R.A.A. Pilot certificate is it correct?

[Guest ozzie]

My argument as well Dazza.

 

Since day one GA have looked down their noses at ultralights. Treated like the black sheep of the family. If anyone needs third party insurance it is the four seater brigade that keeps wacking into houses at Hoxton Park and the like. To date no one has been able to give me a good reason why i have to pay money to join a club fly a toy aeroplane and no club to fly a Twin Otter. Or why i have to be controlled by a group of UNQUALIFIED people.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Since GA pilots and above do not need to be a member of any club or association to fly an aircraft, then neither should pilots wishing to fly an RAA aircraft.

What you say is true but thank your lucky stars we are not burdened with a regime like the Gliding Federation. They need to remain in the club to fly. They cannot just get their planes out like us and fly whenever and where ever they like. Everything is kept within the club and under the club. Even with motor gliders, independence is very rare.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

'Land of the Free' needs a poke in the eye!

 

 

[dazza 38]

What you say is true but thank your lucky stars we are not burdened with a regime like the Gliding Federation. They need to remain in the club to fly. They cannot just get their planes out like us and fly whenever and where ever they like. Everything is kept within the club and under the club. Even with motor gliders, independence is very rare.

That just goes to show that there is NOT a level playing field in Australia when it comes to recreational aviation and there should be.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There is no provision for recreational flying in the base Act remember; it was allowed as an exception by the aviation authority of the day, which CASA, a safety authority, continues.

 

The exception was allowed subject to Self Administration

 

I can remember when the annual subscription was increased and I argued it wasn't justified, having administered 1500 people for 40 cents each, but was howled down on this forum because the subscription was considered peanuts.

 

If you don't like the subscription now, then take a look at where your money is being spent. $300,000 for Professor Avius to talk to you might be a start.

 

 

[facthunter]

I was agreeing with you,Turbs, till you brought up $300,000 for prof Avius . There's a bit more to it than that.

 

General comment....The show is NOToverburdened with excess staff or wastage generally,either, so how can costs be significantly reduced without losing some aspect of essential function.?

 

The system we have is what we have been saddled with. CASA divesting control (while still maintaining it) and LIABILITY (attempting to). It costs money to belong to anything. RAAus has a big job to do.

 

With GA you get no insurance and no help, no magazine no input no control of WHO does things for you. It's comparing an apple with an orange. Not the same.

 

Ozzie.... In aviation everyone looks down on anyone they can find to look down on. I don't know if it is the RANK aspect of military backgrounded people or what, but when you are up in the sky you do look down on everything and that's a great view.

 

The "attitude" of other sections of aviation real or imagined... or the general population about U/L's. It's always there. Get over it or you will spoil what experiences are still available to you. Ignorance has and always will abound. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I find there is an element of GA that expresses amused tolerance for ultralights, but I have not heard any genuine antagonism. However, there is an element of the ultralight movement who are anti-GA owners and anti-high-performance RA owners. I think it is a bit of class resentment relating to the cost of the machine, with these critics assuming that all the owners are capitalist pigs, while secretly wishing they could join the club.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I find there is an element of GA that expresses amused tolerance for ultralights, but I have not heard any genuine antagonism. However, there is an element of the ultralight movement who are anti-GA owners and anti-high-performance RA owners. I think it is a bit of class resentment relating to the cost of the machine, with these critics assuming that all the owners are capitalist pigs, while secretly wishing they could join the club.

People don't take much encouragement at all to revert to Tribal mentality - sporting teams being the best example.

 

I think you are pretty much on the money with your grouping of attitudes, but I don't think it's all that strong.

 

For example there are a few strident rag and tubers on this forum who screech about their freedoms being taken away by the plastic brigade, but when the groups have been offered support, their interest has always petered out.

 

The skill of market research is to separate the real driving forces from what the market is saying.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I was agreeing with you,Turbs, till you brought up $300,000 for prof Avius .

