What should the relationship between RAAus and CASA be?

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Today, it seems like a lot of things aviation related, that we have picked extreme positions and people want to live in one corner or the other.

 

For example we have a deed of arrangement between us and CASA that like all Deeds has a set of exchanged promises, We agree to do X (and Y and Z and AA and BB......) and they will do W (pay us a paltry sum.....)

 

So, given that the relationship between CASA and RAAus is based on a contract what should the relationship between the 2 parties be?

 

As I see it at one extreme we do only what the contract says and support CASA as they prove we have done what we said or not, but not one more thing and if we never talk to them that's a good thing

 

Or the opposing view that says the contract is there because the courts and the government need those artefacts in place to clearly and unambiguously state what must be done and by whom, but with that said...and the contract put away in the bottom draw unless we need to refresh ourselves on what we have to do, then our relationship should be collaborative and helpful as much as possible. We should as much as possible disclose our concerns and problems relying on the fact that CASA doesn't have our destruction as its no 1 must do thing and will probably enjoy working with us..... Which is not to say that if as the regulator they need to hit us with a stick they wont, being a regulator means the stick isn't optional.....

 

So what do people think? How should CASA and RAAus interact in 2013?

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

A subject close to my heart or someplace. Being serious this is THE most CRITICAL thing for us to get right. With Tizzard we had it as a cosy palsy thing which goes no place. Drinky's on Friday and first names basis. Doesn't work.

 

It has to be ARM's LENGTH. and based on a document that spells it out. It has to be non confrontational working from a position of co-operation with no hidden agenda's on both sides.

 

CASA's position is easy in the simplest form. IT is the AUTHORITY. That is obvious so it maintains a standard. How it does THAT is the big question.

 

The RAAus is compromised, as it has to act as the authority with the members who use it to fly. It also has an implicit duty to act in the best interests of the members collectively and as individuals.

 

It will walk a tightrope at times performing this function.

 

The CASA uses the RAAus to carry out duties for it. It has to pay for that and indemnify the organisation as well as it can't contract out of that responsibility it performs under government legislation. That will do for a starter. Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

We need To be able to conduct our own affairs with a minimum of CASA interference. CASA bases their surveillance frequency with most aircraft maintenance orgs and other operators, on their performance history. If an organisation has lost an aircraft recently, then CASA will be a frequent visitor, never lost one at all, then you'll be lucky to see them once a year. They seem to work on the squeaky wheel gets the oil theory.

 

RAA has been squeaking a fair bit in recent years so we get four surveillance visits, and lots of inconvenience for members.

 

RAA is very capable of managing the operation of recreational aircraft. It has been doing it exclusively for a lot of years now, and has the most experience of anyone in Australia. CASA needs to make themselves scarce and let the RAA get on with doing what it generally does well..................Maj.......

 

 

[turboplanner]

The four surveillance visits resulted from one audit, which may have been for the reasons you outline, but then a failure of that audit, then another failure of the same audit, then another failure of the same audit, then sanctions, with an audit due to see whether registration is yet under control, so the focus needs to be simply on administrators doing the job they were supposed to be doing in the first place.

 

If the registrations had been cleaned up quickly, there would have been no reason for CASA to have issued follow up Audits. I've previously said that CASA's action stops non-compliant aircraft getting into the air until they are made compliant.

 

However, the delays have been getting longer and longer, and unless this is reversed, you could see a situation where there was no catch up and in fact a blow out of unregistered aircraft, with an increasing temptation to fly them, so I could understand where CASA may have to step in with more force.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you take a long view of the CASA - RAA relationship, a situation where a government department allows something not in accordance with its Acts, provided the people involved do what the department says is not a good situation.

 

Firstly it removes the protection of changes having to go through two houses of parliament, and replaces it with the stroke of a pen.

 

Secondly, the decisions under which it can take place are made my public servants who might be good or might be bad.

 

Thirdly department rule usually means that its regulations grow and grow and grow, often made as the result of a single issue.

 

Victoria's Transport Regulation Board played a similar role to CASA, and one of its duties was to oversee the specifications and safety of Omnibuses and Coaches, Omnibuses being designed for schools buses and route buses which just carried commuters for a short time, and coaches where charter or tours were conducted, and which had luggage capacity and even freight compartments.

 

Country school bus operators agitated to have luggage bins and coach seats in their school buses and the TRB agreed to this, subject to certain dimensions and conditions of operation.

 

Over the years the regulations became so restrictive and unrelated to operations, that as a result of this and similar draconian restrictions on where trucks could carry freight, the TRB was shut down, we went back to complying with a better Act, and the TRB has never been missed.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I suppose it's the old story,......the aircraft won't fly until the weight of the paperwork and regulations equal the weight of the aircraft. Once again CASA needs to butt out and let the RAA do what it knows how to do best. Our numbers of new members and aircraft registrations were both in positive territory, and growing until CASA came through the door, to be replaced by the mess we have currently where we are loosing members in droves and hundreds of aircraft are nothing more than hangar queens or being operated illegally.

