RAA Draft Ops Manual - any news?

[coljones]

I have patiently waited (and waited and waited) and I have even sent out a few emails to people who might (or should) know but no results.

 

Does anyone know what is happening with the Draft Ops Manual and when will the owners (us) be availed an opportunity to read, comment and accept it.

 

Or do we need a motion of censure at the forthcoming General Meeting at Temora to edge it out of the board?

 

Cheers and have a happy new year

 

Col

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Col, I believe it is it the hands of CASA currently, I will check on current status and post here when I find out..................Maj.......

 

 

[coljones]

Ross,

 

CASA puts up all its proposed rule changes to a notification process. Has RAA proposed to CASA that this occur with the draft Ops Manual? And, if not, why not? I can't see anything as commercial in confidence with this matter and the need for confidentiality.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Col, I don't believe the ops manual draft working group has been closed to member imput has it...?....haven 't there been updates posted on the RAA forum for members to access.....Maj...

 

 

[coljones]

Col, I don't believe the ops manual draft working group has been closed to member imput has it...?....haven 't there been updates posted on the RAA forum for members to access.....Maj...

Ross, if there is any info on the RAA website or in the members section it is extremely well hidden.

No, I don't know about the working group, its members or its progress. Middleton mentioned some changes during the meeting in Temora 2013. Since then there have been some other reference, on this site only, to it going to CASA but since then, nothing.

 

There have been some explicit emails to some members of the executive but no responses.

 

cheers

 

Col

 

 

[farri]

Does anyone know what is happening with the Draft Ops Manual and when will the owners (us) be availed an opportunity to read, comment and accept it. Col

That`s interesting! Didn`t think we (The Members) had any say about what goes into the Ops Manual! Certainly no choice about accepting it.

 

Edit: I`ve just got off the RA-Aus website. Coulkdn`t find anything about an Ops manual draft.

 

Frank.

 

 

[coljones]

In the CASA Briefing newsletter Jan2014 John McCormick was heard to say

 

"I understand the regulatory development process can at times seem cumbersome and drawn out. However, like many things in life, the devil is in the detail, and we must get the rules right. At times this means revisiting sets of rules to make improvements to ensure the right safety outcomes are being achieved with regulations that do not place inappropriate burdens on the aviation industry. It is largely feedback from aviation people and organisations that informs the review and improvement of rules and this was the case with important amendments made in December 2013."

 

 

 

CASA is prepared to share and listen - what is RAA trying to hide?

 

 

[Yenn]

Don't worry about CASA. They have spent ages updating the rules and the latest is that they stuffed up. There drug and alcohol testing ules have to be re written, because they were unworkable. Have a look on their web site for a laugh.

 

 

[poteroo]

In the CASA Briefing newsletter Jan2014 John McCormick was heard to say"I understand the regulatory development process can at times seem cumbersome and drawn out. However, like many things in life, the devil is in the detail, and we must get the rules right. At times this means revisiting sets of rules to make improvements to ensure the right safety outcomes are being achieved with regulations that do not place inappropriate burdens on the aviation industry. It is largely feedback from aviation people and organisations that informs the review and improvement of rules and this was the case with important amendments made in December 2013."

 

 

 

CASA is prepared to share and listen - what is RAA trying to hide?

If CASA had consulted effectively with the industry prior to dropping CASR Part 61 on us in 2013, it might have been a workable piece of regulation. Instead, they procrastinated until it became evident, even to themselves, that the document was messy, and the backing MoS wasn't at all adequate. In short - they presided over a stuff-up, and they did it all themselves! Then, in true CASA speak - they blamed the industry for it's lack of comprehension! Sure, McCormick can now spin the consultative doublespeak as much as he likes - but the industry realises that it's just the usual 'Canberra' smokescreen that's employed when the proverbial hits the fan. Industry is still waiting to hear when the consultative process begins, again, to try to develop a workable set of rules for Pt 61 - and nobody is holding their breath!

 

 

 

CASA in it's current form is no more receptive to industry opinion than it was 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago. Same ethos - just different faces!

 

 

 

To start blaming RAAus for not being inclusive with the development of the Ops Manual is bloody rich! As everyone knows, there has been a major shift of people through both the Board and the executive of RAAus. Ops are on their 4th Manager since 2007, so it's not been an organisation where the Ops people have been able to get on with other work such as Ops Manuals. With staff stability will come progress. Have faith.

 

 

 

happy days,

 

 

[coljones]

.... snip snip snip ..... 

 

To start blaming RAAus for not being inclusive with the development of the Ops Manual is bloody rich! As everyone knows, there has been a major shift of people through both the Board and the executive of RAAus. Ops are on their 4th Manager since 2007, so it's not been an organisation where the Ops people have been able to get on with other work such as Ops Manuals. With staff stability will come progress. Have faith.

