Part 61 delayed?

[DonRamsay]

We should all be up in arms that the Board allowed itself to be bullied by CASA into submitting the Ops Manual to CASA without the Members being given the chance to even comment. Once CASA has accepted the Ops Manual getting it changed will be all but impossible. Same goes for the Tech Manual.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

It's the RAA way Don.

 

 

[facthunter]

Bull$#it tornado. As far as you are concerned the RAAus does nothing right. Change the record. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

They keep stumbling from one screw up to the next, they deserve the criticism. Justify the ops/tech manual being submitted to CASA without members chance to review it.

 

Save yourself some heart ache Keep it brief.

 

 

[facthunter]

If they were pressured, it is not their fault then really is it. Read between the lines. Have YOU ever dealt with CASA? Nev

 

 

[coljones]

CASA probably said "do it within the next 4 years!" So after sitting around for 4 years RAA board and staff responded but only after CASA did a big brother. Is CASA as pure as the driven snow? - probably not but it has been RAA sitting around doing god knows what that dropped the bundle. Who is to blame for the Ops manual Cockup (and others) - entirely RAA.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

c'mon Col the RAA would never to do too little, too late. Don't be a basher

 

 

[DonRamsay]

There is no question that RAA was put in a very difficult position by CASA but that was only after CASAs patience was thoroughly exhausted. Tizzard was hired to revamp the Ops Manual around 4 years ago. Runciman, Reid and Middleton let Tizzard off the hook. The current Executive are not the villains here but I wish they had tried a tad harder to get a NPRM approach accepted by CASA. I do understand that it might not have been an option at this late stage.

 

We are suffering the pain from four bloody years of inaction.

 

 

[poteroo]

We should all be up in arms that the Board allowed itself to be bullied by CASA into submitting the Ops Manual to CASA without the Members being given the chance to even comment. Once CASA has accepted the Ops Manual getting it changed will be all but impossible. Same goes for the Tech Manual.

Have to disagree with you there Col. We employ qualified people in Operations and they are more than capable of preparing an Ops Manual without asking every last member for their opinion or approval. How 'democratic' do we want RAAus to be? Someone has to make decisions, and in a tight situation - I expect the senior staff to make them. If members hadn't expressed opinion on the content of the 'old' Ops Manual up to a few months ago - exactly when were they intending to do so?

 

 

 

Any Ops Manual is always going to be a 'work-in-progress' because that's how you keep the organisation dynamic and responsive. I don't think CASA is going to block sound recommendations for Ops Manual changes which will always be in the interests of safety and efficiency.

 

 

 

happy days,

 

 

[fly_tornado]

poteroo have you been asleep for the last 3 years? google RAA registration shutdown and explain how that happened

 

 

[DrZoos]

I cant imagine how difficult a job that Ops Manual must be with CASA standing over you with a big authoritarian stick and some members wanting open democracy and consultation. Dammed if you do and dammed if you dont. One of the reasons govts spend so long and so much money doing anything is because often the consultation process beforehand takes longer and costs more then the actual process they are working on. Im not saying its a waste of time or money, but one needs to consider what is really involved once you throw something out to 9000+ members for input, how that will affect timelines and whether the members inputs are really going to change what CASA requires.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

hang on, we all get to read the ops manual after its released. We should have the right to comment, its still a democracy!

 

 

[coljones]

So it is OK to bash CASA about open and transparent democracy but it is not OK to lift the carpet that RAA uses to hide the dirt.

 

There has been no guidelines or precis of the changes sought in the Ops manual nor the intended direction direction of the changes. What is so secret about the draft Ops Manual that it cannot be released.

 

I have some faith is the staff and the current executive but the track record of the board in managing the company and its obligation to the members has been less than stellar.

 

I doubt that what the members want is at the front of the boards mind but in a desperate attempt to seize defeat from the jaws of victory they are doing CASA's bidding, where CASA's bidding is borne of of frustration at the tardiness of the RAA Board. Continued bashing of CASA, in this case, is inappropriate.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Have to disagree with you there Col. We employ qualified people in Operations and they are more than capable of preparing an Ops Manual without asking every last member for their opinion or approval. How 'democratic' do we want RAAus to be? Someone has to make decisions, and in a tight situation - I expect the senior staff to make them. If members hadn't expressed opinion on the content of the 'old' Ops Manual up to a few months ago - exactly when were they intending to do so?  

 

Any Ops Manual is always going to be a 'work-in-progress' because that's how you keep the organisation dynamic and responsive. I don't think CASA is going to block sound recommendations for Ops Manual changes which will always be in the interests of safety and efficiency.

