Draft Constitution?

[turboplanner]

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.

I wouldn't get hung up on the "regulator", "advocate" buzz words.

As a self administering organisation, RAA has to set regulations which ensure a safe and fruitful ongoing existence, and if it wants to expand its membership, or replace the older retiring members with new blood it needs to promote itself. It also needs to interface with CASA, its Regulator, to ensure it meshes with the airspace controlled by CASA, and above all the board members who represent the members and the employees of the members need to be on-message with the requirements of the members in an open, transparent, and focused manner.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Gents the reality is that the conflict that you see between regulation and advocacy is a tension that CASA is happy to allow to continue.....it means that they need a small office of only a few to oversee administration organisations that they pay (sometimes!) an annual (or longer) pittance to. If it reverted to the ways of old GA then the costs per participant would be horrendous, and the size of CASA might well be on the way to equalling the human services department in terms of employee count......

 

CASA are always very keen to reiterate, adnausium, that they regulate and RAAus administrate.......what that actually means is that CASA effectively for us pilots legislates, and RAAus enforces....right up to the point that where we determine on a per case basis that we are a body with no real power to enforce anything, and or, no stomach to do the enforcement, at which point CASA swoops in for a bit of seagull management (squawks loudly and toxically sh!ts all over things far below it) before flying off to resume the reverse of never choose complex when simple will do......

 

I think the tension will always be there, and if I ever find myself on the end of a noncompliance action I seriously hope its run by RAAus than by CASA....My mortgage demands the former......

 

I can see the problems that you discuss, but knowing governments as they are, I hold little faith that anything that is brought in to replace RAAus will end up being better than that which it replaced.....

 

 

[DonRamsay]

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.

Isn't that what I wrote Jim? " . . . controlling all forms of aviation that are not for reward"?

It may seem unlikely but I think CASA would actually like to see a body like RAAus take over the small, non-commercial aspect of aviation. CASA's predominant interest is in commercial aviation where there is a risk of large scale loss of life and or property. As I see it, the bigger the plane the more CASA is interested. GA and RA, especially the recreational (non-commercial) aspect, really is small beer to them and I would imagine just a burr under the saddle.

 

RAAus is, as Nev says, both an advocate for recreational aviators and also a regulator of recreational aviation.

 

I don't see that these are necessarily antithetical roles. At the macro level, RAAus can advocate for it membership by pressing CASA for the removal of unreasonable restrictions on their aviation activities - e.g. controlled airspace or low MTOWs.

 

At the micro level RAAus can provide services to its individual members like providing advice regarding registering aircraft and obtaining pilot qualifications, a magazine and the members market.

 

RAAus likes to think it is about safe but low regulation, and thereby affordable, aviation. When RAAus is successful in these aims members are enormously advantaged.

 

I believe it is a very rare circumstance where a member is prosecuted by RAAus however, it has happened in the past and will in the future and will remain most likely a rare event. The ethos of RAAus, especially for simple mistakes and low level errors of judgement is more like coaching than prosecution. It has to be serious and knowingly repeated action that will attract serious corrective action by RAAus.

 

A member prosecuted by the body that is meant to be its advocate might seem odd but it is to the benefit of the body of membership rather than to the obvious benefit of an individual. AS far as the individual is concerned it may be distasteful but it may also save their life and prevent them from inadvertently injuring/killing others and destroying property.

 

We enjoy exemptions from the more onerous aspects of GA because of a risk analysis shows that our low regulation environment is not unsafe. If an individual member does enough dumb stuff that it can change the result of the general risk analysis the result is the removal of exemptions and the imposition of onerous regulation that is to the detriment of the entire membership body.

 

Our membership includes serious, competent, risk-averse pilots who are happy to abide by regulations which have the force of law. And then there are the cowboys. RAAus has to look after both and make sure the cowboys do not cause harm to the rights of the vast majority who have true respect for the law of gravity and those three suggestions from Mr Newton.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Andy and Don, what I am arguing for is a paradigm shift in the approach. At the moment CASA delegates to individuals not organisations (which by their very nature are apt to diffuse responsibility, especially those such as RAAO's). The experimental end of GA is managed this way where delegates such as Stephen Dines issue experimental certificates. There is no reason why all recreational aircraft cannot be experimental aircraft and thus treated in the same way as experimental aircraft in the US (after all our regulatory system is supposed to be harmonised with the FAA's). Yes, there may be existing regulatory issues to be dealt with and the SAAA's stupid intervention into maintenance of experimental aircraft needs to be dispensed with, but there is another way.

