SAAA General Manager advertisement

[flyvulcan]

The SAAA is currently advertising for a General Manager on their website (http://www.saaa.com/Information/Employment.aspx).

 

It looks like the incumbent will play a significant role in the development of their CASR Pt149 approval, as well as the day to day administration of the organisation.

 

It would be nice to see them form a good relationship with Darren Barnfield and encourage some cooperation and synergy between SAAA and RAAus for all the members benefits.

 

 

[facthunter]

There is a better chance of this happening at the present time than most times. There should be maximum co-operation between ALL groups, and sharing of resources where possible. A bit of friendly rivalry is good, but as often said If we don't hang together we may all hang separately. Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

There has been a memorandum of cooperation in place between the SAAA and RAA for sometime. The relationship is friendly and co- operative. In fact there has been some suggestion that the two groups should look at combining their national fly-ins for mutual benefit, and cost sharing. ( Natfly ? Narromine ?) together with common sharing of informational resources to the benifit of all.

 

We are similar organizations and there is no reason or benifit in being adversaries .

 

 

[flyvulcan]

There has been a memorandum of cooperation in place between the SAAA and RAA for sometime. The relationship is friendly and co- operative. In fact there has been some suggestion that the two groups should look at combining their national fly-ins for mutual benefit, and cost sharing. ( Natfly ? Narromine ?) together with common sharing of informational resources to the benifit of all.We are similar organizations and there is no reason or benifit in being adversaries .

Amen to that!

 

As a member of both organisations since their inceptions, I would be very pleased to see close cooperation between them. They both now have clearly defined areas of Sport Aviation to administer and are both happy with the areas that they have. When the "Ultralighters" first split from the SAAA, there was some angst but now 35 or whatever years down track, we are way past that stage. The time for closer cooperation between all the Sport Aviation bodies is well and truly upon us.

 

Let's showcase this cooperation at this years AusFly and make it the best RecAviation airshow ever!

 

 

[Yenn]

Darren Barnfield is SAAA Nationl councillor, so there nust be a tie in between RAAus and SAAA, even if it is unofficial.

 

I wonder how many people on this forum are members of both organisations. I am, having built one plane under the rules of each organisation.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Darren Barnfield is SAAA Nationl councillor, so there nust be a tie in between RAAus and SAAA, even if it is unofficial.I wonder how many people on this forum are members of both organisations. I am, having built one plane under the rules of each organisation.

It would be good to start another thread asking the above question.

 

Alan.

 

 

[AVOCET]

Im a member of both , its the principle of being involved and supportive ,

 

Mike

 

 

[rankamateur]

In fact there has been some suggestion that the two groups should look at combining their national fly-ins for mutual benefit, and cost sharing.

Don't worry about it, Narromine Aero Club will have it up and running again before either organisation gets their committee nominated.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Can somebody please tell me why the sports aviation organisations should become Part 149 orgs? At present CASA can delegate powers to individuals who may or may not work for organisations (they may be protected by company structures). This has the advantage that there may be some competition in the market.

 

What is gained by part 149 approval?

 

As I see it the problem is that the Part 149 organisation, being a private body, can go bankrupt and I know that in the case of GFA it has been stated that if the organisation ceases to exist GLIDING WILL CEASE until another organisation is formed or puts its hand up.

 

If Part 149 is necessary at all I think there should be ONE Australian Sports Aviation Part 149 body to provide the administration services on a NON EXCLUSIVE basis with other individual delegates able to provide these services also. The various bodies can then get on with promoting their particular activity and educating on how to do it better and safer.

 

We've already seen the collective punishment dealt to RAAus members over the registration issue. Through no fault of the individual aircraft owners they were grounded by alleged incompetence by RAAus admin. Now the Jab engine fiasco.

 

I note that in the US the FAA has long wanted EAA to become a Part 149 organisation but the EAA won't have a bar of it. They say it would change the relationship between the org and members from a mutual interest self help basis to a regulator/ regulated and they don't want that. Smart people those Americans.

 

As this was an SAAA topic, can someone also tell me what the heck has happened to that organisation ( what did happen to their last GM?)?

 

After SAAA fighting for decades to get a US style Experimental category this was finally achieved in 1998. In the last few years there seems to have been a tremendous amount of backsliding and I note their website no longer says " Home of Australian Experimental".

 

US style Experimental means anyone can work on the aircraft but it must be inspected by a LAME once every 12 months (not necessarily in an approved workshop and the A&P (US designation) does not need the IA (inspection Authorisation) necessary to sign out an annual or 100 hourly on a Certified standard category aircraft UNLESS you are the builder of record, in which case you can sign it out every year yourself. This has workd well for 60 years in the US. I guess Americans are smarter than Australians.

