An interesting misconception on CAO and RAAus interaction

[turboplanner]

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.

Golf clubs don't administer football, basketball or hockey either, and they are all ball sports.

 

The problem with casual activity is that it's hard to administer out in the field, and it will usually harbour those of least recency and highest risk, so the potential risk costs are expected to be paid for by the committed regulars.

 

 

[Nobody]

Golf clubs don't administer football, basketball or hockey either, and they are all ball sports.The problem with casual activity is that it's hard to administer out in the field, and it will usually harbour those of least recency and highest risk, so the potential risk costs are expected to be paid for by the committed regulars.

But I don't need to be a member of a football club to kick the ball around the park with a few mates....

 

While there is some argument that a casual user is less likely to be proficient and current with the convergence of RAAus aircraft and small GA that is much less of an issue...

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Golf clubs don't administer football, basketball or hockey either, and they are all ball sports.The problem with casual activity is that it's hard to administer out in the field, and it will usually harbour those of least recency and highest risk, so the potential risk costs are expected to be paid for by the committed regulars.

No one administers casual GA pilots. I played a lot of golf (state representative level) and it is my experience that a lot of hopeless players often play more than those who are proficient. Skills are built up with practice but once established remain at a high level with little activity. So effective training is the key.

Also are you suggesting that someone save us from ourselves? Some of us will be highly proficient, many of us will be average and a very small number will be reckless. As the Hempel case demonstrated amply no amount of regulation will save us from the reckless.

 

 

[jetjr]

We all pay to administer GA pilots, taxes on income and fuel, pissed away by CASA and its hobby horses.

 

I cant agree that currency doesnt aid proficiency, I reckon its a key problem in RAA.

 

Certainly agree with the case for good training and upskilling at BFR for example.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

I cant agree that currency doesnt aid proficiency

I didn't say that - what I said was some people have to practice more than others.

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't see a barrier to trying other forms of flying. Anyone can try gliding, RAAus flying and gyro flying without becoming a member of the relevant organisation. They take a trial flight. Over the years I have tried trike flying and gliding with no problems. There is no way even an expert pilot is going to jump into those different types of aircraft and fly without an instructor.

 

Jetjr. What is the key problem? Your post is a bit unclear. Are you saying currency is a problem? I would agree if you said it was a problem with some GA pilots.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Yenn, no one is suggesting that TIF's are a problem. No one is suggesting that pilots will jump from one discipline to another without appropriate instruction. What is under discussion is the requirement to become a member of an organisation to enjoy the benefits of the relevant CAO when the regulations do not make it a requirement. See my earlier posts. I know of no other pursuit where it is compulsory to join an organisation to enjoy the benefits of government regulation eg engineers can certify structures as compliant if they are eligible for membership (ie they do not have to be members) of Engineers Australia, GP's do not have to be a member of a professional organisation to get a prescriber number and so on.

 

This is not anti RAAus or any other organisation it is anti CASA approving operations manuals that make it a requirement which is probably "ultra vires".

 

When RAAus is more an advocate and not a regulator I will probably be a more satisfied member. The EAA in the US has prospered by maintaining this position.