 

CASA is NOT an organisation that promotes the positive growth of aviation in Australia.,.......period, RAAus used to be.......................Maj...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good one Maj, if you keep publicly telling CASA to butt out and they do you're out of the air!

 

 

[johnm]

Not to familiar with all this regulatory stuff but Maj raises some redeeming points about RAA

 

.................... the following has liberal lashings of optomism:

 

- perhaps RAA is good at what it does - positive outlook - hog tied membership - effective registration (a lot will burr up re rego) etc etc

 

- perhaps we undervalue RAA and what it achieves

 

- perhaps this should be reinforced more when dealing with CASA

 

- perhaps CASA knows this anyway (in for a penny, in for a pound ............... type of thing)

 

- perhaps RAA is in a good place to negotiate a better position with CASA

 

 

[Captain]

............. and let the RAA do what it knows how to do best............

That looks like a stretch to me Ross.

 

Until this year RAA had a dysfunctional board, a similar or worse executive, antiquated & inefficient and partially inoperable systems and a proven ability to fail numerous consecutive audits even after being given notice.

 

The members lost confidence (as demonstrated at the Feb EGM) and I'm certain that the CASA did the same.

 

Now we have a much improved GM, a better Board, a better executive, a partially improved structure, slightly modified but still antiquated systems but are still failing the simple test of solving the registration backlog.

 

When you see the back area of the Canberra office the thing that RAA may do best is using manila folders in a paper system via a world class dust gathering compactus file, with various odd files lying around the place (witness Middleton magically "finding" about 250 extra aircraft Rego files lying out the back that nobody knew were there, immediately after the Feb EGM was over). RAA may only be best at that because nobody else is so antiquated and inefficient, as I don't know any company that has operated that way for 30 or 40 years, or since they discovered that alternative and more efficient computer systems had been developed.

 

Some members with whom I mix are still discussing what is their level of confidence in the present organisation, so just what is it that you think that RAA knows how best to do?

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[REastwood]

I think one of the problems that occur with any regulatory authority is where the enforcers (FOI's, Officers, Inspectors etc) will enforce an opinion or policy upon an individual or business that is a personal interpretation of the law. It is up to RA-Aus to know the rules and regulations and make sure they are followed, but RA-Aus must also stand up to the regulator when they try to enforce something that is additional or different to the regulations. The relationship should be conducted on a professional and equal level. If someone from CASA starts making demands for some action or policy that is in addition to the regulations, RA-Aus needs to stand up to them and say "No!". In the past it appears that the Board and Management team have been sub-serviant to CASA, and the operations team are making "policies" beyond, and more prescriptive, than the regulations require, possibly at the behest of CASA officials.

 

If RA-Aus is to continue, then it must become a Professional, knowledgeable, forceful organisation. It must work with CASA but not be bullied or brow-beaten by them. It must work for the members, not the regulator. It must do what is best for the members within the regulatory framework, and therefore it must understand the regulations. It must lobby politicians, use the media and present to the world as a coherent, sensible organisation. It must act quickly against it's members that do not uphold the standard, and foster those that do.

 

Can the current system (Board members, elected staff, management) do this? Or will RA-Aus just become another arm of CASA, with the ensuing issues, problems and personalities for which they are currently under the spotlight?

 

 

[turboplanner]

If that was the case, I would agree with all your words, but perhaps the best place for you start to see what really has been going on are the four Audit Reports.

 

I'm sure most members, after reading the first one, would have been embarrassed, and very keen to ensure there wasn't a second.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Good one Maj, if you keep publicly telling CASA to butt out and they do you're out of the air!

Hardly likely Turbo..........................

 

 

[turboplanner]

No they'll ignore you, but you should be aware of the consequences - we hang by a very thin thread. If the Minister decides that perhaps it's safer for CASA to cease providing RAA with an exception to the Act, that will be it - no explanation needed, no recourse.

 

These discussions are great, but it pays to actually obtain and read all the documents.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Turbs you would do well to read post #10 as our friend EAstwood has the right idea about how we should handle our relationship with CASA........................Maj.....

 

 

[turboplanner]

I did - see my answer #11. Have you read the actual Audit Reports?

 

I'm not being critical of you; putting it another way, having seen your aircraft and how you conducted yourself around it, I would have a 100% expectation that if a snap inspection was done, everything would be perfectly in order, if not above what was expected.

