RAAus changes to applicable requirements ...

[kasper]

Simple question.

 

If RAAus are going to be changing the requirements that apply to pilots/aircraft when do you expect RAAus will tell pilots/aircraft owners about the changes.

 

And of course yes, I have an ulterior motive here where there is a a current change to applicable requirements on aircraft that has applied for more than a year and is unannounced to the membership ... just a little feature of our current much improved active communication and good management and governance from RAAus...

 

 

[facthunter]

It can be that the rule is being "discussed". Urgency would vary from time to time. One would hope it isn't just overlooked. RAAus rules are over ridden by anything from CASA so perhaps they might be more clear about these matters. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

hmmmm......I saw this post and went UhOh....looked at the latest CAO95.55 ( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015C00724 ) and..........yep, thought to myself that's a bit of a mistake.......what is not at all clear to me is what happens to those that aren't the original owner of a 19 registered, who did modify, when it was legal to do so,.....where do they stand today........Yuck!

 

I looked at that by virtue that I knew from my time on the board that CASA considered there to be a hole in the then current 95.55 around experimentals as compared to every other form of experimental they administer....

 

 

[kasper]

1. The rule was 'discussed' with the tech manager in Oct 2014 ...

 

2. change apparently agreed between Tech and CASA in March 2015

 

3. became applicable in April 2015 (I was told and have applied the change to my aircraft)

 

4. April 28th 2016 incorrect requirements still on the RAAus website

 

The delay in making the changes public were taken up with RAAus Tech and CEO earlier this month, then followed up to all board members (when I did not even get an acknowledgement of receipt) and the best I have on when it will be communicated to members from the end of last week is:

 

"Your enquiry has been received and a response will be supplied in due course. Thank you for your patience."

 

 

[kasper]

hmmmm......I saw this post and went UhOh....looked at the latest CAO95.55 ( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015C00724 ) and..........yep, thought to myself that's a bit of a mistake.......what is not at all clear to me is what happens to those that aren't the original owner of a 19 registered, who did modify, when it was legal to do so,.....where do they stand today........Yuck!I looked at that by virtue that I knew from my time on the board that CASA considered there to be a hole in the then current 95.55 around experimentals as compared to every other form of experimental they administer....

Nope - the issue is that there are applicable changes to the Tech Manual agreed with CASA and not made public

 

 

[kasper]

hmmmm......I saw this post and went UhOh....looked at the latest CAO95.55 ( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015C00724 ) and..........yep, thought to myself that's a bit of a mistake.......what is not at all clear to me is what happens to those that aren't the original owner of a 19 registered, who did modify, when it was legal to do so,.....where do they stand today........Yuck!I looked at that by virtue that I knew from my time on the board that CASA considered there to be a hole in the then current 95.55 around experimentals as compared to every other form of experimental they administer....

Agree there is concern over 19 reg second and subsequent owners mods to the airframes BUT

1. the application section is a point in time determination - IF the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation at the point of registration then the operation of 1.2(e) applies to that airframe over its life.

 

2. the fact that a second or subsequent owner did not built it does not take it outside 1.2(e) and the restrictions on mods to approved set out in 6.1(f) do not apply and only 6.1(g) initial regn limits of test hours etc applies to that airframe.

 

Basically only the Tech Manual can limit the mods on 19 regn aircraft and as they are equivalent to 95.10 in terms of who the design authority holder is (its the current owner just to be clear) its just as illogical to apply mod restrictions to second and subsequent owners of 19 as it is to 10 regn ones

 

 

[coljones]

RAA has never been good at warning of anything. The rollout of the last ops manual was never circulated to the rank and file before being approved. There was a concerted campaign on this site and in emails to board members, which were largely ignored, to get a copy for comment, to no avail. I am not sure if the latest article on the Tech Manual is a revelation of what has been done, a teaser about what might happen or just wishful thinking. I understand that another ops manual is in the chute.

 

Commentators here regularly give CASA shit about their behaviours but Part 61 fx was widely circulated in various draft forms before adoption and and there are regular calls for comments on proposals eg 45 mins fuel. From RAA - absolutely nothing!!