I was suggesting that as a start - compare that with what you were being told in 2010. Members should take an interest and question these costs. (Do you know if Avius gets paid for his stories? Do you want to pay for that content?)

 

There's a bit more to it than that.General comment....The show is NOToverburdened with excess staff or wastage generally,either, so how can costs be significantly reduced without losing some aspect of essential function.?

I know you are at a disadvantage in assessing this unless you order Annual reports from the ACT Department of Justice, but how would Members know what is economical or what is not? How much communication is occurring between Members and Board Members?

 

The system we have is what we have been saddled with. CASA divesting control (while still maintaining it) and LIABILITY (attempting to). It costs money to belong to anything.

The situation we have is what we negotiated, and then changed. We would probably all have been better off if we'd left the imitation GA aircraft and cross country flight to the more formal training regime of CASA.

I don't agree CASA divested control - they moved pretty smartly after four audit failures - rather they permitted operations which were not permitted under the base ACT, by EXCEPTION and subject to self-regulation. In the AUF era this seemed to work very well. However, when governments take this path, which fortunately they do only rarely, you gain ad hoc, and industry-specific decisions which the big mass of Parliament could never get around to processing, but you put yourself at the whims of the bureaucrats who gave you those freedoms. Occasionally those bureaucrats cross the boundaries of good behaviour and the industry becomes a nightmare.

 

Liability is with the people conducting the activity, as I've mentioned to you on several occasions. You are not likely to ever get immunity from liability from Australian Governments again - you have to insure for it, and that seems to be working well. I'd suggest there are many pilots under-insured to the extent of millions of dollars, but that usually is quickly rectified after a couple of big awards.

 

 

[kasper]

People don't take much encouragement at all to revert to Tribal mentality - sporting teams being the best example.clipped

 

The skill of market research is to separate the real driving forces from what the market is saying.

I would counter in a member association the wisdom of delineating focus purely on the market forces - we are not a profit seeking organisation and the ardent rag and tube guys n girls are equally part of the Recreational Aviation coverage of the association as the plastic fantastic owners and regardless of how revenue derives from each end of the spectrum the rights and freedoms of one end should not be given up to please the other unless that is done openly and with consent of the membership as a whole.

... its my perception of the current RAA that the executive and tech are prepared to give up rights and freedoms ... or a the very least not defend them ... without consulting the membership in what appears to be a grab for more and more of the high end RAA and low end GA. Its the issue of transparency of intent and consultation that sits behind me being what some may class as a grumpy old git or a strident rag and tuber. I do not think I am actually either but I am adamant that where rights and freedoms are being given up/traded away/not defended I am going to be vocal ...

 

 

[facthunter]

I've consistently been recommending against flying in CTA. Negotiate transit rights at particular locations . that keeps you away from tiger country, and address specific locations. BUT generally it's a big jump and fraught with problems.. Also flying over populous areas in single engined aircraft is a bit of russian roulette. Bound to attract the media when something happens. as it will now and again.

 

Reduce your exposure to liability by things like above actions. and not carrying the "wrong" people. Hard one but you might lose your house..

 

Reduce regulation and increase knowledge. The only way to go.

 

CASA is not RAAus friendly, especially in the last period. Some of that we well deserve as there has been some cowboys out there. Those types won't change, but we can't allow them to ruin it for the rest of us.

 

CASA could make more effort to understand what we are in essence. Like not another airline or charter company. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I would counter in a member association the wisdom of delineating focus purely on the market forces - we are not a profit seeking organisation and the ardent rag and tube guys n girls are equally part of the Recreational Aviation coverage of the association as the plastic fantastic owners and regardless of how revenue derives from each end of the spectrum the rights and freedoms of one end should not be given up to please the other unless that is done openly and with consent of the membership as a whole.

That was just my marketing background. Putting it another way "The skill of demand research is to separate the real driving forces from what the researchees are saying.