 

When I take out those Audit reports, I just shake my head in disbelief that those things have been allowed to happen.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

If CASA were to mandate the Drivers Licence Medical (Aviation) for Recreational Aviation, replace the Pilot Certificate with the RPL (issued once and not annually renewable), registered recreational aircraft once with no renewals and annual/100 hourly airworthiness checks the only role left to RA-Aus would be as an advocacy.

 

There is not much CASA has to do to make RA-Aus superfluous. If you don't want that to happen then you have to respect the reasonable wishes of the 400 kg gorilla.

 

Sometimes I wonder why they bother . . . I imagine the director must sometimes wonder as well.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

If CASA were to mandate the Drivers Licence Medical (Aviation) for Recreational Aviation, replace the Pilot Certificate with the RPL (issued once and not annually renewable), registered recreational aircraft once with no renewals and annual/100 hourly airworthiness checks the only role left to RA-Aus would be as an advocacy.There is not much CASA has to do to make RA-Aus superfluous. If you don't want that to happen then you have to respect the reasonable wishes of the 400 kg gorilla.

 

Sometimes I wonder why they bother . . . I imagine the director must sometimes wonder as well.

At that point Don we would all be GA again with huge maintenance bills, useless maintenance releases, totally long extended training regimes producing few pilots each year, boring Aero Clubs, and pilots who think they had a big year only affording 5 hours flying ! .......which is exactly what we changed when we started flying ULs years ago.

 

Then we could send the 400 kg. gorilla a jar of Vaselene a week with the request that he use it, and just do us gently please.......that is if there is any one around left to do !..............Maj.........

 

 

[DonRamsay]

At that point Don we would all be GA again with huge maintenance bills, useless maintenance releases, totally long extended training regimes producing few pilots each year, boring Aero Clubs, and pilots who think they had a big year only affording 5 hours flying ! .......which is exactly what we changed when we started flying ULs years ago.Then we could send the 400 kg. gorilla a jar of Vaselene a week with the request that he use it, and just do us gently please.......that is if there is any one around left to do !..............Maj.........

Certainly not advocating RAA into GA just saying it wouldn't take much to achieve and administration would be dramatically reduced.

 

The RPL should be much the same to obtain as a Pilot Cert as that is the way it is now. Build it yourself and maintain it yourself as per SAAA. The only thing missing is the L2 maintenance and losing that would be very bad. I don't have a lot of faith in L1 maintenance with no training required.

 

 

[facthunter]

The CASA can't mandate the RPL for anybody. It is a short cut that works for some, and not suitable for all. and the default is to class 2 or class1. That's the LAW and it must be applied equally.. Not allowing the owner to work on their own plane will be a retrograde step which would all but finish this movement off. Done properly it would be the SAFEST form of maintenance. it is not compulsory if one doesn't like it go and have someone else do it for you. I have trouble getting someone I trust to work on my cars, and I NEVER let them work on my motorbikes. Likewise my plane. I fly a plane I understand how it is built and I monitor it's condition. The flyer of a plane is well motivated to have it work safely. This is the basis of the homebuilt movement. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Some more work needs to be done on the RPL. (I'm not suggesting it can be in the short term for RAA members)

 

The PPL is still by far the best option unless you have a particular medical issue, and are prepared to restrict yourself to an odd set of requirements.

 

In some respects, in terms of direct comparison with the RA Pilot Certificate, it is discriminatory.

 

The situation is quite complicated, so beware, go over the previous related threads on this site before getting yourself hung up on a barbed wire fence with the family jewells on the barb and no way to get off.

 

 

[facthunter]

The PPL (or the current RAAus one) are the ONLY ones, if you HAVE a particular medical issue. I don't think the RPL will be improved but I hope I am wrong. Problem is the RPL is basic ROAD car, RTA etc licence but with a few hard exceptions where the existence of a condition rules you OUT. It's a tick all squares or nothing approach and doesn't involve AVMED where you can present your case and have a conditional licence issued (IF necessary) Ie spectacles must be worn when exercising the privileges of the licence It (the RPL) is probably open to abuse as it trusts the applicant to make truthful statements and suits those who don't go near a doctor when they feel crook so don't show any problems in their medical history. There are plenty of ATPL's out there issued to people who have had multiple by pass operations who could not pass a RPL Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Those people will be the first to be sued FH, so they're just playing a game of Russian Roulette.

 

The GA guys seem to be of the same opinion as you regarding losing the AVMED protection with the road licence.

 

I'm not sure how this can be progressed within CASA in the current climate, but it certainly isn't much chop if you do have a medical condition.