 

Under SAAA you now need to do their "Maintenance Procedures Course" (SAAA holds a monopoly on this) at significant expense and from talking with those who have done it it has nothing to do with detecting wear, fatigue and corrosion but is only about paperwork. I suggest this can be done by reading an online web page or downloading a pdf.

 

In addition there is now a problem with weighing aircraft. You can rivet the mainspar yourself but you can't weigh the aircraft. So now the SAAA, once again, instead of putting forward a new version of the problematical new re- written regulation that says: x) The above applies EXCEPT for Amateur built Experimental aircraft which are exempt from the provisions of this regulation.

 

the SAAA wants its own weighing course at of course significant expense. Again it isn't that hard to lay out the procedure and unlike the mainspar case, it is easily checkable in future. We'll be back to the old 101.28 before we know it.

 

I note the SAAA submission to the Forsyth report wanted CASA to make it compulsory to join SAAA to operate an amateur built aircraft. I cannot see why. I didn't build mine, I have a LAME inspect it each year and I have a PPL. What the heck do I need SAAA for? They don't seem to be working towards a method by which I can sign the aircraft out each year, or even legally work on it (I did do a complete refurbish under LAME inspections 7 years ago - I've seen fast build kits that were more complete than what I had after strip down) although I've held a glider annual inspector rating since 1974 and a motor glider inspector rating since 1992.

 

If they had this goal I might be persuaded to join. I enquired once and got a very suspicious person in Brisbane who demanded to know who I was and why I had called and wanted to join SAAA. I lost interest at that point.

 

 

[facthunter]

Very thoughtful post that I find myself agreeing with completely. You have capably identified many of the problems existing. I'm only a social member of the SAAA, having had issues with some of their decisions, and left the main body. Chapter 20 at Kyneton is a good chapter, and I have met the new president and he gave a resume of the latest goings on and I feel they can move on and overcome the problems they have had in the last 4 years or so. They don't have enough members and like a lot of us lack younger participants. In my view it is time we got more together and combined resources. Empire building is Passe in this context. Acting as a regulator and working in the interests of members is a conflict in principle. CASA can't delegate authority and not take responsibility for underwriting inherent liabilities and assisting the organisations to survive. They appear to be doing the opposite at the moment. Result? No certainty of a future at all, and no idea of what it will look like. Nev

 

 

[rgmwa]

Under SAAA you now need to do their "Maintenance Procedures Course" (SAAA holds a monopoly on this) at significant expense and from talking with those who have done it it has nothing to do with detecting wear, fatigue and corrosion but is only about paperwork. I suggest this can be done by reading an online web page or downloading a pdf.

CASA, not SAAA requires such a course as explained in CAAP 42ZC-2(0). SAAA has developed a suitable course, but there is nothing to stop other organisations from doing the same. The purpose of the course is to familiarise builders with CASA's legal and procedural requirements if they want the right to sign off the annuals on their aircraft (and this privilege is only conferred by Exception via a document that CASA issues periodically, and which they can revoke at any time). The MPC course is not about how to do an annual. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/airworth/42zc_2.pdf

 

In addition there is now a problem with weighing aircraft. You can rivet the mainspar yourself but you can't weigh the aircraft. So now the SAAA, once again, instead of putting forward a new version of the problematical new re- written regulation that says: x) The above applies EXCEPT for Amateur built Experimental aircraft which are exempt from the provisions of this regulation.the SAAA wants its own weighing course at of course significant expense. Again it isn't that hard to lay out the procedure and unlike the mainspar case, it is easily checkable in future. We'll be back to the old 101.28 before we know it.

I'm affected by this and am waiting for CASA to alter the relevant legislation, which currently has no exemption that allows builders to do their own W&B (and never did as far as I know). However in order to fix this loophole, CASA not unreasonably want builders to demonstrate that they know how to do a W&B before they allow an exemption to the legislation that normally requires a certified Weight and Balance Control Officer to do this. SAAA have therefore created a supplementary course unit for the MPC course that incudes a 23 question test paper. Again it's a CASA issue, not an SAAA revenue-raiser. Incidentally, I'm just an ordinary SAAA member and have no official position in the organisation.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

CASA, not SAAA requires such a course as explained in CAAP 42ZC-2(0). SAAA has developed a suitable course, but there is nothing to stop other organisations from doing the same. The purpose of the course is to familiarise builders with CASA's legal and procedural requirements if they want the right to sign off the annuals on their aircraft (and this privilege is only conferred by Exception via a document that CASA issues periodically, and which they can revoke at any time). The MPC course is not about how to do an annual. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/airworth/42zc_2.pdf

 

I'm affected by this and am waiting for CASA to alter the relevant legislation, which currently has no exemption that allows builders to do their own W&B (and never did as far as I know). However in order to fix this loophole, CASA not unreasonably want builders to demonstrate that they know how to do a W&B before they allow an exemption to the legislation that normally requires a certified Weight and Balance Control Officer to do this. SAAA have therefore created a supplementary course unit for the MPC course that incudes a 23 question test paper. Again it's a CASA issue, not an SAAA revenue-raiser. Incidentally, I'm just an ordinary SAAA member and have no official position in the organisation.

