Proposed L2 changes

[storchy neil]

:duck for cover:leaves me to wonder is it me:no way: :no way:I assumed he would lead us up the wright path:oh yeah: but assuming aint gonna get the baby a pram :loopy:neil

 

 

[RickH]

Some time ago I wrote on this forum be carefull what you wish for. Now as I read this post I say I told you so and this angers me no end. Why? Because I was right. No! Because of all the D---Heads out there who scoffed and said "he doesn't know what he is talking about" and pushed ahead regardless wanting this that and the other.

 

So I say again Be carefull what you wish for.

 

I note with dismay that some of the policies being persued at the moment are, for the right for RAA aircraft to be allowed into controlled space, For weight limits on RAA aircraft to be raised and training schools to be established for maintenance accreditation.

 

The situation being discussed above is a direct result of the administration of RAA (with the blessing of the Learjet set) pushing the organisation away from it's grass roots.

 

When I fisrt got involved in ultralights the regulation stated that they had to be tethered to the ground. This was simply ignored by those of us that cared. Then came the AUF and then RAA and with them the rot, the beaurocracy builders (aka the Learjet set )

 

May be it is time to form a new organisation , one that is supported by members who want to get back to grass roots and leave controlled space, and aircraft above 540kg with more than 120hp to to RAA and the Learjet set.

 

So be carefull what you wish for.

 

 

[facthunter]

3 times you mention the "Learjet Set". Where did that concept come from? This is all coming from ABOVE. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Rick, there are at least two threads which go into a lot of detail, but the summary is:

 

• No one is preventing you from flying grass roots aircraft
   
   
  
• The Learjet set as you call them are only prominent because there is a demand there
   
   
  
• Grass roots rag and tube are not prominent because less people are interested in owning and flying them, and that is underlined with the petering, after a few posts, out of the threads I referred to above
   
   
  

 

 

It's just market forces at work; have a look at the threads and you'll see for yourself.

 

 

[facthunter]

No one is preventing you from flying grassroots aircraft.. YET.

 

We need to stick together, not fragment. As has been said "If we don't hang together, we will be hung separately." Nev

 

 

[SDQDI]

Divide and conquer. Seems to be true with a lot of things.

 

 

[storchy neil]

hi rickh yeh I was trying to remember who else warned on that so called wish list and the problem we would face if we as a so called organization pandered to them

 

but as I see it the water is so muddy now by previous management dxxxheads not abiding by our rules and regs

 

I assumed that the currant team would get through but the water is so dirty now where will it end neil

 

 

[RickH]

The problem is that we are the ones allowing the dividing to take place. You are right market forces. Right force wrong market sophisticated aircraft require sophisticated maintenance regimes and if you want sophistication then CASA will ensure that you get it in way of sophisticated rules and regs

 

The Learjet set are prominent because we in RAA have not stuck together and demanded that RAA admin not bend to their wishes and not persue their demands for rule change after rule change.

 

I have worked on both RA aircraft and GA aircraft and some of the aircraft being flown under RAA rego should only be allowed to fly and be maintained under GA.

 

Simple answer NO MORE RULE CHANGES.

 

It is not my intention to enter into further discussion and so I will allow someone else to have the last say and simply finish off with I AM TELLING YOU SO.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

RickH

 

Can you give an example of an aircraft that should only be in GA, not RAAus and then the basis of that determination. What is it about that aircraft that makes it unsuitable for RAAus "simple maintenance"?

 

In otherwords give us some meat on the bone to gnaw on...

 

Andy

 

 

[flyerme]

:chill out:Everything with a stall speed over 45 knts??!

 

Disclaimer: I lay no claim to the opinion above just relaying a whisper I herd blow threw the woods!

 

 

[turboplanner]

.....and that is the problem F/me whispers like Rick's and others which blow through the woods, but when you check the rules and when you check what RAA has said and when you check what CASA has said and when you check what the Minister has said you find empty space, as you would expect.

 

So that leaves rumour-mongers.

 

It was interesting how quickly the last grass-roots-is-under-fatal-attack thread itself died when everyone realised there was no impediment to doing what they'd always done - buy a Thruster and go out and have fun.

 

The monsters are found in fairytales, the Learjet set doesn't exist.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

:chill out:Everything with a stall speed over 45 knts??!Disclaimer: I lay no claim to the opinion above just relaying a whisper I herd blow threw the woods!

Yep that's not a guess that's regulatory fact, nothing that can fly in RAAus can have a Vso that exceeds 45kts.... So if it has numbers on the side, AND the registration process has been done IAW tech manual and CASA requirements then as one element it must stall at or slower than 45 knots......

 

Andy

 

 

[RickH]

The Learjet set obviuosly hit a nerve, which proves it does exist. glad to see some of the members of responding negatively to the suggestion. Is this a case of "me thinks thou doth protest toooooo much"???

 

Andy you have answered your own question re which aircraft should be allowed in RAA.

 

And hey Turbo since when did rumours come on official letterheads as is the "rumour"/letter which originally

 

started this thread perhaps someone is in the wrong lane.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF you must have self imposed limits stall speed is not a bad one to pick. Faster planes must be better designed and flown and they need larger and better aerodromes. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Rick

 

With respect you did not answer my question. I asked which RAAus aircraft (i.e. those with Vso <=45kts) should not be in RAAus and why. You have not provided me with any examples. Those aircraft that were historically mistakenly registered with RAAus that were identified in the CASA audit as I understand have been removed from the register and so today we have, as I understand it, only aircraft that are entitled by the rules today, to be in RAAus within our fleet.