 

 

[coljones]

The PPL (or the current RAAus one) are the ONLY ones, if you HAVE a particular medical issue. I don't think the RPL will be improved but I hope I am wrong. Problem is the RPL is basic ROAD car, RTA etc licence but with a few hard exceptions where the existence of a condition rules you OUT. It's a tick all squares or nothing approach and doesn't involve AVMED where you can present your case and have a conditional licence issued (IF necessary) Ie spectacles must be worn when exercising the privileges of the licence It (the RPL) is probably open to abuse as it trusts the applicant to make truthful statements and suits those who don't go near a doctor when they feel crook so don't show any problems in their medical history. There are plenty of ATPL's out there issued to people who have had multiple by pass operations who could not pass a RPL Nev

You are mixing the RPL "Recreation Pilot Licence" with the "recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate", a certificate from a medical practitioner to the effect that the holder meets the modified Austroads medical standards.

The "recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate" is available to all CASA Licence holders who don't want to go the class medical route.

 

The "recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate" is a superset of the standard commercial driver licence medical. The testing is carried out by a medical practitioner using knowledge, testing and professional assessment and is not a tick a box effort carried out by the applicant (like the RAA medical).

 

With the "recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate" there are threshold tests, largely pass/fail and the failure of any will require the applicant to go the Class medical route through a DAME and in certain critical conditions the issue of the class medical will require control conditions eg a safety pilot.

 

If you only have a "recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate" you are restricted in the weight (max 1500Kg) of plane you can fly and the number of passengers (1) and other restrictions but if you have a safety pilot, with a full class medical, rated to fly the plane you have more privileges.

 

The RPL is not predicated on a "recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate". One can have a class medical with an RPL. Which medical you have limits or liberates what you can do.

 

The Recreation Pilots Licence (RPL) is basically the old restricted licence or GFPT with additional modules you can add and use til you get to a full PPL. For most RAA certificate holders there will be full consideration of the certificate and radio authorisation and the cross country endo if they seek to claim an RPL. Since RAA doesn't (yet) have controlled airspace or controlled aerodrome endorsements these will have to be earned under the CASA rules. In order for an RAA cert holder to gain an RPL they must undertake a CASA flight review which will review the depth of knowledge to the CASA depth in the Part 61 Manual of standards.

 

It is anyone's guess if the average RAA pilot will make it across the line with the required flight review. There will always be some overzealous testing officers and equally some below par RAA certificate holders.

 

We are about to live in interesting times.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

You are mixing the RPL "Recreation Pilot Licence" with the "recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate", a certificate from a medical practitioner to the effect that the holder meets the modified Austroads medical standards.The "recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate" is available to all CASA Licence holders who don't want to go the class medical route.

 

The "recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate" is a superset of the standard commercial driver licence medical. The testing is carried out by a medical practitioner using knowledge, testing and professional assessment and is not a tick a box effort carried out by the applicant (like the RAA medical).

 

With the "recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate" there are threshold tests, largely pass/fail and the failure of any will require the applicant to go the Class medical route through a DAME and in certain critical conditions the issue of the class medical will require control conditions eg a safety pilot.

 

If you only have a "recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate" you are restricted in the weight (max 1500Kg) of plane you can fly and the number of passengers (1) and other restrictions but if you have a safety pilot, with a full class medical, rated to fly the plane you have more privileges.

 

The RPL is not predicated on a "recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate". One can have a class medical with an RPL. Which medical you have limits or liberates what you can do.

 

The Recreation Pilots Licence (RPL) is basically the old restricted licence or GFPT with additional modules you can add and use til you get to a full PPL. For most RAA certificate holders there will be full consideration of the certificate and radio authorisation and the cross country endo if they seek to claim an RPL. Since RAA doesn't (yet) have controlled airspace or controlled aerodrome endorsements these will have to be earned under the CASA rules. In order for an RAA cert holder to gain an RPL they must undertake a CASA flight review which will review the depth of knowledge to the CASA depth in the Part 61 Manual of standards.

 

It is anyone's guess if the average RAA pilot will make it across the line with the required flight review. There will always be some overzealous testing officers and equally some below par RAA certificate holders.

 

We are about to live in interesting times.

Col

All good info and thanks for supplying it, however there are those who don't give a hoot about the RPL, and will be quite happy to continue to fly under the RAAus banner and rating as we are doing right now, myself included. I like many others I'm sure, have already done the GA thing (Full PPL + NVFR) and went the RAA route to get away from all the additional regs and BS. Too costly for one, much nicer paying $20 an hour instead of $220 an hour, especially when you do around 100 hrs a year, instead of ten. Please don't try and push us in that direction....been there, done that...thanks but no thanks............Maj.....

 

 

[kgwilson]

What should the relationship between RA-Aus & CASA be? CASA & RA-Aus should get married. CASA being bigger, stronger & with a loud voice would wear the pants. Ra-Aus should with-hold nuptial privileges if things don't work out amicably. Hang on CASA already does that so it must wear the pants & the skirt at the same time. Bugger I thought I was on to something.