 

rgmwa

Very nice but that doesn't explain why SAAA didn't go to the Minister with a new version of the appropriate reg that exempted amateur built Experimental. By the time somebody has completed an aircraft I presume they can read and interpret the sometimes less than dead clear instructions with the kit or figured out how to do a scratch or plans built. I think they might be able to interpret CASA's legal and procedural requirements about homebuilt maintenance too by reading the appropriate documents. We are expected to interpret the rest of CASA's bs without doing a course on each part.

 

As for the weight and balance, using your logic, it wouldn't be unreasonable for CASA to require builders to do a complete LAME course before building the aircraft either.

 

And none of this explains why a system that has worked well in the USA for 60 years and which our Amateur built Experimental was directly modeled on (the language was damn near identical) should have more stringent requirements in Australia than in the US. The Parliamentary intent back after the 1996 Federal election was a "US style Experimental category". I've seen no explicit decision from parliament to do otherwise just incompetence by CASA in failing to provide the appropriate exemptions and FAILING TO MAKE THEM PERMANENT. Best to put the required exemptions actually in the regs, not as other legislative instruments that expire.

 

If the SAAA can't even do some elementary political lobbying what good is it? Law and regulations are made by Parliament and can be changed by Parliament. When SAAA got Experimental in 1998 CASA was stuffing about deciding on the form. Eventually the SAAA leadership got tired of waiting, had the American regs dressed up in Australian Parliamentary language, put them in front of the Minister who said OK and tabled them in Parliament. After 15 sitting days with no objections they went to the GG and became law.

 

These are the sorts of things that go through Parliament as routine procedural matters unless somebody in the Senate objects. Given that none of the Senators actually know anything about aviation except for the odd one who is a pilot from time to time these things just slide through. It happens all the time with other non aviation regulation as mistakes, anomalies and omissions are detected and amended.

 

 

[rgmwa]

As I understand it, the US approach is based on the principle of "You can do this, provided you .....". By contrast, CASA's approach is "Our Rules say you can't do anything, unless ...., and the penalties if you get it wrong are this ......". Hence things like the MPC course to try to keep builders out of trouble and to demonstrate to CASA that amateurs can be responsible people, and that they are aware of what they are legally committing to when it comes to building and maintaining their aircraft. As for your questions generally, it sounds like you should really speak to someone at CASA and/or SAAA, or perhaps the Minister.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

So a bloke has to get some considerable amount of money together, spend it on aircraft parts, spend a LOT of time putting something together that he knows he will put his body into and depart the ground , get it inspected and be assigned a flight test area where risk to innocent third parties is minimised, be appropriately licenced to fly it and somehow the body he belongs to has to kowtow to CASA to demonstrate that amateurs can be responsible people?

 

I always though all of us were required to comply with the law on all things, not just aviation and it is up to all of us to know the relevant legal requirements for what we want to do.

 

Anyway thanks for pointing out why Australian sport aviation is such a mess and why I don't want to belong to organisations like SAAA.

 

 

[rgmwa]

I'm a member of SAAA because I decided to build a VH registered experimental aircraft and they exist primarily to support builders. The comments I've made were based on my own experience in relation to some points that you made that I don't believe were correct. Personally, I think much of what you're saying makes a lot of sense and agree that the current system under CASA and the various other bodies leaves a lot to be desired.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Fair enough, but would you mind pointing what I said was actually wrong? As far as I know what I said is factually correct about MPC and weighing. I haven't imputed any motives.

 

When it comes to maintenance the registered operator is the responsible person to make sure required maintenance and inspections are done by qualified people. Applies to homebuilts operated by non builders or any standard category aircraft.

 

I don't believe that weakening any of the Experimental freedoms by rolling over to CASA without a fight is good policy. There has been altogether far too much of that in Australian aviation generally as well as in sport aviation. It is part of the reason why sport aviation administration is such a shambles and very expensive for anyone who may want to participate in two or more of the branches at any one time.

 

Yes everyone should comply with the law regarding any particular activity but what the law exactly is is a matter for debate and change if necessary.

 

If you want to see what compulsory membership has done look no further than the GFA. Half the size it was 30 years ago and the population of the country has increased by more than 50% in that time. They also have a looming demographic abyss as the average age is about 60 and rising (probably not much different from the rest of sport aviation). Give it maybe 10 years and they won't have the membership base to sustain a Part 149 organisation. (I still don't have an answer why that is a good idea either).