 

Wake up Board we are in the 21st century and people are expecting and demanding open government.

 

 

[shags_j]

Kasper: If this were to happen in the proposed Company format, then there would be legal recourse against the directors I think.

 

Of course it is poor form to delay in releasing this information. It should be available as soon as is practicable. This is the issue I believe with the current volunteer Board setup. There is no recourse to push them to get something done.

 

 

[M61A1]

Please tell me what I'm missing.... I can't see anything that says you can't modify a homebuilt, only old school factory built and new factory built (LSA) are all that I can see requiring engineering approval.

 

 

[kasper]

Kasper: If this were to happen in the proposed Company format, then there would be legal recourse against the directors I think.Of course it is poor form to delay in releasing this information. It should be available as soon as is practicable. This is the issue I believe with the current volunteer Board setup. There is no recourse to push them to get something done.

Nothing to do with voluntary board - the issue is the Tech Manager (a professional EMPLOYED person) has simply either

1. Lied directly to me in writing more than a year ago that a change was made to the Tech Manual; or

 

2. Failed to communicate to anyone other than me of a change made to the Tech Manual more than a year ago

 

I prefer to believe that the Tech manager as a professional would never go for option 1. so I am looking at the employed professionals as a group just not doing the basics ... and the board not being on top of them not doing the basics.

 

And by employed professionals not doing the basics that encompasses the CEO as really its on him to have internal processes and review that assists/monitors/ensure compliance with basic operations - and frankly I see that the 'new' management seem to talk compliance and monitoring and communicating MUCH more than they actually deliver any of it.

 

 

[jetjr]

I recall discussion on this when Marap was first released

 

19 were excluded i thought

 

Upon enquiry the issue of mods on 19 was an issue with CASA and they may move to clarify regs.

 

Its illogical to not be able to fix, upgrade or modify homebuilts, first owner or otherwise as there is no record or method for determining original status

 

These aircraft are already restricted to 2 pax, weight, no cta,

 

Quite recently engines have been substituted in 19 reg and all that was required was notification to tech team. Thats on Darrens advice.

 

Did RAA know this was coming at all?

 

The more CASA add and fiddle with regs the more people will ignore them

 

 

[kasper]

Yes - this thread has nothing to do with MARAP or 19 reg specifically but to a Tech Manual change that applies to all aircraft that has been unannounced ft year.

 

And one that has the drafting finesse of the Constitution.

 

 

[M61A1]

Simple question.If RAAus are going to be changing the requirements that apply to pilots/aircraft when do you expect RAAus will tell pilots/aircraft owners about the changes.

 

And of course yes, I have an ulterior motive here where there is a a current change to applicable requirements on aircraft that has applied for more than a year and is unannounced to the membership ... just a little feature of our current much improved active communication and good management and governance from RAAus...

Do you think that you could point out which bit has changed? People seem to be concerned that now you cant modify a homebuilt. According to the link posted by Andy, you still can.

 

 

[kasper]

Already posted on another thread - this was a thread to bring out the comms issues

 

Oh Storchy ... or I could point out things like the fact Tech Manual on the RAA website has not been correct for the past 12 months ... Darren B got an Amendment to the rushed through release of Tech 9.1 on regn markings to address the drafting issues I pointed out that meant there were no regn marking requirements for my aircraft ... and got that past CASA and has left the original (not applicable) 9.1 up on the site for the past 12 months ...The CURRENT - per letter from Darren - Tech 9.1 that will appear in the new tech manual (when released) reads as follows (colour not mine but Darren's from his letter to me back on 30 April 2015):

 

[ATTACH=full]42519[/ATTACH]

[jetjr]

As was I indicating

 

These discussions took place nearly 18 months ago, nothing public since then.

 

Both Tech guys and board members involved

 

 

[kasper]

As was I indicatingThese discussions took place nearly 18 months ago, nothing public since then.

Both Tech guys and board members involved

Well yes and no.