 

I would agree with all you said here; with the exception that where one group requires substantially increased services, it should pay more.

 

... its my perception of the current RAA that the executive and tech are prepared to give up rights and freedoms ... or a the very least not defend them ... without consulting the membership in what appears to be a grab for more and more of the high end RAA and low end GA. Its the issue of transparency of intent and consultation that sits behind me being what some may class as a grumpy old git or a strident rag and tuber. I do not think I am actually either but I am adamant that where rights and freedoms are being given up/traded away/not defended I am going to be vocal ...

The first problem is the Members won't vote; the second problem is the Members don't care to manage the situation. Why on earth do the Members allow a Constitution clause which allows an Executive of three people to make unilateral decisions which affect nearly 10,000, having the power to bypass the board members elected to represent the Members. I haven't found a Clause in the Constitution authorising the employment of a Chief Executive Officer, and so forth. You get what you allow as a Member.

 

Having said that, I've tested demand for Rag and Tube twice using marketing techniques.

 

The first was a suggestion that the R&T actually get up and support Natfly with a stand to attract interest. Although some people had reasons, this didn't happen.

 

The second was a thread within the last 12 months or so which started with sentiments similar to yours, but basically that plastic fantastics had ruined R&T, and I kept prodding the discussion until we got to the point where it became clear that

 

(a) some people still enjoy very economical R&T flying and swear by it,

 

(b) we could not find any impediment to R&T in the current RAA scene, and nothing to stop people going out and buying one right now, and

 

© the real underlying problem if it was a problem was that people were just not interested in getting into R&T.

 

So you can kick and dance at the current RAA structure and Regulations, but even if you could wave a magic wand and change that, the real issue is how will you attract new R&T participants?

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't think you will ever get a majority flying them. Those who haven't should have a fly in a good drifter that's well inspected and looked after. or such. They are a special experience, and I hope the opportunity remains to fly them.. It's a bit more challenging in the colder climates, but rug up and go for it.

 

The organisation should make sure they (all sections) are catered for equitably. That means users of other areas that MAY require more attention (cost) PAY their fair share. You would have to see how that pans out. It could be different from what is expected. There are economies of scale.

 

We have more say if we are not split up into warring factions. We would be a far more knowledgeable group if we did more building, but we are what we are.. Worth making a big effort for tolerance of others interests. It's the same air we share. Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

I fail to see the extra costs for RAA in registering LSA aircraft as some claim.

 

LSA come with a SCoA and with manufacturer's specifications - accept the SCoA, take the money, all done.

 

Modifications etc are between the manfacturer and owner - either compliant or not. Changes/modifications/approvals etc requiring Tech Manager involvement are nonexistant. What am I missing?

 

Same with CTA access. If you want it, you pay more for the aircraft/instruments etc. but if you have no interest then you don't have to worry. Where is the extra cost. The current debate about certificate V licence ditto, only cost to those who wish to make use of the option.

 

 

[ave8rr]

If you don't like the subscription now, then take a look at where your money is being spent. $300,000 for Professor Avius to talk to you might be a start.

And once the magazine stops arriving at the gate from July then I'm betting a lot of what Professor Avius is writing will NOT be read.

How will RAAus be getting important safety info out to it's members?? It will be like Flight Safety Magazine..........Read by a few I'm picking.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Believe it or not, it has at least three channels, each of which is MUCH faster than a magazine.

 

1. It can instantly broadcast and SMS to all members

 

2. It can broadcast an email with attached documents to all members AND set a notification to know when each member opens the email

 

3. It has the power of a website, which currently it seems to be using as we did at the end of the 1980's in the last century.

 

In Items 2 and 3 it is not restricted to a magazine type layout, but can run free with photos, diagrammes, PowerPoint and videos

 

 

[turboplanner]

The second was a thread within the last 12 months or so:

This might not be the exact one Kasper, but it's a big thread: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/what-can-be-done.112161/

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Believe it or not, it has at least three channels, each of which is MUCH faster than a magazine.1. It can instantly broadcast and SMS to all members

2. It can broadcast an email with attached documents to all members AND set a notification to know when each member opens the email

 

3. It has the power of a website, which currently it seems to be using as we did at the end of the 1980's in the last century.

