Draft Constitution?

[Jim McDowall]

JimCASR 2005 exempts the aircraft being placed on the VH register if:

(b) the person operates the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body's operations manual.

 

I think from memory (without actually reading it) that the RAAus Ops Manual requires the aircraft to be "registered" under the RAAus system

 

Also, and I forget the timing, but at some point in the past the definition of "Australian aircraft" was amended to include those on the then-AUF register

My point is that there is no CASA enforceable requirement for a RAAus aircraft to be registered so they cannot demand that registration be included in the ops manual. Further what was all the registration fiasco about?

Yes they are Australian aircraft - defined in the Civil Aviation Act I think.

 

Further, CASA should not approve an Ops manual with a registration requirement as the law does not require it.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Are you sure? The law is Civil Aviation Order 95.55 ( and others). This requires aircraft operating under this order to be RAAus registered. The CAO stands apart from the Ops Manual.

 

"1.1 This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane that: (a) is not a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute; and (b) has a single engine and a single propeller; and © has a Vso stall speed of not greater than 45 knots, as determined by design standards or certification requirements; and (d) is registered with the RAA; and (e) is mentioned in paragraph 1.2."

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

The CAO says "registered with the RAA" which is at variance with the CASRs. In the same way as regulations made under an Act cannot be at variance to an Act, a CAo cannot be at variance to the legislation under which it is made. CASA cannot require something that it cannot do itself ie register an aircraft that is exempt from registration so that part of the CAO is made without power. This whole matter is about CASA acting without a head of power something which is all too common in all forms of public administration..

 

 

[Happyflyer]

We have had this argument before, here and in the Sport Pilot magazine. Still haven't seen any of the proponents brave enough to advertise a flight in contravention of CAO's to CASA and RAAus and actually do it.

 

 

[DWF]

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 11.160

 

What exemptions can be granted under this Division

 

(1) For subsection 98(5A) of the Act, CASA may, by instrument, grant an exemption under this Division from compliance with:

 

(a) a provision of these Regulations; or

 

(b) a provision of a Civil Aviation Order;

 

in relation to a matter mentioned in that subsection.

 

(2) CASA may grant an exemption under this Division to a person, or to a class of persons, and may specify the class by reference to membership of a specified body or any other characteristic.

 

(3) CASA may grant an exemption under this Division either on application or on its own initiative.

 

Note 1: For the application of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 to an instrument granting an exemption under this Division, see subsections 98(5AA), (5AB), (5B) and (5BA) of the Act.

 

Note 2: For review of a decision refusing to grant an exemption under this Division, see regulation 201.004.

 

Note 3: Despite the repeal of regulation 308 of CAR, an exemption granted under that regulation before 27 June 2011 continues to have effect on and after 27 June 2011 according to its terms--see subregulation 202.011(2).

 

...........................

 

I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under subregulation 308 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.

 

[signed John F. McCormick] John F. McCormick Director of Aviation Safety 6 April 2011 Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Instrument 2011

 

1 Name of instrument This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Instrument 2011.

 

2 Commencement This instrument commences on the day after it is registered.

 

3 New Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Civil Aviation Order 95.55 is repealed and a new Civil Aviation Order 95.55 is substituted as set out in Schedule 1.

 

Schedule 1 Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Exemption from provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes

 

.......................

 

[i have no legal training and may be wrong but] From my reading of the CARs, CASRs and CAOs, etc. CASA has (as one would expect) all the legislative bases covered regarding the legality of the CAO 95.55 and others affecting RAAus.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[DWF]

Under the CARs and CASRs ALL Australian aircraft are required to be registered by/with CASA;

 

however the various versions of CAO 95 grant exemptions from the CARs/CASRs for certain ultralight aircraft and are entitled to and do specifiy the conditions under which those exemptions apply.

 

One of those conditions is that aircraft subject to CAO 95 are registered with RAAus.

 

 

[Ron5335]

We have had this argument before, here and in the Sport Pilot magazine. Still haven't seen any of the proponents brave enough to advertise a flight in contravention of CAO's to CASA and RAAus and actually do it.

Remember a few years back with the incident a Lake Hume, The first reaction was they would lock him away for ever.

 

then 3 years to get to court for some reason.. then came a smack on the wrist.

 

May have already been done !!!!!!

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Remember a few years back with the incident a Lake Hume, The first reaction was they would lock him away for ever.then 3 years to get to court for some reason.. then came a smack on the wrist.

May have already been done !!!!!!