 

You asserted, at least as I read your posts, that some of the legitimate today aircraft should not be there, and are only so due recent rule changes, I asked and would still like an answer to which ones and why exactly? What maintenance activities are they that you feel are too complex for RAAus and only good for LAME's and GA

 

Andy

 

 

[Teckair]

Hi RickH

 

As you may well know this topic has been done before and it usually ends the same way, we are out numbered by the heavier, faster, more expensive bunch and it is true this is the market demand at work. To me the AUF was hijacked by these guys but that is history and we can do little about it now. Now we are told RAAus will be broke in 3 years trying to administer what we now have, LSAs and the rest of the stuff that was not what the AUF was created for. I am so very glad I have not spent too much money on aircraft and have happy memories of better times.

 

Richard.

 

 

[SDQDI]

We would be broke a whole lot quicker without them:no no no:.

 

But anyway

 

 

[Yenn]

RAAus is a member oriented body and if the majority of members want to fly heavier, faster, noisier or whatever aircraft it is their prerogative to lobby for that to happen. So long as the rules are complied with I see no problem.

 

My personal thinking is that RAAus should logically register and control all recreational onl;y aircraft and that could include C182's Cherokees and Mooneys. If the rules were changed. It seems logical to me that anyone flying for fun, not reward ought to be under RAAus.

 

If the rag and tube people in RAAus don't like that approach, they can overthrow it by increasing their numbers, but once you let someone join they have a right to be heard.

 

I fly a plane which can be RAAUs or GA reg and I elected to join RAAus, but I also fly a GA plane I built myself, so I have a foot in both camps. The GA plane doesn't have to be re registered every year, nor do I have to pay RAAus membership to fly it. I can do my own maintenance on it and annual inspections, so it is really no more expensive to fly than RAAus. Would those who think we should omly fly rag and tube, low and slow prefer that I was not an RAAus member? It would save me money and reduce the RAAus coffers.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

If you guys want to apportion blame then a little bit of navel gazing is in order.......We the members are ultimately in control of the organisation.....We the members failed for many years to address the very poor governance and management that was being applied to RAAus......CASA was aware of the poor management and over a period of time moved to being adversarial because WE GAVE THEM NO OTHER CHOICE!

 

We are going broke now, paying for the patching of the sins of past years when we were not in control of our own organisation......

 

It may well be true that in becoming as big as we are we all assumed that someone else was doing the oversight thing but in reality it was not the case then, and isn't the case now....Read Mark Claytons columns in recent magazines......

 

If we are to thrive as an organisation, be it all fast or all slow or better a mix of both, we must show interest in our organisation, without it, and that is a real possibility, we are all ex pilots..... There is no short term alternate to RAAus and in the event that it were to fail we would be grounded while CASA has to move to fix the mess that they saw happening for years and which they probably believe we as members, and many of us with substantial interests in being members are complicit

 

I just do not see how it all helps for us to divide in 2, then turn on each other and argue that the other group fast/slow shot our own foot worse than we in the slow/fast corner did..... Talk about a pyric victory if ever there was one.

 

Andy

 

 

[Teckair]

OK keep going as you are guys and see where it ends up.

 

 

[facthunter]

McCormick had this show in his sights the minute he took over control of the CASA. The compromise of the RAAus as a member representative body AND an authority under the control of CASA was always a situation of conflicting interests. When we were required to accept the obligation of enforcing the rules THEY should indemnify you against being sued. They cannot offload THEIR responsibilities without due diligence and surveillance. The law of the land stipulates THEY have certain obligations which they cannot delegate out of as simply as they have done with US. The RAAus have been scapegoated here. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

No one can indemnify you against your own negligence; GA pilots can be sued equally with RAA pilots. and maintenance operatives the same, so nothing to see there.

 

You're right about them not being able to delegate out of obligations, and recent events have shown that with them being listed as co-defendants.

 

They are also putting themselves at risk where they don't enforce areas, such as the RAA SMS, and they also reassume risk where they step into the operations of a self administering body.

 

So I don't think RAA have been scapegoats; RAA have the right to resist demands of CASA which are not lawful - in other words which someone with a power motive may have dreamed up.

 

On the other hand there are quite a few things I can think of where RAA could have fixed its own problems and minimised its own risk.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Tubz, the way I read Nev's post in relation to ....

 

........ When we were required to accept the obligation of enforcing the rules THEY should indemnify you against being sued.....

I thought he was referring to RAAus in the capacity as the regulator being exempt from being sued carrying out the function of the regulator. Previously I had thought that CASA could not be sued in its function as regulator until it was joined in the recent 'Sting case'. So perhaps even CASA can be held accountable.

[turboplanner]

If RAA is carrying out the function of the Regulator, then I would recommend closing it down immediately.

 

If RAA is a self administering Association - which is appears to be registered as, then it takes responsibility for its self regulation, which seems to be what happened in the Sting case, although I think that case was way wide of the norm and the results seemed to confirm that.

 

I'm not up with the legal definitions, but in local government Councillors and officers are protected by the Crown against civil suits and the same applies with State and Federal Government, but none of them are protected against criminal charges, as in culpable negligence, but this seems to apply to direct employees of the Crown, not arms length bodies.

 

If CASA is stepping in anywhere and directing the matters set out in the RAA Constitution, then its up to RAA board members to resist that interference in day to day management I would think.

 

 

[David Isaac]

The subtleties around 'what is RAAus regulating' are interesting.

 

RAAus has an Operations Manual drafted by RAAus, approved by CASA and referenced in the CAOs. As such the RAAus Operations Manual forms part of the regulations, so is not RAAus in part a regulator of the operations that are implicitly 'part' of the Regulations? Is not RAAus a joint regulator with CASA of RAAus operations. Is this not where the conflict of interest is perceived by many?

 

Yes RAAus is a self regulating body, but administering regulations endorsed and referenced in Federal Aviation Legislation. Does this not cloud the regulatory waters?