HOW SILLY IS THIS?

[cherk]

[quote="Methusala, post: 313903, member: 320

 

"it was pointed out that the large rego numbers arranged vertically down the rudder were missing a hyphen which again made that aircraft non-compliant. "

 

not too sure Vertical numbers comply,........ with or without the hyphen!

 

RAA Operations Manual , Section 4.09, para 2. spells it out fairly clearly.

 

 

[Methusala]

To Neil - (yes that is an hyphen!) I think that when replying to posts on this site you could show some manners and keep the provocative language for the pub. Some members should learn the art of nuance and reflect on exactly what is being highlighted in these events. Thank you, Don

 

 

[Powerin]

I've always found, in all sorts of situations, if you comply to the letter of the law with the stupid little things everything else goes smoother. Then the powers-that-be can easily see you are someone that has an eye for the details and is making an honest attempt to comply. For instance I once had an audit in my business and the auditor commented that I had some of the best record keeping he had seen. After that the rest of the compliance audit for work practices went very smoothly and any problems that were found were treated very leniently (and that's the very reason I keep the records well...despite hating it).

 

Don't bash your head against the legal brick wall. It never works. Know the requirements, give them what they want (however stupid) and then it's smiles all round.

 

 

[aro]

When I was preparing to register my VH - experimental aircraft, I had to get registration markings made. The regulations were very specific about the characteristics of the font etc. that are required. I spent a few weeks talking to local signwriters trying to find someone who could make the registration letters in a font that complied with the regulations. Eventually I wised up and went to someone who regularly made markings for aircraft. They told me, don't worry about the font, as long as it's the required size and legible nobody will care, and the majority of new GA aircraft don't comply with the requirements for registration markings anyway. OK... sigh.

 

It seems like in aviation you need to know which regulations you need to follow, and which to ignore. For those who say we must follow all the rules in the ops manual, when was the last time you elected a duty pilot, as required by the ops manual when more than one RAA aircraft operate from a field? When was the last time you reported to the duty pilot or CFI, as required when operating at a field that is not your home field?

 

I don't think all these rules were required by CASA. I think that half the RAA rules were written by someone who liked rules for their own sake, but since that's what RAA said they would do, and CASA approved it (You want to elect duty pilots? CASA has no objection) CASA now expect RAA to follow the rules RAA created.

 

 

[turboplanner]

For those who say we must follow all the rules in the ops manual, when was the last time you elected a duty pilot, as required by the ops manual when more than one RAA aircraft operate from a field? When was the last time you reported to the duty pilot or CFI, as required when operating at a field that is not your home field?

Very interesting, two very important public liability risk management factors seem to have been set up by someone who knew what he was doing, but have been buried for years - so there is a requirement for the CFI or Duty Pilot to manage duty of care. I wonder where this will lead to now that it's been brought to light?

 

 

[Powerin]

My point is this: rego numbers, rego stickers and placards are the most visible part of your ability to follow the rules.

 

Imagine a CASA inspector is wandering down the flight line at a fly in. He sees two identical planes, one with the correct sized numbers in the right spot, clearly visible rego sticker and placards of the approved type. On the other plane the numbers are the wrong size and in the wrong position (such as vertical on the fin - check ops manual section 4.09), the rego sticker can't be seen and the placards are unreadable. The inspector thinks to himself- "This pilot can't even get the simple stuff right....I wonder what else is wrong"?

 

Which pilot do you think is more likely to score a ramp check?

 

 

[Teckair]

I wonder where this will lead to now that it's been brought to light?

Nowhere would be my guess, at an airfield where I am the CFI of a flying school I was forced out of the air by a pilot conducting illegal flying. This was reported to the then Ops Manager and CEO but nothing was done as it was my word against his.