 

If RAAus is only prepared to defend the existing paradigm, then it it is no better than any local government council and we all now what a crock that is where the councils are, at the end of the day, not prepared to bite the hands that feed them (State and Federal Governments). eg the Jabiru fiasco.

 

Who is going to argue for recreational aviation in the same way the EAA has advocated for the recreational/experimental sector in the US?

 

Don, decending into a discussion about "cowboys" is not at all helpful. In every facet of life people break the law and there are systems to deal with them - we do not need RAAus to be the policeman. After all we all airlines, GA, Rec and defence all share the same air according to a common set of rules and CASA exists to administer those rules. The moment we fly independently of an instructor we are, in all practical terms, beyond the reach RAAus's system and subject to the rules of the air. Yes, external observers may make reports, but with all legal systems, the rules of evidence apply lest anarchy break out.

 

So far as I see it, this discussion is dominated by those who can only see perpetuation of the existing as the future model. Perhaps it is time to "think outside the square". I fear that if we don't we (RAAus) will end up like the GFA - drowning in a paper war of its own making - and losing relevence to the modern world.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

This why we need to embrace Experimental category:

 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 201.003

 

Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases

 

Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things.

 

Yes, there may be some liability issues associated with those issuing experimental certificates but these can be managed and also if CASA is not liable how can its delegate be liable?

 

 

[turboplanner]

This why we need to embrace Experimental category: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 201.003

Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases

 

Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things.

 

Yes, there may be some liability issues associated with those issuing experimental certificates but these can be managed and also if CASA is not liable how can its delegate be liable?

CASA is at arm's length from the Self Aministering Bodies, such as RAA. It's RAA registering the aircraft and issuing pilot certificates and it takes the liability from any negligence in doing that.

 

If you go searching for the way other voluntary activities and commercial activities are set up you'll see an increasing separation of control from Government to the people participating in the activity.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Andy and Don, what I am arguing for is a paradigm shift in the approach. At the moment CASA delegates to individuals not organisations (which by their very nature are apt to diffuse responsibility, especially those such as RAAO's).

Not sure I understand you here Jim. CAO's allow RAAus pilots to register aircraft and fly under certain exemptions from the rules that apply to GA. I see those rules as advantageous not disadvantageous.

 

. . . There is no reason why all recreational aircraft cannot be experimental aircraft and thus treated in the same way as experimental aircraft in the US (after all our regulatory system is supposed to be harmonised with the FAA's). Yes, there may be existing regulatory issues to be dealt with and the SAAA's stupid intervention into maintenance of experimental aircraft needs to be dispensed with, but there is another way.

On the other hand there is no reason why all non-commercial aviation should not become "Recreational Aviation". Less regulation, less expense and simpler medicals and operating and maintenance environment. What's not to like? No way I want to go GA. I was charged by a LAME $320 to fix a flat tyre on an LSA aircraft that was parked 30 metres from his workshop. Why would I ever want to be obliged to use LAMEs?

 

If RAAus is only prepared to defend the existing paradigm, then it it is no better than any local government council and we all now what a crock that is where the councils are, at the end of the day, not prepared to bite the hands that feed them (State and Federal Governments). eg the Jabiru fiasco.

CASA does not feed RAAus with significant amounts of cash. They make an annual contribution of less than 3% of what it costs us to operate. And over the Jabiru issue you can still see the bite marks on CASA's hand.

 

Who is going to argue for recreational aviation in the same way the EAA has advocated for the recreational/experimental sector in the US?

RAAus. At the moment we are well advanced in discussions with CASA to remove unreasonable restrictions imposed on RAAus pilots as to access to Controlled Airspace and aircraft up to 1,500 kg MTOW. All the advances that have taken us from flying over your own paddock in a single seater to being able to fly around Australia (including Tassie) have come from AUF/RAAus advocacy.

 

Don, decending into a discussion about "cowboys" is not at all helpful. In every facet of life people break the law and there are systems to deal with them - we do not need RAAus to be the policeman.

RAAus pilots operate under the provisions of the Ops and Tech Manuals. RAAus has no real "police" powers other than to expel somebody from membership if they bring the organisation into disrepute - with due deference to natural justice. CASA has, as we all know very substantial "summary justice" style powers. Intervention by RAAus employees is intended to help members stay alive and not kill anyone else. Surely that is a good thing to do?

 

. . . So far as I see it, this discussion is dominated by those who can only see perpetuation of the existing as the future model. Perhaps it is time to "think outside the square".

Always worth considering alternatives but I haven't seen evidence of one here that would persuade me to give up our hard won recreational aviation model. I am told it is unique in the world but that doesn't make it right or wrong. If somebody wants to suggest an alternative model that the 9,000 + pilots and 3,500 aircraft owners would applaud I'd be happy to hear it. Call me unimaginative but I haven't thought of one.

 

I fear that if we don't we (RAAus) will end up like the GFA - drowning in a paper war of its own making - and losing relevence to the modern world.

RAAus is winning the paper war! I see no likelihood of drowning anytime soon. We have spent a big chunk of money on our previously paper systems to get them into the virtual world and more will go that way soon. We are in the process of completely re-thinking our Ops and Tech manuals and the way they are presented. Our future is so bright we have to wear Raybans!

 

 

[DWF]

G'day Don

 

Thank you for the kind words in post #246.

 

I will take your words to heart and send my thoughts to the CEO.

 

I will also continue to post here from time to time as it sometimes produces interesting (although sometimes difficult to understand) responses.

 

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.

I have not had the time or opportunity to do this for myself yet but I expect I will find that there will be a broad spectrum of "Purposes" from the very broad (as you suggest) to the restrictively narrow.

 

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.

I believe that the "Purpose" statement in the proposed draft RAAus constitution is too broad.

 

If one follows your logic then we should adopt one which says:

 

. Purpose - to do anything we want.

 

and as for the powers of the company:

 

. Powers - to do anything the law will allow.

 

 

 

This is placing an awful lot of trust and power in the hands of 5 to 7 individuals.

 

The constitution should be a guiding document indicating what the organisation is set up to do and, in broad terms, how it can and should go about doing it.

 

 

 

If the members of the organisation wish to change the direction (purpose) of the orgaisation there is (or should be) a process specified in the constituion whereby this can be achieved.

 

Most RAAus members want the purpose of the organisation to be to enable them to build, maintain and/or fly light aircraft for fun - not set up a commercial paper aeroplane factory (for example).

 

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.

Agreed. And that is why I do not wish to give them cate blanch.

 

"Power corrupts and absolute power, corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton.

 

(I am not saying that we have this problem at the moment but your proposal would facilitate it.)

 

The Purpose of the organisation needs to have some focus. The broader the focus the more thinly our resources are (or can be) spread.

 

We also need to stipluate that that focus includes the aspirations of the 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?

You may be correct regarding the SAAA statement of purpose but I think it is closer to what we need than the waffelly one currently proposed.

 

It is my contention that we should adopt a Purpose that states what we want to do now and in the foreseeable future and not cater for ALL possibilities.

 

If our focus changes then the constitution can be ameded - as it has been done by RAAus and many other organisations is the past.

 

I plan to cease commenting for a while until we get the next draft to review.

That resolution didn't last very long, did it?

 

 

DWF

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . I will also continue to post here from time to time as it sometimes produces interesting (although sometimes difficult to understand) responses.

As do I and while I may not always be gracious about having my pet project questioned, I do find the challenging a really good test and it has proved fruitful. There are some experienced and clever people commenting on here . . . and one or two who just drive me nuts!

 

I have not had the time or opportunity to do this for myself yet but I expect I will find that there will be a broad spectrum of "Purposes" from the very broad (as you suggest) to the restrictively narrow.

My experience is that Memorandums and Articles are all set as wide as somebody can imagine so as not to limit the enterprise. I've not seen any that are tight and narrow focused but then most of my experience has been in commerce rather than not-for-profit.

 

 

 

People who take an interest in what's in the set of rules that govern the Board's conduct between AGMs are often, how should I put it control freaks is a bit strong but certainly control minded - not comfortable with being a back seat passenger. But the reality is that in a corporation where we number one of 9,000+ we can't all get our hands on the control column. We elect a Board and the Board steer the ship. We don't like the Board, we haul them to a General Meeting like the one at Queanbeyan in 2013 and read the Board the Riot Act. A bit of a bother but effective.

 

I believe that the "Purpose" statement in the proposed draft RAAus constitution is too broad.

If one follows your logic then we should adopt one which says:

 

. Purpose - to do anything we want.

 

and as for the powers of the company:

 

. Powers - to do anything the law will allow.

 

 

 

This is placing an awful lot of trust and power in the hands of 5 to 7 individuals.

 

The constitution should be a guiding document indicating what the organisation is set up to do and, in broad terms, how it can and should go about doing it.

 

 

David, I'd rather not argue the merits of a draft about to be replaced but I can say I understand your reservations and will have them clearly in mind when I get to review the next draft. You may recall that the 25 amendments to the current Constitution that I proposed over the period 2012-14 were aimed at securing a tight, restrictive constitution. I didn't trust that Board to do what they should have been doing and not do things that they should not do.

 

However, if we have a capable professionally minded Board that mentality is just not necessary. Such Directors understand the concepts of fiduciary duty, not acting Ultra Vires and generally acting responsibly. If any Board acted seriously contrary to the best interests of the members, there are remedies and they are not restricted to General Meetings to "show cause" but there is the heft of the Corporations Law that is severe not just on bad decisions but even things like decisions that oppress minority shareholders.

 

 

 

We need to put the effort in up front and elect people who understand the role and responsibilities of being a Director instead of electing mates or people who like to wear epaulettes and crave the "Board Member" status but have no track record of working at Board level.

 

I think we need to trust our elected officials to do the right thing and hold them to account if they don't. When the Board engages a CEO, they can't be second guessing his/her every action. The Board needs to set the Policy and Strategy and the CEO has to manage the execution and report progress to the Board. Similarly, if we elect a Board based on their qualifications, experience and their election statement, we need to let them get on with it and not second guess their every decision. We are getting a much better level of communication from the CEO and to a lesser extent from the Board than we were getting a couple of years ago. It could be said that wouldn't be hard because we were getting next to nothing but I believe it is improving and that trend will continue.

 

If the members of the organisation wish to change the direction (purpose) of the orgaisation there is (or should be) a process specified in the constituion whereby this can be achieved. Most RAAus members want the purpose of the organisation to be to enable them to build, maintain and/or fly light aircraft for fun - not set up a commercial paper aeroplane factory (for example).

A scheduled General Meeting, the Annual General Meeting and, if necessary, an Extraordinary General Meeting. Would require a Special Resolution and the support of 75% of those who vote.

 

What if it were in the best interests for RAAus with its new, you beaut computer systems, to provide an admin facility to all the other RAAOs. This could lower the unit costs for RAAus and end up with cheaper membership costs. But the big thing is the things that we can't foresee now that would be good for RAAus to act on quickly not wait 6 months to go through a General Meeting.

 

We also need to stipluate that that focus includes the aspirations of the members.

Many members will have differing ideas on the raison detre for their RAAus. There will always be some commonality but we need to be careful not to state that too thinly.

Look at the extremely sudden rise of the drones/UAVs and the issues they are causing regulators. Consider pilotless, plug-in electric aircraft that are possible within 10 years but 10 years ago we would have thought them a total fantasy. What will aviation be like 10 years from now is mind boggling.

 

It is my contention that we should adopt a Purpose that states what we want to do now and in the foreseeable future and not cater for ALL possibilities. If our focus changes then the constitution can be ameded - as it has been done by RAAus and many other organisations is the past.

 

 

Noted.

 

 

[DWF]

.......Despite what some may think, the only reason for RAAus to exist is to allow its members to aviate, safely, with the lowest regulation and lowest cost feasible.

Don, you seem to be coming round to my way of thinking - at last.

 

THAT should be the focus of the PURPOSE of RAAus [in our new constitution].

 

.Recall also that AUF/RAAus was started by a small band of amateur flyers. There were huge advances achieved by the early team taking us from a handful of people teaching themselves to fly single-seater aircraft with short life engines at up to 300 feet in back paddocks to 10,000 pilots and 3,500 aircraft having relatively reliable 4 stroke engines and 10,000 ft and all of Class G airspace to play with. The big push over the last 3 years has been to lift the capability of the management and the Board. There has been a lot achieved but there is still plenty of room for improvement. Our present CEO and Tech Manager are in my assessment the best we've ever had in those roles - if anyone can sort through your issues they can............

As you point out, RAAus has evolved over the time it has been in existance. A "Purpose" statement in the constitution along the above lines would not have hindered this evolution.

 

 

 

I have had a look at the rules/constitution of the associations listed below (selected at random) and ALL indicate (in part at least) of existing for the benefit of Members.

 

(I can forward extracts if you wish.)

 

Royal Automobile Club of WA (800,000 members)

 

Royal Aero Club of WA (>1,000 members)

 

WA Council of Social Services (>300 organisations representing 515,000 members)

 

CBH (Co-operative Bulk Handling) (1,000s of grain grower members)

 

 

 

I ran out of time to chase up more examples but I am sure there are many more out there.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

It is a matter of law that associations (incorporated or otherwise) exist for the benefit of members - that is what distinguishes associations from companies.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Hey turbo

 

"Strategy can compensate for lack of talent but talent never compensates for lack of strategy." provided the strategy is correct!

 

 

[DonRamsay]

It is a matter of law that associations (incorporated or otherwise) exist for the benefit of members - that is what distinguishes associations from companies.

Substitute "shareholders" for "members" and I think you will find that all companies exist for the benefit of the members (shareholders) of the company. They have no other reason for being unless they are a Government commission that has been corporatised - they only exist for the benefit of the employees of the corporation .

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hello DWF.. Keep going on Don he will get there.

 

Oi! Don there is a missing reason regarding RAAus existence. Being able to fly "Legaly" all the rest is secondary. We must fly legally then the rest is an expansion on the legallity. This bit about "Safely" what does that cover?...??. "Safely":- only covers flying without damage to person/persons/property or aircraft. We must looks at the acts which generate the out come which is safe. Safety, Safe, Safely are the result of these acts which generate them.

 

Safe and its derivatives are the end of the road.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[DWF]

It is a matter of law that associations (incorporated or otherwise) exist for the benefit of members - that is what distinguishes associations from companies.

Which is precisely why, especially if we are to become a company, the Purpose of being for the benefit of members needs to be explicitly stated in the Purpose statement of the constitution.

 

DWF

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

DWF, section 181 of the Corporation Law provides similar protection, but there will be occasions when the members interest will not have primacy. At some time in the future the organisation will become a part 149 body and receive delegations from CASA. (These are currently held by individuals associated with the organisation) . It is possible that CASA may make demands of the organisation that are not in the interests of members and as a carrot throw some money at the organisation. If the organisation needed funds at the time to settle the demands of a creditor whose interests come first? In this situation the directors must take the money and screw the members interests. Yes, prudent management can avoid this scenario. There is an old legal saying pertinent to drafting documents - "if you can imagine it happening, provide for it" - it is the things you cant or dont imagine that cause the problems.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Substitute "shareholders" for "members" and I think you will find that all companies exist for the benefit of the members (shareholders) of the company. They have no other reason for being unless they are a Government commission that has been corporatised - they only exist for the benefit of the employees of the corporation .

Perhaps RAAus exists for the benefit of CASA who are not that interested in managing the bottom end of aviation? And they get out of it on the cheap by throwing scraps to RAAus - the $100k they send us does not in any way match the cost of providing the things they require and turn a blind eye to the resultant contravention of S97AB of the Act.

 

 

[facthunter]

Palm your job off to an organisation (RAAus) and underfund (break agreements) . IF RAAus eventually is just going to be a poor imitation of CASA (the policeman) What's in it for us? The problem with our branch of aviation is, we have been subject to fits and starts direction from above from a body that would rather have us disappear than bother with running .

 

Divesting itself of responsibility and work hasn't made cost savings to the taxpayer and CASA continues on doing anything it wishes without having to respond to reports (Forsyth) and it's customers (users) concerns more and more disconnected from the real flying world and resorting to legalese wording that only a Lawyer might try to understand and ordinary pilots have no hope of interpreting in a uniform way. Having a punitive system in place (Strict Liability) is bullying everyone in the system. Every pilot still flying is treated like a criminal who can't prove him/herself not guilty because it's not affordable and you can't do it without fear or favour.

 

It's not going to get any better by letting this go on for longer. People will just give up Aviation for pleasure because the risk is too high. That's not the risk of being killed or injured it's the risk of falling foul of the system, or having the rules changed when you are 1/2 way through setting yourself up to what you think are the CURRENT rules. Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Hello DWF.. Keep going on Don he will get there.

 

. . . This bit about "Safely" what does that cover?...??.

Not killing yourself or others.

[DonRamsay]

Perhaps RAAus exists for the benefit of CASA who are not that interested in managing the bottom end of aviation?