 

 

 

happy days,

What is wrong with being inclusive? Are we to be worse than CASA or better?

 

I understand that we have issues at RAA but it only takes 5 minutes to bring the membership up to date.

 

The Tech team have been pretty open about where they are at and it is to be commended.

 

The state of the OPs Manual should be a topic for every Exec and Board Meeting and the release of that info together with the minutes of the RAA board meetings should be a matter of course. I don't understand why there is so much secrecy about the aims of the review of the manual and findings.

 

You cannot claim that you didn't know what was going to be in Part 61, it has been evident for years. the difficulty with Part 61 was in the Manual of Standards and how the FTFs were to implement them. But presuming that Part 61 and MOS were a crock doesn't hide the fact that CASA put them out there for comment and in the process copped all sorts of flack, forcing them to withdraw and reconsider.

 

It seems to me that RAA is either doing nothing with the Ops Manual or it is forging ahead but not telling anyone what it is up to with a view of dropping it in the members laps and then blaming CASA.

 

Rich? I stump up my $200 like everyone else, Poteroo. Are you getting more information for your $200 than me and the other 10,000 members? Perhaps you would like to share.

 

cheers

 

Col

 

 

[poteroo]

What is wrong with being inclusive? Are we to be worse than CASA or better?I understand that we have issues at RAA but it only takes 5 minutes to bring the membership up to date.

 

The Tech team have been pretty open about where they are at and it is to be commended.

 

The state of the OPs Manual should be a topic for every Exec and Board Meeting and the release of that info together with the minutes of the RAA board meetings should be a matter of course. I don't understand why there is so much secrecy about the aims of the review of the manual and findings.

 

You cannot claim that you didn't know what was going to be in Part 61, it has been evident for years. the difficulty with Part 61 was in the Manual of Standards and how the FTFs were to implement them. But presuming that Part 61 and MOS were a crock doesn't hide the fact that CASA put them out there for comment and in the process copped all sorts of flack, forcing them to withdraw and reconsider.

 

It seems to me that RAA is either doing nothing with the Ops Manual or it is forging ahead but not telling anyone what it is up to with a view of dropping it in the members laps and then blaming CASA.

 

Rich? I stump up my $200 like everyone else, Poteroo. Are you getting more information for your $200 than me and the other 10,000 members? Perhaps you would like to share.

 

cheers

 

CASA to blame for anything in the industry? Hell no - it's all our fault! Their 'consultative process' via online responses is only scratching the surface of the industrys' knowledge - more proactivity needed. And, if CASA ceased poaching all the RAAus Ops Managers - maybe then we'd see progress in matters such as Ops manuals and pilot training oversight etc.

 

Part 61 is setup for failure because very few ATO's, (Flight Examiners), are likely to continue without insurance - who needs the risk/liability? The need to test each and every rating at a review is going to see a massive dropout in ratings such as NVFR and Low Level. As stated, the MoS just doesn't cut it - eg, in the case of the Low Level Rating to be, the MoS shows the same inadequate 'syllabus' as currently given in CAO 29.10 for low level. Just calling it a rating - but with no improvement in the training or competencies is simply lazy.

 

My $200 buys the same Sportpilot as yours - except it arrives later! happy days,

 

Col

[motzartmerv]

Ross, if there is any info on the RAA website or in the members section it is extremely well hidden.l

If you log into the RAA website there is stacks of info there. Including, proposed ops manual changes.

 

 

[dodo]

If you log into the RAA website there is stacks of info there. Including, proposed ops manual changes.

Where? I can find very little.

The only thing I can find is http://www.raa.asn.au/2014/01/proposed-operations-manual-changes/

 

Is there more - either on the substance of the changes, or the detail?

 

dodo

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I think there was more a little while back, maybe they only show us one change at a time so we dont have coronary's!!

 

 

[dodo]

Disappointed!

 

 

dodo

 

 

[coljones]

I think there was more a little while back, maybe they only show us one change at a time so we dont have coronary's!!

Yes Motz, agreed. There has been many statements over a long time about proposed changes to the Ops Manual. That is part of the reason that Tizzard was brought in. Middleton mentioned changes at Temora last year but there has been no detail or statement of intent.

 

In the notice on the website it was said "Acting on a Board request, Operations have proposed changes to some Endorsements detailed in the next Operations Manual (Issue 7)" Which suggests to me that there is more than just a "Type Training" proposal.

 

Combine tailwheel & nosewheel endo?

 

remove the (unused) CTA/CTR endos?

 

Anything else?

