before the next patch of bad weather moves in. I don't know how much training RAA pilots get in meteorology these days, but it's a most necessary area of knowledge if you want to do much more than local flying.

 

 

[Hongie]

Sorry for the thread revival.

 

I emailed CASA about the original question by the OP.

 

Here is the response by Miles Harris

 

Brad

 

I draw your attention to CAR 1988, Part 1, Para 2 Interpretation, para 7 as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that you are able to carry tools of your trade on board a CASA GA acft for the purposes of conducting a job at your destination. The reward you are receiving is for your professional services required only at the other end of the trip, not for the use of the acft to get yourself there.

 

Sections (v) and (viii) highlighted is, in my opinion, a hybrid of where you are at wrt your case scenario below and is deemed to be a private operation.

 

 

Concerning RA-Aus acft, you would have to approach them, and get there technical advice on this matter. If you wish to present this email to them, I don’t have any issues with this.

 

 

Rgds

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Sorry for the thread revival.I emailed CASA about the original question by the OP.

 

Here is the response by Miles Harris

 

Brad

 

I draw your attention to CAR 1988, Part 1, Para 2 Interpretation, para 7 as follows:

 

 

 

I agree that you are able to carry tools of your trade on board a CASA GA acft for the purposes of conducting a job at your destination. The reward you are receiving is for your professional services required only at the other end of the trip, not for the use of the acft to get yourself there.

 

Sections (v) and (viii) highlighted is, in my opinion, a hybrid of where you are at wrt your case scenario below and is deemed to be a private operation.

 

Concerning RA-Aus acft, you would have to approach them, and get there technical advice on this matter. If you wish to present this email to them, I don’t have any issues with this.

 

Rgds

Thanks - that's a useful piece of clarification.

 

 

[Hongie]

happy to help.. and if i ever have need to do it, I'll be printing that out and taking it with me :)

 

 

[Oscar]

I hate to be a wasp in the jam here, but CASA has not always held that perspective. I believe that CASA has pursued at least one RAA member for exactly that 'offence'. This is a matter that I believe RAA should be demanding that CASA provide an an unambiguous statement as to what it considers to be 'commercial' use of an RAA-class aircraft.

 

Para 7 (d) (vi) states: (vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade

 

So, therefore, your tools of trade carried for the purpose of undertaking a job (if you can't prove that they just 'happened' to be in the aircraft) - are taken to be 'a commercial purpose'.

 

I am sorry, but short of a issued declaration by CASA, it appears that it would be necessary for a Court to determine a ruling - reference to the CAR nonwithstanding.

 

 

[Powerin]

I hate to be a wasp in the jam here, but CASA has not always held that perspective. I believe that CASA has pursued at least one RAA member for exactly that 'offence'. This is a matter that I believe RAA should be demanding that CASA provide an an unambiguous statement as to what it considers to be 'commercial' use of an RAA-class aircraft.Para 7 (d) (vi) states: (vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade

 

So, therefore, your tools of trade carried for the purpose of undertaking a job (if you can't prove that they just 'happened' to be in the aircraft) - are taken to be 'a commercial purpose'.

 

I am sorry, but short of a issued declaration by CASA, it appears that it would be necessary for a Court to determine a ruling - reference to the CAR nonwithstanding.

Unfortunately I think the opinion of any particular CASA representative won't necessarily mean much. The opinion and interpretation of the particular CASA representative who is doing your ramp check and writing out your penalty notice or summons is the one that will count....unless you challenge it in court (an expensive exercise). Then the judge will interpret the law and make a judgement and I suspect this interpretation will then be upheld as a precedent unless a higher court rules differently on the same law.

I also think that you will never get an unambiguous statement from CASA because they are charged with upholding the law. If the law itself is ambiguous there is little CASA can do aside from trying to change the law. These days the law seems to be deliberately written to be ambiguous so it is open to interpretation.

 

So if we are to reach the objective of this thread it seems to me we have to change the law. Raaus could certainly be far more involved in helping the community if allowed by law. I've often thought how useful it could be for a local fire brigade captain to be given a bird's eye view of the fire ground and how quick and easy that might be in an RAAus aircraft.

 

Number one concern of lawmakers would be safety and convincing the powers that be that safety would not be compromised.

 

Another thing is something I don't think has been mentioned here - unfair competition. I always remember going for a training flight with the CFI of my school...not my usual instructor. He's the boss and chief pilot of a regional company that does everything from RAAus and GA training through to GA fixed wing and helicopter charter and freight. In the hangar next door is a warbird that does "adventure flights". As we passed the hanger my CFI grumbled in good natured way about how the warbird could do a paid joy flight with little more than a signed disclaimer while he had to pay big bucks for an AOC and all the money, paperwork, maintenance and training that requires, to do the same thing. I could see his point.

 

So in changing the laws we also need to avoid disadvantaging those that have spent obscene amounts of money to comply with those same laws. There must be a way, but it seems there are lot of pitfalls and some very big egos and strong opinions to get past before the law is changed.

 

 

[poteroo]

Aerial work using piloted aircraft, no matter how economical, will be a thing of the past within 10 years. By then, the use of small UAV's carrying a GoPro mk15, will be so widespread that GA, RAAus, etc will be history insofar as offering a platform. Aerial photography, firespotting, crop inspection, shark patrol,pipeline inspection, powerline inspection,all sorts of remote sensing, will soon be done by UAV. Many of these will be illegal, and so will the operators - but CASA will have no hope of controlling it. It will all come down to who can do the best job at the lowest price. Looks like we'll all need some retraining!

 

happy days,

 

 

[Hongie]

I'm a fitter/mechanic, so my interest in it will be largely unaffected.