 

In Items 2 and 3 it is not restricted to a magazine type layout, but can run free with photos, diagrammes, PowerPoint and videos

Re 2) and 3), bit unfair Tubs, Let me reproduce an email that was sent out to members over the weekend, and included video/audio of the recent Cessnock GM, which was streamed live at the time of the meeting and is also available after the fact for anyone that wants to review it....If talking about the magazine then review because its discussed in some detail by the current board and one of the previous older board members who was around at the time when.........nothing got done

 

IF any member is not getting these emails then please sign up online by loging into the member portal and on the first page that opens after login there is a subscribe option....

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

SPECIAL MAY E-NEWS

 

Welcome to this special edition of our e-news.

 

Recently we held our mid-year general meeting and board meeting. See the link below to watch the general meeting as well as the members forum. Resolutions and minutes from the general meeting and board meeting are on the website for all members to view.

 

We have also been made aware of a software glitch and provide some details for members.

 

And finally we recently issued an advisory notice, we ask our Jabiru owners to please review this.

 

Stay tuned, we have a bumper May e-news coming out in the next couple of weeks.

 

Watch the General Meeting and forum here

 

 

FEES

 

At a recent meeting of the board of Recreational Aviation Australia a decision was taken to review our fee structure and put in place a strategy to protect members from large ad hoc fee increases. This processes will now see fees reviewed annually and compared to changes in the consumer price index. With this information at hand the board will be able to make informed decisions about any adjustments to fees.

 

Membership fees have not been adjusted since February 2014 and aircraft registration fees have not been adjusted since the middle of 2011. The Recreational Aviation Australia board recognises the need to keep fees as affordable as possible for our membership and as such applied a conservative approach to fee adjustments as noted below.

 

The board and management of Recreational Aviation Australia are also working hard on additional member benefits to ensure ongoing great value to our members.

 

MEMBERSHIP FEES REMAIN UNCHANGED

 

Recreational Aviation Australia is pleased to announce that fees for flying memberships will not be increased in the 2015-2016 financial year. The current adult membership fee will remain at $210. What Recreational Aviation Australia has done is align our fee structure to make it simpler for all of our flying members. This means that all adult flying membership fees are now $210. There will no longer be an extra charge for Chief Flying Instructors, Senior Instructors and Instructors. Recreational Aviation Australia recognises the support of our instructing fraternity with this move.

 

Student fees remain unchanged at $165. Non flying membership fees remain unchanged at $100.

 

AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION FEE CHANGES

 

From 1 July 2015 the fee to register a two seat aircraft will increase by $5. Similarly the fee to register a single seat aircraft will also increase by $5. The fee to re-register a powered parachute will decrease from $130 to $70.

 

SPORT PILOT SUBSCRIPTION

 

From 1 July members wishing to access a printed copy of Sport Pilot will need to subscribe for the annual discounted members subscription fee of $90 (a $15 discount on the non-member cover price of $8.80 per edition). The great news with Sport Pilot is that the magazine is being expanded to 12 feature filled editions per year as well as a companion digital edition that will be available for free to download or view online. Check out the subscription options in the insert in next month’s magazine.

 

 

Apple iOS8.3 Software Bug

 

Members are advised of a serious potential issue with Apple devices which do not have internal GPS. As a result of the release of iOS 8.3 software upgrade, Apple devices which are not fitted with an internal GPS, will not connect with external GPS devices such as Bad Elf or Dual GPS. This may mean flight planning software maps will not provide an accurate position.

 

This can have serious impacts on the accuracy of the Apple device if used for navigational assistance by members. Flight planning software creators have advised the issue will only be resolved with the release of a new software upgrade by Apple.

