Approved Organisations – Discussion Paper (July 2013)

[Admin]

The Associate Director Aviation Safety, Dr Johnathan Aleck has recently released an updated Discussion Paper on the future organisation of Recreational Aviation Administration Organisations (RAAO).

 

Since the Paper bears directly on the future of our own Association, it has been reproduced here in full for the benefit of members. The formal consultation phase (vis-a-vis Parts 103 and 159) hasn’t as yet commenced, but we’ll endeavour to keep you informed of this.

 

Mark Clayton

 

General Manager

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Read this one very carefully, gentlemen. Think about what it says . . .

 

 

[dodo]

I couldn’t understand it. Whoever wrote it should take remedial English lessons.

 

What I did get from it was that changes were being suggested, but in such a way that it was not clear what was suggested.

 

For example:

 

"As a practical matter, however, and mindful of CASA’s overarching

 

commitment to safety, and our expectations of others in that connection, it is

 

reasonable to say that one of the most effective bulwarks against competition is to

 

strive to offer the very best product and services, on reasonable terms and at

 

affordable prices."

 

Frankly, this seems to be weasel words that could be used to support, or undermine, any position. Having watched "Yes, Minister!", I suspect St Georges Island is mentioned on about page 232, in one paragraph.

 

My attempt at translation:

 

"Competition will not occur if you are so good no one can compete".

 

However, "mindful of CASA’s overarching commitment to safety" means nothing in this context, except perhaps they think competition decreases safety? Or increases safety?

 

And this paragraph was put in a sequence that suggests that it was intended as an excuse to not allow overlapping or competing organisations.

 

But maybe someone smarter than I could translate the intent of the document?

 

dodo

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Try this:

 

1. RAAus must properly discharge its responsibilities under the regulations;

 

2. No privately-owned organisation acting in a public role should have a monopoly;

 

3. RAAus's subsidy is under review and will likely be dropped unless some other government agency is prepared to step in;

 

4. The exemption basis under CAO 95.55 will be replaced by a compliance basis under something similar to the regulation under which Limited category aeroplanes operate. (That means, inter alia, pilot licences, maintenance releases, etc)

 

 

[dodo]

Thankyou - now it makes some sense. The author still needs remedial classes.

 

As far as the suggestions go:

 

1 - sounds like a good idea;

 

2 - sounds like idealism, rather than policy, and more respected in breach than in practice;

 

3 - good idea, probably (even if I don't want to pay more!). Either RA should be paid fairly, or maybe not at all. Confusing legal responsibility with paid service is not good policy or good practice;

 

4 - umm...and how will that work? I think CASA don't really know either! If the rest of the document is predicated on that unknown, it puts the lot in doubt.

 

And point 4 seems to be both the focus, and the weakness in the whole lot. Until that change is clear, and the real (rather than intended) effect of that is known, what can the rest of the document do?

 

Or have I misunderstood again?

 

dodo

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

To understand point 4, go look at CAR 262AN, and see how it translates if you substitute "Recreational aircraft" for "Limited aircraft" . The basis for CAO 95.55 is CAR 308 (it says so in the heading of CAO 95.55) - i.e. it's an exemption basis. If the basis changes to something like CAR 262AN, the basis is no longer exemption, but compliance - i.e. the whole movement moves much closer to the mainstream of aviation. And no, it's not clear, because the details will be in the procedures manuals that are required by the regulation. However, if there are to be no exemptions under CAR 308 or whatever, then the only way is to comply with the regulations, i.e. you move into the mainstream.

 

The document is a discussion paper, which means it is an advance warning of the way CASA is thinking. Jonathan Alec is the CASA Deputy Director (he was previously CASA chief counsel); he walks softly, but carries a very big stick. He may well be the next CASA Director, after the elections. RAA ignores it at its utmost peril.

 

Also, I suggest you look at points 11 and 12 in the paper - and read them in the converse. In fact, wherever the paper suggests what might happen, provided, you should read it as what will happen, unless . . .

 

The paper has a lot of politikspeak, and is very subtle in the way it says things, but if you read it as I suggest, you will start to see what it really means.

 

 

[damkia]

The paper has a lot of politikspeak, and is very subtle in the way it says things, but if you read it as I suggest, you will start to see what it really means.

Given the broader audience they are talking to/about, a more easily digestible version of the paper may well have been in order - leave the "legalese" for the actual Legislation.

 

"If you can't stun them with your science, baffle them with your bullsh!t".

 

 

[dodo]

I am starting to understand - I assume that the GFA, and possibly other (the Balloonatics) may be operating under CAR 262AN.

 

It looks sensible, and the non-exemption approach has nothing wrong with it, except that as a simplification, is is likely to backfire by requiring a lower minimum standard, but a complex series of higher standards added, causing more complexity. For example, only a minor medical required to fly, but then a complexity of successive higher levels of medical depending on apparent risk, with the responsibility and litigation risk of the medicals hopefully passed to a medical profession...who have well-founded and painful experiences of such responsibility being foisted on them. So it may come to pass legally, but it may not work in practice. Likewise, the reference to the PGPA Act made me wonder if it would not be possible to flick pass the funding & responsibility issue as easily under the FMA Act.