What was he found guilty of and what was the penalty?

 

 

[Ron5335]

Google..... Lake Hume Aircraft Crash !!!!

 

Did just about everything.. No Rego..... No Licence... Low flying, and if the Sydney Harbor Bridge was there, I would say he would have flown under it too.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Google..... Lake Hume Aircraft Crash !!!!Did just about everything.. No Rego..... No Licence... Low flying, and if the Sydney Harbor Bridge was there, I would say he would have flown under it too.

You said he got a slap on the wrist. I know what he did. I don't know what he was charged with or what he was found guilty of and what his penalty was. I can't find that on google, maybe I'm just hopeless on the computer. You said you know so could you please tell me?

 

 

[Ron5335]

I don't know what the individual charges were, but a good behavior bond was the outcome.

 

But when you add it up, No License 2 years, No Rego 2 years, Buzzing water skiers, you would think that was endangering public.

 

The first argument about Low Flying was, he claimed his altimeter never went below 500ft, Don't suppose it did when Lake Hume is 630ft AMSL

 

So it just seemed from the start, he was out to prove a point, but I don't think the crash was a part of the plan.......

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I don't know what the individual charges were, but a good behavior bond was the outcome.But when you add it up, No License 2 years, No Rego 2 years, Buzzing water skiers, you would think that was endangering public.

 

The first argument about Low Flying was, he claimed his altimeter never went below 500ft, Don't suppose it did when Lake Hume is 630ft AMSL

 

So it just seemed from the start, he was out to prove a point, but I don't think the crash was a part of the plan.......

Thanks. So he was found guilty. Penalty might be poor but it doesn't show that CAO's and the ops manual are illegal.

 

 

[Ron5335]

Maybe not illegal as such, but the question is more .... Is what required and written enforceable ?

 

After 2 years, with 15 witness statements, Front page newspaper story, photos, videos, a plane, a pilot, the official statement from the inquiring press was "The matter is still under investigation" or was it We have found a few loopholes that are slowing things up.

 

With No Licence or Rego that got RAA of the hook, so it was a breach of CAO's, and big pockets CASA didn't even put in an appeal.

 

Things like, and I'm guessing. That under 95.55 planes are to be registered with RAA, but it might not state MUST be registered with RAA.

 

therefore if there is no requirement, then there is no need to join RAA or get their required license.

 

The altimeter thing, probably found a CASA doc saying the altimeter must be set to QNH, he did, therefore he didn't do anything wrong !!!!

 

because it didn't require it to be set to QNF.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The altimeter thing, probably found a CASA doc saying the altimeter must be set to QNH, he did, therefore he didn't do anything wrong !!!!because it didn't require it to be set to QNF.

He could set it wherever he likes, but it's 500 feet above GROUND level.

 

 

[DWF]

Meanwhile, back at the constitution ......

 

 

 

What do you think of the proposed Object of the orgainsation?

 

"6. Object

 

The Company's object is to pursue the following purposes:

 

a. The advancement of aviation in Australia including to take all actions howsoever connected with the design manufacture of all and any machine object, device and/or concept that relates directly or indirectly to

 

the advancement of flight whether powered or otherwise whereby such flight is under the control, supervision or participation in any degree by human activity.

 

b. To encourage training in the art and science of aviation piloting, operation, design, manufacture of aviation and/or space craft of whatsoever design and capability."

 

This is at least shorter than the 9 paragarphs in the 'Statement of Purpose' in our current constituition but it is now perhaps too short, tries to cover everything conceivable in aviation and does not IMHO actually state what we are about.

 

Where is any mention of the Members and their aspirations?

 

It only mentions two purposese:

 

a. The advancement of aviation; and

 

b. To encourage training.

 

While these are commendable purposes they are not what we are primarily about.

 

 

 

The real purpose of our organisation is much closer to the Vision and Mission Statements in our Strategic Plan:

 

Vision: "Safe, Accessible, Fun, Enjoyable Aviation (SAFE Aviation)"

 

Mission: "Accessible, safe [affordable] aviation for all by being an industry leader in developing sport and recreational aviation for the fun and enjoyment of our members."

 

[i put in the 'affordable'.]

 

DWF

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Affordable is a subset of accessible. There are many things that can prevent access to aviation, cost is only one of them. Health standards are another that we shouldn't loose site of, lest we all end up needing a DAME etc...

 

I was happy with accessible when the whole mission was debated.....