1. the Ops manual 7 update and Tech Manual were SUPPOSED to be approved and released at the same time - that is why moving of aircraft markings from Ops to Tech was not supposed to create an issue

 

2. the Tech manual sections as they had been drafted at that time had to be rushed through because aircraft suddenly fell out of any requirement to display markings ... and it is those changes that are on the website

 

3. The Tech Manual changes have never been widely reviewed by members and the Tech manager has a track records of not getting 95.10 or weightshifts so what has been drafted (and released) is inadequate to cover the field on 95.10 aircraft on markings so when it was released RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF ME REGISTERING A 95.10 WEIGHTSHIFT I had to play emperors new clothes and point out my airframe still had no marking requirements.

 

4. took 5 MONTHS for RAAus Tech to respond with an answer to my direct question of registering the aircraft with or without markings and THEN it became apparent that Tech had been discussing with CASA a change to the Tech Manual to fix their error ... my plane having sat on the ground for another 5 months ... and THAT change has yet to be publicly acknowledged or published by RAAus Tech.

 

So yes, pissed off RAAus bunny here that it appears from my experience that IF you have the temerity to point out errors the RAAus employees will go behind your back without letting you know whats happening leaving you grounded without any explanation of whats going on or whats being proposed to fix things until such time as they can arrange a change in the rules to fix their errors.

 

So there you go board members reading this - the 'bad old days' of 2012 are still showing in part with all the shiny new employed professions in 2015 and beyond ...

 

 

[kasper]

I now feel persecuted by RAAus...

 

Follow up to post #16 above the last year and a half of dealing with RAAus Tech to register my aircraft under 95.10 AND finally completing the registration on 1 April this year today I get a 'follow up' email from Michael Linke stating that RAAus NOW interpret 95.10 to mean that they CANNOT EVER register a trike under 95.10 (despite having done this for the last decade) AND my aircraft is now required to be re-registered under 95.32.

 

This is the BIGGEST PISS TAKE I have ever seen ... effectively they are unilaterally re-interpreting the CAO to exclude from the RAAus register any 95.10 trike and forcing me to operate under a different CAO ... any board member care to comment on this??

 

 

[kasper]

And I am back - seems that Tech Office got it wrong by stating weightshift would not be registered under 95.10 and my 95.10 regn stands ...

 

Except there are new problems

 

1. The photos and weight cert sent into finalise the regn I assumed had been received given I was sent the invoice to to pay for the full regn ... and got the reg cert came back in the post ... have either never been received or have been misfiled ... shades of 2011 admin all over again ???

 

2. It now transpires that the letter I got from RAA Tech in April last year about CASA having agreed changes in the Tech Manual Section 9.1 that fixed the problem with no reg display for my aircraft was not in fact approved by CASA when that letter was sent so that was not part of the operative Tech Manual back in April last year or indeed this year ... but in fact only became operative within the last 30 days as apparently CASA have signed off the complete new Tech Manual Issue 4.

 

... so it would seem my aircraft registered before the Tech Manual 9.1 updates in Issue 4 has no requirement to have that registration displayed on the aircraft at all ... and if there is a grandfather clause in the new Tech Manual approval it never will require markings to be displayed.

 

Now tell me whose a good draftsman/woman?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Do you think that you could point out which bit has changed? People seem to be concerned that now you cant modify a homebuilt. According to the link posted by Andy, you still can.

From this month's sport pilot, no mention of what happens if the TM doesn't like your changes? I haven't seen the guidelines as to what constitutes a valid modification.

 

 

 

[M61A1]

Yes, I can see after reading just some of this month's mag, things are getting out of hand. Although reading the 95.55 regs doesn't seem to mention anything about approval for home built.

 

We dont need or want ( well, I don't) military style regs. The "bad old days" are starting to look good.

 

 

[kasper]

Well there you go - experimental is effectively dead - compulsory inspections, different rules for initial builder to later owners and ALL through the back door because this is not in the CAOs and therefore not ever subject to parliamentary review ...and here is the kicker - it is all too late ... per the Tech Office today CASA have already signed off on the new tech manual issue 4 so hardly see the reason for the board to 'discuss' this at the May meeting.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The value of you airframe just took a massive hit

 

 

[jetjr]

Glad to hear your issue with ID numbers has been sorted, I would have thought to your satisfaction.