 

Members are reminded electronic devices can provide a useful aid for in-flight situational awareness. Primary navigation should always be conducted using visual references, the principles of deduced reckoning, including time over distance calculations and flight logs.

 

For further reading, CAAP 233-1(1) provides detailed advice regarding the use of these devices. A link to this CAAP is provided http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/233_1.pdf

 

Find out more >>

 

Jabiru Airworthness Notice

 

• Jabiru Scimitar hub inspection bulletin
   
   
  

 

 

Unit 3/1 Pirie Street

 

PO Box 1265

 

Fyshwick ACT 2609

 

02 6280 4700

 

02 6280 4775

 

 

CEO

 

[email protected]

 

General Enquiries

 

[email protected]

 

Pilot and Student Enquiries

 

[email protected]

 

Aircraft Enquiries

 

[email protected]

 

ASIC Enquiries

 

[email protected]

 

Members Market

 

[email protected]

 

This email was sent by Recreational Aviation Australia Inc., Recreational Aviation Australia, 3/1 Pirie Street, Fyshwick, ACT 2904, Australia to [email protected]

 

Unsubscribe

 

 

 

 

[Oscar]

It seems to me that there are two distinct and divisible issues here that are being enmeshed and confused.

 

The first of these is the established competence ( by means of licence/certificate and endorsements as applicable) of the PIC for the flight to be undertaken.

 

The second, is the compliance of the aircraft with the applicable rules and regulations at the time of the flight to be undertaken.

 

Before an aircraft can take off legally, BOTH conditions must be met: the aircraft must be compliant with all applicable standards AND the PIC must be suitably competent to fly it. HOWEVER: the competence of the PIC is NOT tied to the aircraft in question, any more than the eligibility of a licensed driver is tied to a particular car. If you are determined to be 'competent' to legally fly e.g a J160 reg. 24-NNNN, then you are legally competent to fly ANY Jabiru J160 24- NNNN, - even if you are not the owner of that particular aircraft.

 

That the specific Jabiru 24-NNNN about to embark on a flight is fully and currently compliant with all requirements is a matter for the entity held responsible for its registration, be that an individual or an organisation such as an FTF. The legislative authority for determination of the compliance of Jabiru 24-NNNN with all applicable standards happens to be RAA, by delegation of the powers of the 'head' legislative authority - CASA.

 

However, let it be recognised that CASA has no mandate to confer delegation of its powers under the CAA 1998 to any one specific organisation, nor that the selected organisation should have an incorporated status, (let alone such arcane and frankly bloody stupid conventions as regional representation for Board Membership). If a commercial service were to be established that guarantees competitive service to ensure compliance with regulations, CASA could NOT sustain a legal challenge to a determination that RAA is to be the only authority for registration and ensuring on-going compliance.

 

In case you are wondering - CASA has stated that it would not support a monopoly situation for any of the multiple organisations that currently form the regulatory bodies for Sport Aviation activities if there were compelling arguments against that position. RAA is not an impregnable fortress in this respect - however it has the advantage of a large number of (relatively) satisfied members, and from my perspective, is rapidly dragging itself out of the bad old days of the Middo-Runciman hegemony. Although not a member of RAA at the moment, I am entirely supportive of (most) of the current Board, and believe that there is a core of expertise on the current Board that bodes well for RAA's future.

 

Accepting for the moment that RAA is the delegated authority that provides assurance with compliance with the applicable standards for my aircraft (55-reg) - who then ought to be allowed to fly it as PIC? Only RAA certificated pilots (who by definition, have to be current members of RAA) ?

 

This is where it gets stupid. Competence is competence, whether signed off by CASA or RAA. Right now, a CASA-approved TEST Pilot, who happens to have MY aircraft flown in his log-book while he was doing test flying for Jabiru, cannot legally fly it because he is not a member of RAA. A mate, who was a Check Captain for Qantas, who has owned (amongst others) a Cherokee 6, a Pitts Special, a Tiger Moth, who could fly a Datsun 120Y through a hurricane in the Andes mountains IFR using nothing more than a clay figurine of his grandfather and a piece of wet string, cannot - because he is not a member of RAA.