 

I personally am happy with the proposed, we must be careful that what we adopt is fit for purpose today, but doesn't become an impediment in the future, if our purpose today was the same as it probably was thought to be when th e AUF was a concept then much of today's reality probably wouldn't align with the purpos of the time.... ( and no I'm not wanting to start the whole rag and tube vs anything more modern debate)

 

Can you giv me any example of member aspirations etc that wouldn't be broadly covers by the proposed, that we should really consider?

 

Andy

 

 

[Keith Page]

DWF That is a very good point there has to be a mentioned consideration to members as it is a member based organisation. Continued learning is a very good area to consider as the continued learning aspect is a requirement for a number of professional organisations to keep ones registration current.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Affordable is a subset of accessible. There are many things that can prevent access to aviation, cost is only one of them. Health standards are another that we shouldn't loose site of, lest we all end up needing a DAME etc...I was happy with accessible when the whole mission was debated.....

 

I personally am happy with the proposed, we must be careful that what we adopt is fit for purpose today, but doesn't become an impediment in the future, if our purpose today was the same as it probably was thought to be when th e AUF was a concept then much of today's reality probably wouldn't align with the purpos of the time.... ( and no I'm not wanting to start the whole rag and tube vs anything more modern debate)

 

Can you giv me any example of member aspirations etc that wouldn't be broadly covers by the proposed, that we should really consider?

 

Andy

Andy however the constitution must show sympathy to the rag and tube sector because that is only what some members wish to participate with.

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[kasper]

Andy however the constitution must show sympathy to the rag and tube sector because that is only what some members wish to participate with.Regards

KP.

For clarity it should not be SYMPATHY (we are not requiring that, there is no malady or deficiency in being rag n tube) but inclusion on equal terms

 

 

[Keith Page]

Inclusion on equal terms will do. I just do want to see them ignored.

 

KP.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So if we specify nothing about rag and tube and the aviation terms are broad, as they are, then we must have fully met Kaspers requirements no? And definitely Keith's requirements that they are ignored.....

 

So we are merely at "all aviation is equal, and none are more equal........"

 

(Omg....how on earth did we get to be discussing this non issue when I specifically asked that we refrain........)

 

Keith, I have to ask, why exactly must the constitution show anything for any specific sector of aviation ? If it's broad enough to be fully inclusive without specifically identifying all the inclusions, which imho is an exercise in future fail, then fantastic....no?

 

Andy

 

 

[DWF]

I strongly disagree that getting the purpose statement correct is a non-issue.

 

Everything you do after stating the purpose depends on what the purpose is.

 

To get this statement correct we need to ask (and answer) the questions:

 

Why does/should RAAus exist? i.e. what is its purpose.

 

Why (apart from the current requirement to be a member if I wish to fly or register an ultralight aircraft) should I become a member?

 

 

 

As a matter of interest and comparison the Purpose of the SAAA as stated in their rules is:

 

"The purpose of the SAAA is to assist and mentor members to build, fly and maintain the aircraft of their choice legally and affordably in as safe a manner as possible through education and assistance from other members."

 

It is probably not exactly what we need for our organisation but it does definitely and clearly have members as the focus of its purpose and is a lot closer to the statement we need than that currently proposed.

 

 

 

To play devil's advocate -

 

"The advancement of aviation" may not be in the best interests of the 95.10 fraternity. Increasing rules, regulations, retrictions and requirements brought about by "the advancement of aviation" clearly do not help those who wish to participate in aviation at the grass roots level.

 

[While I have some sympathy for and support the 95.10 aviators, I am not advocating on their behalf here but merely pointing out that the proposed "Purpose" may not be purpose they would like the orgainsation to exist for.]

 

I may be a bit old and slow but I find the currently proposed "Purpose" to be cumbersome, poorly worded and difficult to read and understand. I have had to read it a number of times to try to understand what it really says and means.

 

 

 

Pauses to catch breath .......

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I strongly disagree that getting the purpose statement correct is a non-issue. Everything you do after stating the purpose depends on what the purpose is.To get this statement correct we need to ask (and answer) the questions:

 

. . .

David,

You, as always make, a great deal of sense with your comments and suggestions. On here they are very interesting but don't necessarily get noticed by the people who are drafting the new constitution. Whereas if they are also addressed to the CEO they have a chance of being heeded and there being an actual outcome. Your good thoughts stand on their own merit and it would be a shame if they were not made available for consideration by the drafters.

 

If you look at the equivalent documents for most large or small companies you will find them very broad and deliberately so. They are meant to enable rather than restrict the enterprise.