 

 

 

happy days,

We have good people in both Ops and Tech. They can't help but approach the task from the perspective of their job. I believe the Ops and Tech manuals would be enhanced by a contribution from experienced, qualified members. In the end it is only advice from the members. CASA listen to submissions to NPRMs but are not obliged to accept every submission. Same is true for RAA. Neither CASA nor RAA run a democracy where rules are concerned - apart of course from the RAA Constitution.

 

But, CASA has an *obligation* to seek input from the industry and so does RAA from its members.

 

In terms of carved in stone or open to change, RAA Board wanted to get rid of the requirement for an aircraft condition report when an aircraft changes hands but CASA decided NO and they would not allow the requirement to be deleted from the Tech Manual. The moral is - be very careful what you put in these manuals because it could be impossible to change later.

 

 

[Oscar]

Don - while I fully support your general statement that people need to be very careful what is put into manuals because of the future consequences, in the case of condition reports when an aircraft changes hands, I believe that there is a damn good reason why that should in fact stay IN the Ops. Manual. I refer specifically to the legal trail of responsibility for the condition of the aircraft.

 

It's not good enough to simply apply Caveat Emptor because relatively few aircraft purchasers have the requisite knowledge to be able to inspect every part of their purchase and determine whether it is, in fact, kosher according to the documentation they will (or SHOULD) have received. Further, the Log Book/s may not reveal the whole story of the aircraft in an intelligible fashion: I can state positively that a detailed inspection of the aircraft of which I am a co-owner during its rebuilding from a written-off crash have shown that a whole swathe of entries were fundamentally inadequate to properly document its history. Obfuscation by omission of information relevant to a new owner's appreciation of the aircraft's condition is entirely possible.

 

A full and professional inspection - carried out by a commercially disinterested party - is at the least, a partial confirmation that the aircraft is generally in accordance with its specifications and required condition (A/Ds up-to-date etc.). I make no statement whatever here about the situation of the sale of the Sting that crashed near Goulburn with a double fatality concerning the validity of a condition report supplied by the vendor; the Coroner's Report on that crash has certain statements that make that situation clear. ( http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.recreationalflying.com%2Fimages%2FSmith%2520and%2520Guthrie%2520Finding%2520-%2520Final.doc&ei=3LmmUqKRFM3TkAWgn4DgDQ&usg=AFQjCNGM2DoUc4oFTxfiyw141_kLZuo3DA&bvm=bv.57799294,d.dGI )

 

If one reads the Coroner's Report, it is abundantly clear that just the supply of documentation to a prospective purchaser of an aircraft may not be a sufficient guarantee of its current condition - especially if that documentation is not reliable. A decent and professional inspection of the aircraft's condition is - at the very least - useful additional information. It COULD save lives - and it COULD indicate where responsibility for out-of-condition situations should reside.

 

By all means, have the formal waiving of a Condition Report by the purchaser written into the Ops. Manual - thus allowing a fall-back position of 'I take full and complete responsibility for the aircraft I will purchase' to be applied. That would allow prospective owners with the confidence of their own skills and experience to find and rectify any deficiencies. In our case, we understood completely that we would be stripping down, repairing etc. every nut and bolt, every square inch and every component of the aircraft under the watchful eye of an L2, the two aero-engineers involved with the development and structural justification of the aircraft concerned and the person who built the engine. We had the opportunity of accessing in effect 'source documentation' regarding this aircraft - indeed one of those engineers flew the damn thing for testing purposes (it's in his log-book) and the other was responsible for the production of the certification documentation for VH-registration!

 

However, we are in a uniquely fortunate position - few aircraft purchasers have ready access to these impeccable sources. At the very least, a good Condition Report provides some assurance that the aircraft will, in fact, perform to the documentation of the POH, and further, that it has been maintained to specification. You cannot register a car that doesn't have a current certificate of road worthiness - why should aircraft not have at least the same basic level of confidence applied?

 

 

[DrZoos]

hang on, we all get to read the ops manual after its released. We should have the right to comment, its still a democracy!

Actually its not a democracy. The elections are democratic, but there is no requirement on any employee or board member to put everything out to a vote or for feedback. That would make it unworkable.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Im pretty sure their called members representatives and their job is to represent the members.... among other things

 

Andy

 

P.S don't read into that, that im suggesting we need them to consult on every possible decision, but it would be good if they got around the members in their areas so that they are representing members, not just themselves

 

 

[djpacro]

The interesting thing about Part 61 is that many of the benefits expected are dependent upon new rules which will be in Part 91. Or perhaps a series of exemptions to current regs? No sign of a new Part 91 since the diabolical draft over two years ago.