 

 

[aro]

Imagine a CASA inspector is wandering down the flight line at a fly in. He sees two identical planes, one with the correct sized numbers in the right spot, clearly visible rego sticker and placards of the approved type. On the other plane the numbers are the wrong size and in the wrong position (such as vertical on the fin - check ops manual section 4.09), the rego sticker can't be seen and the placards are unreadable. The inspector thinks to himself- "This pilot can't even get the simple stuff right....I wonder what else is wrong"?

Why would this apply to RAA but not to GA e.g. Experimental?

 

 

[aro]

Very interesting, two very important public liability risk management factors seem to have been set up by someone who knew what he was doing, but have been buried for years - so there is a requirement for the CFI or Duty Pilot to manage duty of care. I wonder where this will lead to now that it's been brought to light?

I'm not sure whether you are serious or trying to wind me up... According to the ops manual, the duty pilot has the authority to control and direct operations of recreational aircraft. How does this work e.g. if you have GA and RAA aircraft operating from the same field? What about if you flying in from elsewhere, and someone starts directing your operations over the radio? How will it work? As far as I know, the only people with the authority to control and direct aircraft operations are ATC. The duty pilot also has the authority to ground aircraft or pilots. What happens if in Teckair's case he grounded the aircraft - as a CFI he theoretically has this authority for all RAA aircraft that operate from the field.

 

And if you consider it a public liability risk management measure, then presumably a CFI or duty pilot can be held responsible for all RAA operations that happen at their field, and could be held liable for failing to prevent some activity that resulted in an accident. Indeed, perhaps any RAA pilots could be held liable, if there was more than one aircraft operating and they failed to elect a duty pilot who otherwise would have had the responsibility and authority to control the activity?

 

This seems to be a hangover from the days when aircraft would literally be flying from a field, below 500 feet and not crossing roads etc. In that case, it makes sense. In the current operations, no.

 

 

[Powerin]

Why would this apply to RAA but not to GA e.g. Experimental?

The same principle applies everywhere! Whether you are undergoing a chemical safety/residue audit as I was above, or a tax audit, or driving a car down the highway with a broken brake light or a driving a truck with an overhanging load. If you get the basic rules wrong you just draw attention to yourself.

 

 

[aro]

The same principle applies everywhere! Whether you are undergoing a chemical safety/residue audit as I was above, or a tax audit, or driving a car down the highway with a broken brake light or a driving a truck with an overhanging load. If you get the basic rules wrong you just draw attention to yourself.

I was specifically talking about registration numbers/letters. As I said, I spent a few weeks annoying sign writers with questions about fonts, before someone who does them specifically for aviation told me as long as they are big enough and legible nobody will care. Nobody refers to the specifications in the regulations. Look at any newish GA aircraft (Cessna etc) and see whether their registration letters comply with the specifics of the regulations.

 

 

[Methusala]

"SAFE SKIES FOR ALL"

 

It seems to me that a few of us on this site have fallen for the "big lie" strategy. The motto quoted above is from the home page of CASA's web site. I would love somebody to explain to me how including an hyphen in vertically arranged ID numbers (BTW this is the accepted manner of displaying when the fuselage is a 150mmm round tube), how this is going to contribute to flight safety. My point is that we are being led around like a pack of dumb sheep AND LOVING IT! Don

 

 

[M61A1]

My point is this: rego numbers, rego stickers and placards are the most visible part of your ability to follow the rules.Imagine a CASA inspector is wandering down the flight line at a fly in. He sees two identical planes, one with the correct sized numbers in the right spot, clearly visible rego sticker and placards of the approved type. On the other plane the numbers are the wrong size and in the wrong position (such as vertical on the fin - check ops manual section 4.09), the rego sticker can't be seen and the placards are unreadable. The inspector thinks to himself- "This pilot can't even get the simple stuff right....I wonder what else is wrong"?

 

Which pilot do you think is more likely to score a ramp check?

I agree that this stuff is entirely irrelevant to that actual airworthiness of the aircraft, but I suspect it to be more to do with arse covering, should one end up in front of a magistrate, having the correct placard, so that the passengers family trying to sue you/RAA, can't use it as an excuse, etc.