 

The BHP Co Ltd started life as a partnership to mine a silver resource at, you guessed it, Broken Hill. When the silver ran out and WWI looked like cutting of steel supplies from Europe, they got into steelmaking. In the 1960s, a rare opportunity arose to get into the oil business. In the 1980s they got into the export coal business (mainly courtesy of Peabody's exit) and expanded their iron ore production into an export business. If BHP had had a restrictive constitution, they'd have had to wind up the Company when the silver ran out.

 

RAAus is of course a very different organisation than a BHP. The one thing in common is that the new constitution is intended to be an enabling document - not restrictive like our current constitution.

 

In the real world, RAAus is run by the Board between elections. We have predominantly apathetic members and so RAAus will be run by enthusiasts - those few that take the trouble to vote and the even fewer who are prepared to put their hand up to serve the members on the Board. It is impractical to think that the Board will be run by 9,000+ members.

 

The SAAA's statement I find quite restrictive to what they do now. If we went back to the early days of the AUF and wrote a purpose that reflected tightly what was going on then . . . Could any of those few pioneers have imagined what the AUF could morph into? Can any of us imagine what RAAus might be into in 30 years from now? I know I can't. Who would have predicted say 5 years ago the advent of drones in plague proportions? What of the future? Jet packs? Computer controlled rotorcraft that you can fly from your back yard? I doubt I'll be around in 30 years and if I am I am even more certain I won't still be flying. But what is possible . . . is beyond my imagination. Could RAAus end up as the peak non-commercial aviation body with SAAA and RAAOs rolled in as chapters controlling all forms of aviation that are not for reward?

 

I plan to cease commenting for a while until we get the next draft to review. And then it will be imperative to get our comments and suggestions to the people in this process who can make changes. And that happens via the CEO.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

David,You, as always make, a great deal of sense with your comments and suggestions. On here they are very interesting but don't necessarily get noticed by the people who are drafting the new constitution. Whereas if they are also addressed to the CEO they have a chance of being heeded and there being an actual outcome. Your good thoughts stand on their own merit and it would be a shame if they were not made available for consideration by the drafters.

 

If you look at the equivalent documents for most large or small companies you will find them very broad and deliberately so. They are meant to enable rather than restrict the enterprise.

 

The BHP Co Ltd started life as a partnership to mine a silver resource at, you guessed it, Broken Hill. When the silver ran out and WWI looked like cutting of steel supplies from Europe, they got into steelmaking. In the 1960s, a rare opportunity arose to get into the oil business. In the 1980s they got into the export coal business (mainly courtesy of Peabody's exit) and expanded their iron ore production into an export business. If BHP had had a restrictive constitution, they'd have had to wind up the Company when the silver ran out.

 

RAAus is of course a very different organisation than a BHP. The one thing in common is that the new constitution is intended to be an enabling document - not restrictive like our current constitution.

 

In the real world, RAAus is run by the Board between elections. We have predominantly apathetic members and so RAAus will be run by enthusiasts - those few that take the trouble to vote and the even fewer who are prepared to put their hand up to serve the members on the Board. It is impractical to think that the Board will be run by 9,000+ members.

 

The SAAA's statement I find quite restrictive to what they do now. If we went back to the early days of the AUF and wrote a purpose that reflected tightly what was going on then . . . Could any of those few pioneers have imagined what the AUF could morph into? Can any of us imagine what RAAus might be into in 30 years from now? I know I can't. Who would have predicted say 5 years ago the advent of drones in plague proportions? What of the future? Jet packs? Computer controlled rotorcraft that you can fly from your back yard? I doubt I'll be around in 30 years and if I am I am even more certain I won't still be flying. But what is possible . . . is beyond my imagination. Could RAAus end up as the peak non-commercial aviation body with SAAA and RAAOs rolled in as chapters controlling all forms of aviation that are not for reward?

 

I plan to cease commenting for a while until we get the next draft to review. And then it will be imperative to get our comments and suggestions to the people in this process who can make changes. And that happens via the CEO.

Don, sure you didn't mean "controlling all forms of aviation that are not for reward" - surely RAAus is not meant to be a regulator - if so, which organisation will be our advocate? Can't be both.

 

 

[facthunter]

Jim, your point has been brought up by me (amongst others) for years. The organisation has to serve two purposes one of which may not be in the members's interests. The "balance" will be critical to the success of the movement into the future. Attention MUST be directed at defining how it works. Nev