 

I heard the other day that one of the RAAus blokes who flys his Jab out of the strip I use is going to sell and give up. Still likes aviation but all too hard. First the registration issue, then the engine thing. I suspect he won't be the only one.

 

 

[rgmwa]

Fair enough, but would you mind pointing what I said was actually wrong? As far as I know what I said is factually correct about MPC and weighing. I haven't imputed any motives.

Maybe it just comes down to how I read your post, but....

 

1. "Under SAAA you now need to do their "Maintenance Procedures Course" (SAAA holds a monopoly on this)...". The only reason SAAA developed the course was to satisfy a CASA requirement as described in the CAAP. It's not an SAAA requirement. Nor does SAAA have a monopoly since other organisations could run similar courses. However as far as I know, SAAA is the only body with such a course at present, so I guess you could say they currently have a monopoly by default. Maybe that's what you meant?

 

2. "In addition there is now a problem with weighing aircraft. So now the SAAA, once again, instead of putting forward a new version of the problematical new re- written regulation that says: x) The above applies EXCEPT for Amateur built Experimental aircraft which are exempt from the provisions of this regulation.

 

the SAAA wants its own weighing course at of course significant expense."

 

CASA legislation applies to certified aircraft and requires W&B to be done by a certified W&B Control Officer. There is currently no mechanism that would allow a builder to do the W&B for their experimental aircraft, so some kind of legislative response is needed from CASA for a builder to do this legally. As I understand it, in the past, some builders employed a certified W&BCO, but many (probably most) did their own believing it was acceptable and so slipped through under CASA's radar. To address this problem, CASA and SAAA have recently agreed that completion by a builder of the recently developed supplementary W&B MPC module will be acceptable to CASA as fulfilling the training requirement, thus paving the way for CASA to do their bit in terms of the legislation - presumably by issuing an exception Instrument of some sort.

 

SAAA can't re-write the regulations as you seem to suggest above (although they can put forward their views), and I also think it's incorrect to say that SAAA "wants its own weighing course, at of course, significant expense". They are responding to a problem, not padding their coffers with new ways to raise revenue. For the record, it cost me $25 to do the additional module - not too significant in the scheme of things.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Hi Mike,

 

rgmwa summed it up nicely in his post #11 where he indicates that the MPC and weighing issues are not SAAA issues, but CASA imposed issues, based on regulatory requirements. The MPC and weighing modules of the MPC were initiatives that were developed and implemented by SAAA for its members to address the CASA regulatory requirements and allow its members to conduct their annuals and continue weighing their aircraft which technically, they had (unknowingly) been doing illegally in the past.

 

It is not right that you blame the SAAA for CASA's rules or actions. The SAAA has been proactive in providing short term or interim solutions for their members to conduct the annual inspection on aircraft that they have built, and to conduct the w&b on their aircraft in order to allow them to comply with the CASA rules.

 

Please remember that CASA has imposed the requirement to do the MPC with w&b module, not the SAAA. Also note that anyone can develop and gain approval to conduct a suitable MPC/w&b course so if you object to doing the SAAA developed course, then by all means develop your own, get CASA approval for it and make yourself some dollars by offering it at a cheaper price than the SAAA course.

 

Where I wholeheartedly agree with you is that it would be better to change the regulations and have a permanent acceptable solution to these issues. I also agree that this is one area where the SAAA could be more proactive. However, the problem that the SAAA faces is that it is a small organisation with just over 2000 members and as such, it is barely sustainable. There are minimal permanent employees (I believe it will be just the GM and one office staff member), with much of the work being done by the voluntary National Council and a small cadre of volunteers to support them. Most of the NC are in full time employment and have to fit their SAAA responsibilities in around their full time commitments. The SAAA is not like the EAA with extensive resources. The SAAA has to prioritise its limited resources and unfortunately, lobbying to actually change regulations is one area that has suffered. There is much work done to provide immediate short term solutions to CASA issues, but there is limited scope with the available resources to address the long term (i.e. the regulatory change) solution. If the SAAA could just pick up another 1000 members, they may have scope to take on another full time employee that could have regulatory reform lobbying as part of their job description.

 

At the end of the day, you can build, fly and maintain your experimental aircraft outside the umbrella of the SAAA, as long as you comply with the CASA regulations (just like the SAAA members have to). If you want to sign off the annual inspection and do your own w&b without doing the SAAA approved course, then by all means develop your own and obtain CASA approval for it.

 

However, please do not place any blame for this situation on the SAAA. They have developed solutions for CASA imposed problems for the benefit of their members. I appreciate that some volunteers in the SAAA stepped up to the mark and developed an MPC so that I am allowed to conduct the annual inspection on my aircraft. To those volunteers I am grateful, because if they had not done so, under the CASA rules, I would not be able to do my own annual inspection.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave