An interesting misconception on CAO and RAAus interaction

[kasper]

This is an area where CASA takes some interest as well. Since the regulations require that in order to fly under the exemptions granted by CAOs 95.10, 95.32 or 95.55 you must be a member of RAAus (or HGFA in some cases), CASA requires that we make membership open to all comers.

This quote came up on another thread and as it is a common 'understanding' that is in fact false I am opening this thread to discuss why its a misunderstanding of the legal requirements.

1. The requirement to be a member is NOT in the CAOs its from the RAAus Ops Manual. The CAOs require that you hold a valid pilots certificate and operate in accordance with the appropriate ops and technical manuals (eg CAO 953.10 5 (d0(i) and (ii))

 

2. The requirement for membership is within the RAAus control - they have it entirely within their power to issue a lifetime pilots certificate. They already have most of it there as the validity of the groupings etc under the certificate under the Ops Manual 2.07 (4) are unlimited and only 2.07 (3) (a) (ii) requires membership to remain current.

 

So the point is the CAOs do NOT require membership of the RAAus ... the RAAus Ops manual does.

 

 

[Downunder]

There was the case of the ppl pilot flying RAA aircraft.

 

RAA got in a bit of a huff I believe, but the pilot got away with it because he had a "higher level of training".

 

Someone else might be able to fill in some more details....

 

 

[djpacro]

There was the case of the ppl pilot flying RAA aircraft.... but the pilot got away with it because he...

complied with the rules at the time .... but Part 61 is now very specific as to the registration of an aircraft which a PPL may fly (but this is just my opinion from my recollection of reading these rules quite some time ago).

[Happyflyer]

complied with the rules at the time .... but Part 61 is now very specific as to the registration of an aircraft which a PPL may fly (but this is just my opinion from my recollection of reading these rules quite some time ago).

In my interaction with CASA re using RAAus time towards Commercial Licence they have replied that they do not consider RAAus aeroplanes to be "registered" aircraft as required by 61.007. Their definition of registered (not defined in part 61 but there may be a definition elsewhere in CAOs) is that it must be on the "VH" register. Therefore I think they would have the opinion that a PPL would not be legally able to fly a RAAus aircraft without a pilot certificate. All to be tested in court of course by someone stubborn and rich enough.

 

61.007 Application of Part 61

 

(1) This Part applies to flight in a registered (my bold and underlining) aircraft of any of the following categories:

 

(a) aeroplane;

 

(b) helicopter;

 

© powered‑lift aircraft;

 

(d) gyroplane;

 

(e) airship

 

 

[Kiwi303]

But would someone with a NZ RAANZ certificate and a ZK-xxx reg Microlight be able to fly in Aussie...

 

They have a certificate, and a registered aircraft, boxes ticked, but not CASA boxes.

 

Through the NZCAA system of putting microlights (sub 600Kg rules etc) on the ZK system not on a separate RAANZ system like your number RAAus regs could be tricky as you can't tell from looking at the reg whether it is a microlight or GA just from the reg.

 

 

[kasper]

But would someone with a NZ RAANZ certificate and a ZK-xxx reg Microlight be able to fly in Aussie...They have a certificate, and a registered aircraft, boxes ticked, but not CASA boxes.

 

Through the NZCAA system of putting microlights (sub 600Kg rules etc) on the ZK system not on a separate RAANZ system like your number RAAus regs could be tricky as you can't tell from looking at the reg whether it is a microlight or GA just from the reg.

Yes and no.

No - its not automatic as its not an international registration but a local one.

 

Yes - approach CASA (i know people shudder but there are some really helpful and interested people in there) and see what can be arranged as a visiting aircraft

 

 

[Roundsounds]

In my interaction with CASA re using RAAus time towards Commercial Licence they have replied that they do not consider RAAus aeroplanes to be "registered" aircraft as required by 61.007. Their definition of registered (not defined in part 61 but there may be a definition elsewhere in CAOs) is that it must be on the "VH" register. Therefore I think they would have the opinion that a PPL would not be legally able to fly a RAAus aircraft without a pilot certificate. All to be tested in court of course by someone stubborn and rich enough.61.007 Application of Part 61

 

(1) This Part applies to flight in a registered (my bold and underlining) aircraft of any of the following categories:

 

(a) aeroplane;

 

(b) helicopter;

 

© powered‑lift aircraft;

 

(d) gyroplane;

 

(e) airship

The VH bit, as I read it, only applies to integrated PPL / CPL aeroplane courses. Compare 61.590 and 61.610, the integrated CPL aeroplane class requires the flight time to be completed in a registered or recognised aeroplane (61.590(4)), whereas the non integrated does not have this requirement. (See 61.525+61.545 for PPL aeroplane)

 

With reference to the RAAus membership requirement, pilots are exempt of certain regulations by the various CAOs (95.10, 95.32, 95.55). The CAOs also state these exemptions are subject to compliance with RAAus Operations and Technical manuals, if those manuals require you to be financial members that's what you need to do. These manuals provide an alternative means of complying with the exempt regulations.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

The VH bit, as I read it, only applies to integrated PPL / CPL aeroplane courses. Compare 61.590 and 61.610, the integrated CPL aeroplane class requires the flight time to be completed in a registered or recognised aeroplane (61.590(4)), whereas the non integrated does not have this requirement. (See 61.525+61.545 for PPL aeroplane)With reference to the RAAus membership requirement, pilots are exempt of certain regulations by the various CAOs (95.10, 95.32, 95.55). The CAOs also state these exemptions are subject to compliance with RAAus Operations and Technical manuals, if those manuals require you to be financial members that's what you need to do. These manuals provide an alternative means of complying with the exempt regulations.

CASA stated the whole of part 61 applies to the VH aircraft due to 61.007 but have said half the 200 hr requirement for CPL (other than the integrated courses) can be done in an RAAus aircraft.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

CASA stated the whole of part 61 applies to the VH aircraft due to 61.007 but have said half the 200 hr requirement for CPL (other than the integrated courses) can be done in an RAAus aircraft.

I'm not sure who you spoke to in CASA, but the introduction of Part 61 wasn't handled too well when it comes to educating the CASA staff or the industry for that matter.

 

61.007 is about the applicability of the regulations from a Licencing perspective - eg requirement to hold a pilot licence, instrument rating etc is limited to registered aeroplanes. The Flight time definition is contained in 61.010 and it refers you onto further 61.xxx, but doesn't make reference to "registered aircraft". Therefore the requirement for a registered aircraft in the aeronautical experience needed for a the issue of a pilot licence is only made when it is required. (Integrated courses).

 

Whoever you spoke to gave you incorrect advice, I suggest you contact CASA again but talk to a Safety Advisor (go to the CASA home page and search for your local Safety Advisor using the search function). Get them to email their response to you, it's interesting to see the different level of investigation that goes into an written versus spoken response!

 

The Part 61 regulations differ for integrated and non-integrated courses, have a read of the references I quoted. This is further reinforced on the application form - integrated course section contains a note regarding the "registered aeroplane", whereas the non-integrated course doesn't. The 100 hours in permitted in RAAus registered aeroplanes is a hangover from the old CAR 5 reg's.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I'm not sure who you spoke to in CASA, but the introduction of Part 61 wasn't handled too well when it comes to educating the CASA staff or the industry for that matter.61.007 is about the applicability of the regulations from a Licencing perspective - eg requirement to hold a pilot licence, instrument rating etc is limited to registered aeroplanes. The Flight time definition is contained in 61.010 and it refers you onto further 61.xxx, but doesn't make reference to "registered aircraft". Therefore the requirement for a registered aircraft in the aeronautical experience needed for a the issue of a pilot licence is only made when it is required. (Integrated courses).

Whoever you spoke to gave you incorrect advice, I suggest you contact CASA again but talk to a Safety Advisor (go to the CASA home page and search for your local Safety Advisor using the search function). Get them to email their response to you, it's interesting to see the different level of investigation that goes into an written versus spoken response!

 

The Part 61 regulations differ for integrated and non-integrated courses, have a read of the references I quoted. This is further reinforced on the application form - integrated course section contains a note regarding the "registered aeroplane", whereas the non-integrated course doesn't. The 100 hours in permitted in RAAus registered aeroplanes is a hangover from the old CAR 5 reg's.

Thanks. I agree part 61 is and was a shemozzle. CASA themselves don't understand it very well. We just try to use the confusion to our gain. Just keep asking until you get the answer you want!

 

 

[spacesailor]

CASA, DOS'NT understand!

 

Must be too many lawyers in that room after all.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

So the point is the CAOs do NOT require membership of the RAAus ... the RAAus Ops manual does.

In a letter to Senator Xenophon on my behalf, Johnathaon Aleck says in response to a question:

"4.

 

Do these organisations have oversight of all participants in the activity (for example,does the Gliding Federation of Australia have oversight of all gliding participants)? Do they also have oversight of non-members?

 

There is no legislative requirement that every person wishing to participate in an activity currently overseen by an RAAO must do so under the auspices of that RAAO. Any person who is able and willing to comply with all of the otherwise applicable provisions of the civil aviation legislation governing those activities (i.e,, those provisions of the regulations from which persons affiliated with an RAAO are exempted from complying) may do so. Alternatively, a person (or a group of persons) who is (are) able to satisfy CASA that they are capable of exercising, in respect of themselves, the full range of safety-related oversight an existing RAAO is able to provide, may qualify for recognition as a self-administering entity, along the lines reflected in the CAO Part 95-series of exemptions. In addition, CASA must be satisfied that the co-existence of two or more such ‘organisations’ (even if the latter might constitute an organisation of one person) does not of itself pose unacceptable safety risks."

 

There is in fact a legislative requirement for every person wishing to participate in an activity currently overseen by an RAAO must do so under the auspices of that RAAO. The CASR's provide that, in general, ultralight aircraft are “unregistered”. (If an aircraft is exempt from the CASR's then the provisions of the CASR relating to aircraft registration – Part 47- do not apply.)

 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 200.025

 

Flying unregistered aircraft

 

For paragraph 20AB(1)(a) of the Act, a person is taken to hold a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform a duty that is essential to the operation of an unregistered Australian aircraft during flight time if:

 

(a) the person holds a pilot certificate granted by a

 

sport aviation body

 

that administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

 

(b) the person operates the aircraft in accordance with the

 

sport aviation body's

 

operations manual.

 

And further:

 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 200.030

 

Flying unregistered aircraft--offence

 

A person commits an offence if:

 

(a) the person pilots an unregistered Australian aircraft; and

 

(b) a

 

sport aviation body

 

administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

 

© the person does not:

 

(i) hold a pilot certificate granted by the

 

sport aviation body

 

; and

 

(ii) operate the aircraft in accordance with the

 

sport aviation body's

 

operations manual.

 

It is not possible, for example, to hold a valid pilot certificate issued by RAA_Aus under their Operations Manual approved by CASA (see para 2.01 of the manual) without being a member of RA_Aus. (This is common to all such Manuals).

 

This raises an important question. If the Regulations say :

 

(1) the person holds a pilot certificate granted by a sport aviation body that administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

 

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

 

this does not create a requirement to be a member of that organisation. The CAO's reflect this position. As such how can CASA approve an operations manual that goes beyond the requirements of the law? In effect, the CASA is permitting private organisations to make law, something no parliament should do and our parliament has not done.

 

Note also that the term “sports aviation body” is used. Nowhere in the legislation will you find the term Recreational Aviation Administrative Organisations (ie RAAO's). The legislation defines “sports aviation bodies” as defined in Civil Aviation Regulation 2:

 

"sport aviation body "

 

means:

 

(a) Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.; or

 

(b) the Australian Ballooning Federation Ltd; or

 

© the Gliding Federation of Australia; or

 

(d) the Hang-gliding Federation of Australia; or

 

(e) the Australian Parachute Federation; or

 

(ea) the Australian Sports Rotorcraft Association Inc; or

 

(f) a body established in a Contracting State to administer sport aviation in that State.

 

The term Recreational Aviation Administrative Organisations (ie RAAO's) is an invention of CASA without legislative support. The proposition of Alecks that CASA could approve a new RAAO neglects to mention that this will require a change in the regulations. This amplifies the scant regard that CASA has for the law. Regulations are not made by CASA.

 

It is worth noting the special position of the Gliding Federation Of Australia as its aircraft fleet is VH registered – in other words on the Australian Aircraft Register and the exemptions of CASR 200 have no application to gliders.

 

Alecks statement that “There is no legislative requirement that every person wishing to participate in an activity currently overseen by an RAAO must do so under the auspices of that RAAO.” only has application to the gliders as the exemptions (and related strictures) of CASR 200 do not apply to gliders.

 

Aleck is correct to this extent. CAO 95.4 contains a get out clause (5(a)(ii)) that is, in practical terms, in-operable:

 

5

 

General conditions

 

5.1 An aircraft to which this Order applies must not be operated except:

 

(a) by an individual:

 

(i) who is a member of the GFA; or

 

(ii) who has been given written approval by CASA to operate that aircraft; and

 

(b) in accordance with:

 

(i) in the case of an individual referred to in sub-subparagraph 5.1 (a) (i) — the rules, orders, directions, standards, maintenance and operational procedures contained in the GFA Operational Regulations and other applicable manuals and written directives of the GFA; or

 

(ii) in the case of an individual who has been given a written approval under sub-subparagraph 5.1 (a) (ii) — the conditions included in that approval; and

 

© by a pilot who:

 

(i) in the case of an individual referred to in sub-subparagraph 5.1 (a) (i) — is qualified in accordance with the standards specified in the GFA Operational Regulations, subject to the limitations which are specified in the GFA Operational Regulations as being appropriate to the qualification held by the pilot; or

 

(ii) in the case of an individual who has been given a written approval under sub-subparagraph 5.1 (a) (ii) — is a pilot qualified as mentioned in the approval, subject to the limitations which are specified in the approval.

 

I tried to get an approval from CASA. They outlined the provisions of an approval that they would give but required me to make a formal application and pay an in determinant fee. I did not proceed as their initial indication of the conditions that would be attached to an approval would have been impossible to comply with.

 

 

[kasper]

Holding a RAAus issued pilots certificate does not require a continuing membership of the RAAus to comply with the CAR nor does compliance with something that is the ops manual of the RAAus require a continued membership of the RAAus

 

The ONLY requirement that prevents complete stand alone operation in compliance with the CAR for non-RAAus members is that 1 subparagraph in the OPS manual itself.

 

So whilst the answer is techncially correct - its not the CARs its the OPs manual - there currently is no RAAO that covers the same ground as RAAus to which a non-member can align operations with ... though it might be open to an individual to approach CASA to on an individual basis undertake to operate in accord with the RAAus Ops and Tech manuals on an existing RAAus pilots certificate ...

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

The ONLY requirement that prevents complete stand alone operation in compliance with the CAR for non-RAAus members is that 1 subparagraph in the OPS manual itself.

But is that sub paragraph within the law? And does CASA have the power to approve something that it cannot do itself?

 

 

[kasper]

But is that sub paragraph within the law? And does CASA have the power to approve something that it cannot do itself?

Oh Jim, They are SUCH fun questions you ask ...

the only real problem is NOBODY has deep enough pockets to take CASA on and test them in court ... and given it is actually a challenge to the CASA supported RAAus monopoly through enforced membership not likely to get much support from RAAus or its board either.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Perhaps the Commonwealth Ombudsman can be of assistance.

 

 

[nickduncs84]

Serious question. Why are some people so hell bent on not being a member of Ra Aus?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Fair question, I reckon one of two reasons:

 

1. Tight on $

 

2. Don't like the ways the organisation is run, but couldn't be bothered to do anything about it.

 

Neither being reasonable cases.

 

 

[kasper]

or 3. People try to be involved POSITIVELY for and on multiple instances over multiple years from multiple people RAAus demonstrably do not want to engage and provide responses that turn the focus directly on the member.

 

I have to use two hands to count the times over the past 20 years I have been told directly by RAAus/AUF personnel (board and employee) that I am being difficult or trying to avoid the rules ... In EVERY case I was NOT but I do not take advice of 'that's what we intended' or "It'll be OK" when I am working with, on or flying an aircraft that I or others will be flying where people above RAAus/AUF can and will take note of what I have raised ... CASA have lawyer and the funds to force you to do things and when I am told on multiple occasions on numerous areas of legal obligations that I am just a trouble maker when I am pointing out factual difference between what the words of RAAus/AUF say (or are said to mean by personnel) and what they probably DO mean in law.

 

Bit like the tale of the emperors new clothes - the fact that you did not intend to be naked does not in fact mean that you were not naked.

 

And for the records - I DO NOT want to stop being a member of RAAus and never have. But it does not stop me being pissed off at the way RAAus and its employees treat the members ... and this has been the case since the mid 1990's and continues through to last week.

 

 

[Nobody]

4. It discourages people from trying differing forms of aviation. Say an RAAus pilot wants to try gliding. They are up for the cost of GFA membership before they have even started. Say a GA pilot wants to have a drifter to float around the sky on those magical summer evenings(before last light) when the air has gone glassy smooth. They are up for the RAAus membership cost before they have even started.

 

This "barrier to entry" means that many people do not look "over the fence" to see what the other parts of aviation are up to. They stick to their isolated silo and denounce any thing that is different. This means that Australian pilots are more likely to squabble about what the other parts of aviation are up to rather than directing their attention toward the regulator.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

There would be a couple of solutions to the silo effect:

 

1. Hand it all over to CASA or

 

2. Create a single RAAAO covering all forms of sport aviation.

 

Neither of these are going to happen. Like it or not, there's always going to be some form of administration to licences / certificates / registration and with that goes a cost - hence membership fees.

 

Although not ideal, the current systems are possibly the best compromise. What would be a good thing to see is a better cooperation between the various org's to make "sampling" their wares cheaper and easier.

 

 

[nickduncs84]

I get the gripes. Honestly I do. But that's like saying that you don't agree with the government, so you're not going to pay your taxes and you're going to lobby to have no government instead. There aren't enough rec aviators in Auatralia to justify all the whining and infighting. I reckon the SAAA sends out 10 political emails for every 1 that has anything to do with aviation. It's a real shame that everyone can't appreciate each other's views and efforts a little more and make an effort to work together. Part of me thinks that perhaps because aviation attracts such a passionate crowd, that passion carries with it the issues that tend to plague the various sports bodies. But then I look at other countries and don't see the same thing. Either way, I wish the rec aviation scene in Australia was left to focus more on aviation. As for the specific example of discouraging people from other forms of aviation, I don't buy that for a second. How much does Ra Aus or GFA membership cost? And I don't believe you need to be an Ra Aus member for a TIF. Honestly, I don't think you're being serious if your suggesting that the membership fees are preventing people trying different forms of aviation. The annual fee is probably cheaper than an hour of fuel or a night at the pub. If you've wanted to try gliding your whole life, I doubt the fee is stopping you.

 

 

[Geoff13]

You are correct Nick. You can do a tif and I think the first two or three lessons before you need to join RAA

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Nick, gliding is a good example of how organisations forget what their real role is and end up pissing a lot of people off. In fact in the early days of RA most of the members were pissed off ex-GFA members. GFA is a dying organisation - visit any gliding club and get an idea of the age profile which tells the story - there is no renewal. And then there is there endless rule making - talk to any commercial glider maintainer to get an idea of how erratic and confused their maintenance regulation is.

 

I am a member of the EAA in the US and it has regularly refused to get involved in the regulatory aspect of aviation, figuring that it can only be a fierce advocate for recreational aviation by not sullying its reputation by being a hand maiden of the FAA. BTW there is no Part 149 in the FAA regs and our regs are supposed to be harmonised with the US FAA.

 

RAAus is not the problem - the problem is a model of regulation that diffuses responsibility and that is really regulation on the cheap.

 

A better solution would be if all the sports aviation bodies owned an organisation that sold services (ie everything that RAAus does now) to individuals, those individuals choosing if membership of the body that is free to advocate on that branch of aviation that most interests them.

 

In other aspects of life most of us oppose compulsory unionism - why would you not oppose compulsory membership in this instance? Why has union membership fallen to historic lows? The recent Royal Commission has shown why people have marched away from the unions. They grew fat, greedy, lazy and forgot who they were supposed to represent.

 

 

[Nobody]

I get the gripes. Honestly I do. But that's like saying that you don't agree with the government, so you're not going to pay your taxes and you're going to lobby to have no government instead. There aren't enough rec aviators in Auatralia to justify all the whining and infighting. I reckon the SAAA sends out 10 political emails for every 1 that has anything to do with aviation. It's a real shame that everyone can't appreciate each other's views and efforts a little more and make an effort to work together. Part of me thinks that perhaps because aviation attracts such a passionate crowd, that passion carries with it the issues that tend to plague the various sports bodies. But then I look at other countries and don't see the same thing. Either way, I wish the rec aviation scene in Australia was left to focus more on aviation. As for the specific example of discouraging people from other forms of aviation, I don't buy that for a second. How much does Ra Aus or GFA membership cost? And I don't believe you need to be an Ra Aus member for a TIF. Honestly, I don't think you're being serious if your suggesting that the membership fees are preventing people trying different forms of aviation. The annual fee is probably cheaper than an hour of fuel or a night at the pub. If you've wanted to try gliding your whole life, I doubt the fee is stopping you.

You have hit the main issue on head in the first part of your post. Too much politics from too much empire building results in too little focus on aviation and away from the lime light CASA does what it wants.

 

As the cost, I am not talking about a TIF but the casual participation that is missing in Aviation in Australia. If you regularly fly a GA aircraft you cant have an RAAus aircraft on the side for a bit of fun without membership and a second license. People just dont want the hassle.

 

edit.

 

At one time I held the following memberships:

 

GFA+Club ~$500

 

RAAus ~$200

 

SAAA ~$200

 

AOPA~$150

 

When I realized I was paying over a grand for these I cut back substantially and so no longer have AOPA or the GFA.