 

What compulsory inspections? Having someone else check your work is a pretty basic caution when doing critical tasks even outside aviation.

 

Unfortunately there has always been differentiation between builders and subsequent owners, one can train in it one cant. In VH experimental one can maintain and modify, one cant.

 

Unless theres something new this is the same as proposed some time ago after MARAP outlined.

 

Having just been through the process, for something minor, it was simple and fast.

 

Its a check and balance to stop people doing dumb modifications, damaging themselves and RAA overall.

 

The other option as I heard it was a complete stop to modifications and the need for engineering proposals via CASA standard process (kinda the same as stopping it)

 

CASA have taken a big step allowing RAA to self manage this mod process and (in their eyes) placed a big responsibility with TM. Its the far lesser of two evils.

 

If its a minor mod, theres nothing to do but update documents and get approval from TM, more major he may require test flight time, W&B, and a eyes on check from L2.

 

What I would like to see is a pathway via training, to achieve "builder" status for an aircraft you own. For some reason builders are rated higher than L2 or LAME on that type of similar aircraft, despite having no experience much or training. A 51% builder may not have skills beyond a 10 year owner and maintainer.

 

The option to avoid much of this and satisfy CASA's overall dislike of self maintenance, was to allow annual L2 inspections on ALL aircraft. Personally I dont have a major issue with that if it removes other regulation messes.

 

 

[M61A1]

Glad to hear your issue with ID numbers has been sorted, I would have thought to your satisfaction.What compulsory inspections? Having someone else check your work is a pretty basic caution when doing critical tasks even outside aviation.

Unfortunately there has always been differentiation between builders and subsequent owners, one can train in it one cant. In VH experimental one can maintain and modify, one cant.

 

Unless theres something new this is the same as proposed some time ago after MARAP outlined.

 

Having just been through the process, for something minor, it was simple and fast.

 

Its a check and balance to stop people doing dumb modifications, damaging themselves and RAA overall.

 

The other option as I heard it was a complete stop to modifications and the need for engineering proposals via CASA standard process (kinda the same as stopping it)

 

CASA have taken a big step allowing RAA to self manage this mod process and (in their eyes) placed a big responsibility with TM. Its the far lesser of two evils.

 

If its a minor mod, theres nothing to do but update documents and get approval from TM, more major he may require test flight time, W&B, and a eyes on check from L2.

 

What I would like to see is a pathway via training, to achieve "builder" status for an aircraft you own. For some reason builders are rated higher than L2 or LAME on that type of similar aircraft, despite having no experience much or training. A 51% builder may not have skills beyond a 10 year owner and maintainer.

 

The option to avoid much of this and satisfy CASA's overall dislike of self maintenance, was to allow annual L2 inspections on ALL aircraft. Personally I dont have a major issue with that if it removes other regulation messes.

The intention may well be just to ensure basic structural integrity and weight and balance, but, one thing I've learned is that you cannot trust a regulator with interpretation of anything, it will only get worse. The excuse that the other options were worse is rubbish. If CASA was pushing it, you would be finding it in CAOs. We are now just de facto GA.

 

 

[jetjr]

I agree, regulators cant be trusted with good intentions. Their creeping action of choking free thought and behaviour is constant and relentless. To slow it down IS the better of the situations.

 

CASA and many in RAA were of the understanding that only builders could modify 19 aircraft and this was always the case. I have a list of heated emails arguing this with board members and TM. Its why 19 were left out of MARAP process originally.

 

There was real chance CASA was going to rewrite regs to make this clearer. Your comment that this reasoning "is rubbish" defies logic and indicated we have options or some kind of negotiating position with whatever SSAO decides will be the action of the day.

 

The current position is far better. At the least we are able to discuss/modify and approve within RAA. Many are now able to modify and upgrade due to this new system which MARAP is a part of.

 

CASA have every intention of regulating RAA experimental back to GA standards. They arent even comfortable with the situation there.

 

This has put brakes on this for the time being.