I doubt you'd get much of an argument from CASA to that statement.

 

And they get out of it on the cheap by throwing scraps to RAAus - the $100k they send us does not in any way match the cost of providing the things they require . . .

And you wouldn't get much argument from most at RAAus on that statement.

 

. . . and turn a blind eye to the resultant contravention of S97AB of the Act.

Please explain . . .

For those who don't know "The Act" by heart:

 

CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 97AB

 

Charging of fees by external service providers

 

(1) An external service provider may charge a person such fee as is agreed between the external service provider and the person for any service provided by the external service provider under this Act, the regulations or the Civil Aviation Orders.

 

(2) The fee is payable to the external service provider.

 

(3) The fee must not be such as to amount to taxation.

 

(4) If the fee is unpaid, it is a debt due to the external service provider and is recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

(5) In this section:

 

"external service provider " means a person who is the holder of a delegation under this Act or the regulations, or who is an authorised person within the meaning of the regulations, other than a person in any of the following capacities:

 

(b) an officer;

 

© a person who provides services to CASA under a contract with CASA;

 

(d) a person who, under a contract with CASA, provides services to the public on CASA's behalf;

 

(e) an employee of a person referred to in paragraph © or (d).

 

"provide a service " includes deal with an application or request or do anything.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . Having a punitive system in place (Strict Liability) is bullying everyone in the system.

I see "Strict Liability" as the opposite of natural justice. It is lazy and unjust. Very efficient for CASA. Do we agree thought that it works reasonably well for traffic police? If you are caught doing 50km/h over the posted speed limit should the Police have to prove, for every instance, that that was unsafe?

In CASA's case I think it is overused in the extreme. Quite often I would think the circumstances need to be examined not just wham bam thank you mam.

 

GA looks as if it is on the Very Seriously Ill list. Prognosis is terminal. I wonder if it will ever be given a break before it is killed off completely. I believe RAAus could be a solution to the lingering death of GA. Re-classify all not for reward aviation as "recreational". Then have sensible medicals and maintenance regimes. It could breathe new life into GA. RA is only a threatened species - plenty of life left in that one.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Please explain . . .

Section 97AB is about conflict of interest.

The Act determines who can charge fees for “any service provided by the external service provider under this Act, the regulations or the Civil Aviation Orders.” (S.97AB(1)) and “provide a service includes deal with an application or request or do anything.” (S.97AB(5))

 

An “external service provider means a person who is the holder of a delegation under this Act or the regulations, or who is an authorised person within the meaning of the regulations, other than a person in any of the following capacities:

 

(b) an officer;

 

© a person who provides services to CASA under a contract with CASA;

 

(d) a person who, under a contract with CASA, provides services to the public on CASA’s

 

behalf;

 

(e) an employee of a person referred to in paragraph © or (d).”

 

A “person” includes: “expressions used to denote persons generally (such as "person", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no-one", "one", "another" and "whoever", include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual” (Acts Interpretation Act S.2C).

 

Sports Aviation bodies (referred to as RAAO's) such as the RAAus operate under an agreement (ie contract) to undertake certain functions on behalf of CASA. (Thus RAAus is a person who provides services to CASA under a contract with CASA and a person who, under a contract with CASA, provides services to the public on CASA’s behalf ". CASA also issues delegations to employees and other functionaries.

 

It is my contention that, by virtue of;

 

1. the exception in the definition of “external service provider”;
    
    
    
    
   
2. and the definition of a service:
    
    
    
   

 

 

any fee charged by the Association in relation to any aviation related matter is probably unlawful. As CAO's 95.10,95.32,95.55 issued by CASA to facilitate certain exemptions from the Regulations requires the membership of the Association it may also be that its membership fees are also outside the Act (as in “or do anything” ie become a member.(S.97AB(5)))

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Re-classify all not for reward aviation as "recreational". Then have sensible medicals and maintenance regimes.

Don, maybe all not for reward day VFR. Can't agree more about the rest - see the EAA's victory in respect of medicals in the US and even the LAMEs cant work out maintenance for low end aviation. Tell me any other trade where you lose the capacity to use your trade if you can't work more than 6months in 2 years. Especially when you are working on aircraft built before you were born let alone during your absence from the job.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Does it matter that the arrangement with CASA is, strictly speaking, a Deed rather than a contract.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

A deed is a contract