 

Is RAA responding to letters and emails about this? No.

 

Is RAA being open and transparent. It would appear not.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Im not sure col. I know Jill is around the proposed changes having drafted them (or so I believe). Perhaps if you give her a call? At a recent audit she mentioned several changes that were drafted and that its in CASA's hands now, which we all know, but she certainly wasnt holding things close to her chest so to speak.

 

From memory, there was mention of a facility for experienced GA pilots to bypass some of the CFI requirements, removal of the nose wheel tailwheel thing.

 

Some changes to L1 requirements, a more in depth student record and formalisation of the syllabus, and a requirement for all CFI's to test on the same criteria.

 

That's what i recall, but please dont take it as Gospel as it was just idle chit chat., Give her a call im sure she will give you the skinny!!!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Transparency is a luxury we cannot afford in these troubled times, the RAA is doing a great job.

 

 

[coljones]

Ah!! info is slowly leaking out.

 

Jill, the Ops Man, mentioned, in the latest Sport Pilot - April, 2014, that the rules about controlled airspace will be removed in Version 7 of the Ops Manual. They may be inoperative because CASA won't give approval but that doesn't mean you remove it. What you do is apply pressure to CASA to approve it.

 

I think it is time the RAA Board got off its collective backsides and released the draft of the Ops Manual so we can see what other stuff (privileges) we are losing/ being given away.

 

 

[nong]

Truly silly to remove the controlled airspace syllabus from the Ops Manual.

 

John McCormick (CASA boss) has at last gone, so it is now a new ball game, with new possibilities....so, RAAus gives up !!!

 

And... Where is the syllabus for aerobatic training?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Last I heard (bit over a week ago) it was with the Board for approval. To hear it's now at CASA suggests the Board has either made some changes or "passed" it and it's back with CASA for final approval. In any case there is nothing stopping it's release to the members and it's become a bit of a joke that they have kept it secret for so long.

 

What is the board trying to hide? I don't care how long the board or the managers have been in place for. Enough is enough, either start being OPEN and HONEST with the members or find another board to sit on.

 

Maybe a member in Canberra can go into the office and ask to see the current draft document, take some snap shots and upload them to the rest of us, might be the only way to get information from this mob.

 

The Board and Executive have failed in it's duty under the constitution and should be removed. How many years are we meant to give them before expecting some results?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Perhaps a little harsh rhysmcc although I do understand your frustration. I don't know why it could not have been released for comment by ordinary members the way CASA does with NPRM. It is after all the most important thing to come out of RA-Aus in the last 7 years. The only thing I can put it down to is that it was so overdue that they just couldn't afford to go through the many comments that may have come in.

 

We should remember that Steve Tizzard was engaged to re-write the Ops Manual about 5 years ago so perhaps CASA had run out of patience with the old, passed-its-useby-date manual. At least it will be available to the CFIs at their conference in November.

 

At the AGM at Lethbridge, it was announced that the Board had approved and it was with CASA who were viewing it favourably. Approval is expected quite soon.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Yes indeed it was and to an old thread (which I missed at the time).

 

I don't understand why a draft can't be released, if people have concerns is it not better to have them pointed out now then wait until the document is final? What is the plan/timeframe as it stands now, if it's only coming out in Nov to CFI's surely it's going to be another 3-6 months before it's published and then a couple more months before it's in force? At which time you'll have members who are effected raising concerns and the whole process will need to start again

 

 

[Camel]

Yes indeed it was and to an old thread (which I missed at the time).I don't understand why a draft can't be released, if people have concerns is it not better to have them pointed out now then wait until the document is final? What is the plan/timeframe as it stands now, if it's only coming out in Nov to CFI's surely it's going to be another 3-6 months before it's published and then a couple more months before it's in force? At which time you'll have members who are effected raising concerns and the whole process will need to start again

CFI's have had the draft copy since April. I don't think you need any drastic concerns as no CFI have expressed any real serious concerns and remember that most CFI's have concerns for the RAA as a whole including all the members. The whole process won't start again it will just keep flowing along.

 

 

[coljones]

The Ops manual debacle is emblematic of the problems with RAA. There have been a few changes in the board of RAA but there is no indication that problems like the lack of consultation on the Ops Manual will not recur. The Ops Manual debacle has been humming along for years with nary a word to the membership nor any comment. Sending it out to CFIs is not the same as sending it out to the rank and file and I don't think that the ranks of CFIs contain the fount of all wisdom. I suspect the problem with the board is that it saw what people power could do and decided to pull the blanket over its head. The vast majority of CFIs a good people. The dominance of the RAA Board and executive by CFIs in the past has not brought the organisation much glory and we have to be vigilant now and into the future.