 

Both of these people could legally fly a J430 - but not a J230? This is nonsense., or worse.

 

The requirement for an RAA certificate (and by implication, to be a current member of RAA) to fly an RAA-registered aircraft, is b&llshit. I support a requirement for RAA membership for owner/operators. to ensure that their aircraft are compliant with the regulations, since RAA is the current delegated authority. I support that a current RAA Pilot Certificate should be adequate proof of competence for the flying activities that it allows.

 

I do not support that a person with current defined competence to fly an aircraft of a type that happens to be registered by RAA cannot fly an aircraft registered with RAA as PIC, or has to hold an RAA-issued Pilot Certificate.

 

 

[aro]

The issue is not about pilot competence, it is aboout complying with the law as it currently stands.

 

CAO 95.55 gives an exemption from certain parts of the regulations on the condition that the pilot is a member of RAA and has a valid pilot certificate. If you try to claim CASA are not allowed to do that, you might throw out the whole exemption rather than the requirement for a pilot certificate.

 

If anyone can fly aircraft that are not required to comply with certain regulations, what is the point of those regulations?

 

The exemptions were negotiated by the then AUF for their members. This is why the exemptions specify that you must be a member and have a valid pilot certificate.

 

 

[dazza 38]

There is no provision for recreational flying in the base Act remember; it was allowed as an exception by the aviation authority of the day, which CASA, a safety authority, continues.The exception was allowed subject to Self Administration

I can remember when the annual subscription was increased and I argued it wasn't justified, having administered 1500 people for 40 cents each, but was howled down on this forum because the subscription was considered peanuts.

 

If you don't like the subscription now, then take a look at where your money is being spent. $300,000 for Professor Avius to talk to you might be a start.

No worries, change the rules.

 

 

[ave8rr]

Re 2) and 3), bit unfair Tubs, Let me reproduce an email that was sent out to members over the weekend, and included video/audio of the recent Cessnock GM, which was streamed live at the time of the meeting and is also available after the fact for anyone that wants to review it....If talking about the magazine then review because its discussed in some detail by the current board and one of the previous older board members who was around at the time when.........nothing got doneIF any member is not getting these emails then please sign up online by loging into the member portal and on the first page that opens after login there is a subscribe option....

 

Andy

Andy. This is all very good for those with the internet and an email address.

I even know of an L2 who is not on line nor intends to do so.

 

 

[facthunter]

No one (as I see it ) is arguing skill levels in absolute terms. Talking a specific plane that appears as a certified aircraft and an almost identical one is suitable to be owner built under RAAus or can also be purchased over the counter muddies the waters so to speak..

 

VH aircraft comply with ICAO. An international accepted standard. RAAus don't have to, nor do you need a licence to fly one but the structure that applies to flying some aircraft using a CERTIFICATE has reduced "privileges" traded for less stringent requirements here and there. There is an organisation that is recognised and has the authority to administer those aircraft and the MEMBERS PAY for the cost of this "arrangement" Why should anyone just expect to avail themselves of this "facility" without kicking in dough and input. Our board members don't get renumerated and lots organise events free too. It's part of the show. Nev

 

 

[rick-p]

Am I reading it correctly that we have to pay for the magazine now $90 per annum?

 

 

[kgwilson]

The problem is all CASA. If the dickheads had listened to what many in Industry were saying and adopted the NZ CAA system, RA-Aus would be there for the purposes of training and licencing Ultralight/Microlight pilots (along with any other approved organisation), there would be one registration system covering all aircraft and anyone with a PPL could fly a microlight/Ultralight after having done a type rating. Simple, but we have CASA so ridiculously complex.