 

If most of this occurs, CASA will then hand off the administration of the legislation & regulation to a number of organisations that then perform the hack work of licensing and registration.

 

But if the organisation they delegate stuffs up big time, they still authorised it. You can't outsource responsibility. And pushing the financial relationship off elsewhere, and pretending they can limit their own responsibility by indemnification is fantasy. If their indemnifications are effective, why then did they settle the the Carol Smith case?

 

I don't think the paper was subtle. It stinks of sophistry. The high point for me was that it is not a discussion paper, but a "paper in the nature of a discussion paper".

 

But for what it means for RA, I think the core principle must be the freedom/responsibility issue referred to. If we want to fly into controlled airspace, we will have to meet the reasonable requirements. And more weight means more fuel, and more mass at more velocity. RA has been pushing for more freedoms, and we will get hit with more responsibilities. The way to avoid regulation is to keep the possible consequences minimised, and to have CASA happy that they are not administering you.

 

CASA do not want the hard work of administration - they want someone else to do it under their rules. Any one else, so long as it gets done.

 

But once RA starts mimicking GA, then it is obvious that the responsibility and regulation should be to GA standards. So if we want higher weights, access to CTA, maybe night VFR, then we are GA in the risk and regulation area.

 

I assume the AUF exists because CASA were more scared of lunatics outside their control, than inside their control. This suggests to me that light and anonymous has a lot going for it, which would be consistent with the shift in popularity from ultralights to hang-gliders, and then to para-gliders.

 

dodo

 

 

[Teckair]

I assume the AUF exists because CASA were more scared of lunatics outside their control, than inside their control.

dodo

The problem is the AUF no longer exists it has been hi-jacked and destroyed.

 

 

[Oscar]

To class what Jonathan Aleck has written as 'sophistry', is denial in the extreme. Take it as a statement of CASA position or fall under the road-roller of designated authority.

 

CASA has already instituted the 'parallel' pilot certification regime - the RPL. Only a maintenance regime that is sufficiently similar to what exists for RAA-class operation needs to be established and RAA is redundant for all those operators who cannot give a fig about 'democratic' management of their flying affairs - from voting statistics, something of the order of 90% of RAA members.

 

Wake up and smell the (dwindling) 100LL, people. Too many of our members are dying in crashes, we cannot keep up with registration renewals, we have failed to adequately maintain observance with the compliance issues for registration, we are way behind on instituting an acceptable SMS. Our Tech.Managers have a current statistical life expectancy of three months. We have had three Presidents in the last eight months.

 

Which part of: 'F*ck, we are in deep trouble' do you not understand?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

But once RA starts mimicking GA, then it is obvious that the responsibility and regulation should be to GA standards.

dodo

Bit behind the game play here. starts mimicking GA?

 

 

[Oscar]

What is 'mimicking GA' supposed to mean? Compliance with the regulations is not 'mimicking GA' - it is adherence to the standards imposed by the authority that has the legislative power to impose those standards. We cannot deny CASA's legislative authority -if we want to change that, then we have to persuade the Federal Government to accept our positions.

 

CASA - and its authority - is a product of federal Government legislation. It did not suddenly start up and the federal Government said: 'oh.,well, just let these guys get on with it'. If you genuinely believe that democracy is at the heart of the rules we all live under: then this country democratically decided that CASA should exist. CASA is a fact of life - unless the nation decides, democratically, to remove its authority. RAA does not have the options of going in a path that differs from what CASA determines.

 

 

[dodo]

What is 'mimicking GA' supposed to mean?

Some or many RA aircraft are indistinguishable from GA in performance, usage, and so on. There isn't much ultralight at 600kg, and the usage is often for fast, comfortable transport, with good avionics and nav gear.

 

There is nothing wrong with this, but if there is little difference, then there will be little difference in regulation, which seems inevitable to me.

 

The converse is that light, low speed, low density aircraft away from populated areas present less risk to the uninvolved, and therefore, require less regulation.

 

dodo

 

dodo

 

 

[dodo]

To class what Jonathan Aleck has written as 'sophistry', is denial in the extreme

No, some of the arguments that can be inferred make sense, but as a piece of writing, or a train of logic, it is obscure, and is not a document an educated pilot would necessarily understand, let alone an educated non-pilot. Hardly a good basis for a discussion document.

 

No, some of the arguments lack both clarity and logic - for example, the paragraphs on competition, indemnity and funding.

 

And to repeat an example, could you make logical sense of this paragraph, and do you think an average interested member of the public could make sense of it?

 

"As a practical matter, however, and mindful of CASA’s overarching

 

commitment to safety, and our expectations of others in that connection, it is

 

reasonable to say that one of the most effective bulwarks against competition is to

 

strive to offer the very best product and services, on reasonable terms and at

 

affordable prices."

 

If written clearly, the discussion points, options and arguments would have been rather more useful. In the current form, obscure in both language and logic, it doesn't make a clear set of options available, nor is it accessible to the supposed target audience.

 

dodo