 

 

[frank marriott]

[This seems to be a hangover from the days when aircraft would literally be flying from a field, below 500 feet and not crossing roads etc. In that case, it makes sense. In the current operations, no.]

 

Agree

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't know about loving it. It might be a case of giving up expecting anything better or different. Nev

 

 

[aro]

It seems to me that a few of us on this site have fallen for the "big lie" strategy. The motto quoted above is from the home page of CASA's web site. I would love somebody to explain to me how including an hyphen in vertically arranged ID numbers (BTW this is the accepted manner of displaying when the fuselage is a 150mmm round tube), how this is going to contribute to flight safety.

I think one of the lies is that these rules are required by CASA. I think RAA (AUF) wrote the rules, CASA just expect RAA to follow the rules RAA wrote and said they would follow.

 

Compare the registration markings required for GA aircraft to those required for RAA. If RAA changed their requirements to align with GA requirements, would CASA object?

 

This is one reason when given the choice, I registered my aircraft VH experimental not RAA. Less rules and less bureaucracy under CASA, not more. I am not currently regretting that decision.

 

 

[facthunter]

It is stated by CASA somewhere that the RAAus will never have to use rules more restrictive/stringent than apply to VH registered planes. Nev

 

 

[aro]

But if RAA write their own rules that are more restrictive than CASA rules, CASA would quite reasonably expect them to operate by them.

 

 

[facthunter]

Since they have to audit what RAAus do, there should be opportunities to point out the error. They do this when inspecting a small business jet ( AOC holders) organisation, so why would RAAus be any different.? There should be MORE need to check these matters as RAAus is acting under a delegated authority on behalf of the CASA. Nev.

 

 

[rankamateur]

It is stated by CASA somewhere that the RAAus will never have to use rules more restrictive/stringent than apply to VH registered planes. Nev

I wish they would hurry up and apply that direction with regard to underwing numbers, before I go to the expense and trouble. How often does a plane fly over that is low enough to read them anyway? Just rules for the sake of exerting power.

 

 

[facthunter]

Just inefficient bureaucracy, more likely. The right arm wouldn't know what the left one is doing. Plenty of instances occur like that. Nev

 

 

[Powerin]

...how this is going to contribute to flight safety?

It's not. Correctly mounting the number plate, or correctly placing your rego sticker on a car doesn't contribute to road safety either. But you're going to get pinged if you don't. So you just do it. Why not for your plane too?

I'm not having a go at you, I agree with most things you've said. But them's the rules. Some agencies will interpret them more strictly than others. It's not going to do you any good to fight against them, you'll just burst a blood vessel. Instead, lobby to get the stupid rules changed.

 

 

[storchy neil]

I stand to be corrected how many instuctors use the trial instruction form in short TIF before taking up a new student

 

as one off the old blokes god rest his soul said to me when the ops manual for recreational flying was written they had to make things look good to CASSA and now because off some idiots and imbersiles not doing as stated in our manuals we are getting full payback aint pay back a bitch neil

 

 

[M61A1]

But if RAA write their own rules that are more restrictive than CASA rules, CASA would quite reasonably expect them to operate by them.

I see this sort of thing a lot in the civilian defence contract industry. They have a generic framework that say's you must have a system to comply with certain operations, and almost always, the contractor's people draw up a process that is unnecessarily restrictive, and then they get pinged in an audit because they didn't comply with their own process. Sometimes they get smart enough to relax/broaden the process, but still comply.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't wish to interrupt the entertainment, but there is a simple solution.

 

Either the signage is specified by CASA or RAA

 

If it's CASA then you have to comply with it.

 

If it's RAA, well who owns RAA? Hint; I must have said it 30 times already

 

RAA members make the Rules of RAA

 

It's as simple as that; if a regulation is not practical, then it should be changed to a practical basis.

 

All that requires is a little less apathy.