Random Paperwork Inspections

[Bruce Tuncks]

An RAAUs aircraft owner at our club has just been told to send copies of his airworthiness paperwork off for inspection by head office.

 

Can anybody tell me more about this program? The paperwork "request" said that the selection was random. I doubt that it was a request, although there was no penalty for non-compliance mentioned, but there was a very definite date required.

 

How long has this been going? How many are selected? How are they chosen?

 

 

[Camel]

An L2 near me has had such a request for his Thruster. He was told it was random.

 

 

[dsam]

I've had 2 such "random" requests in each of the 2 last years at rego renewal time. My paperwork & maintenance work is spot-on each year, so I'm not too fussed (it's always been excellent LAME work).

 

Somehow, I suspect RA-Aus already know this to be the case, and they are populating their record keeping with such examples so they can point to these "random" examples whenever CASA does a surprise audit.

 

Perhaps I'm being too cynical, though... I'll try to take it as a compliment

 

 

[Camel]

I believe you are right dsam as to the need to have examples.

 

 

[facthunter]

Probably been imposed from"above". Perhaps they have a suspicion this area might be needing a little tidy up. The paperwork could be perfect and have little to do with the actual condition of the aircraft, but the box gets "ticked" and all is well with the world. Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

An RAAUs aircraft owner at our club has just been told to send copies of his airworthiness paperwork off for inspection by head office.Can anybody tell me more about this program? The paperwork "request" said that the selection was random. I doubt that it was a request, although there was no penalty for non-compliance mentioned, but there was a very definite date required.

How long has this been going? How many are selected? How are they chosen?

As I see it there is no requirement -- as nothing regarding paperwork work requests is not mentioned in the Tech. Manual.

If it is not a directive in the Tech. Manual so why?

 

To me it is regulations on the run.

 

How can you comply with something if it not in the Tech. Manual or Opps. Manual.

 

If it is not they can make any rule up.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

I don't believe they have the right to ask for this information. I was asked to provide compliance information on renewing my aircraft registration recently. Is RAA with us or against us? - after all we are a members association.

 

I'm concerned where all this will end with changes to our constitutional makeup ( blamed on poor management in the past - what a croc.) and seemingly more attempts to encroach on our rights.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I don't believe they have the right to ask for this information. I was asked to provide compliance information on renewing my aircraft registration recently. Is RAA with us or against us? - after all we are a members association.I'm concerned where all this will end with changes to our constitutional makeup ( blamed on poor management in the past - what a croc.) and seemingly more attempts to encroach on our rights.

Yes Bill you are on to it.

Sorry about harping -- that is the exact reason why I am against leaving three directors on the board with a new constitution which is not correct.. They have runs on the board for making rules on the run, that is just one demonstration.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[DonRamsay]

An RAAUs aircraft owner at our club has just been told to send copies of his airworthiness paperwork off for inspection by head office.Can anybody tell me more about this program? The paperwork "request" said that the selection was random. I doubt that it was a request, although there was no penalty for non-compliance mentioned, but there was a very definite date required.

How long has this been going? How many are selected? How are they chosen?

Bruce, I don't understand why you'd address this question here when the only people who can give you a reliable answer are at RAAus. Just give Jared a ring and ask him. He's a very reasonable fellow and he can give both the legal basis for the request and the policy thinking behind it.

Unfortunately, not everyone keeps their paperwork as up to date as is required and RAAus would be negligent for not having a checking process. As far as I know, RAAus does not issue any kind of penalty (CASA's job) but, if your paperwork was not up to date they would ask that it be brought up to date and explore as to why it wasn't so that they can better understand our ordinary members. I would guess that a request to see the paperwork would be enough for most aircraft owners to ensure it was up to date before sending it in.

 

It would be interesting to know the reason behind the incredible cynicism expressed above but I think I can guess - the calamitous result of 4 failed CASA audits of RAAus paperwork and the grounding of RAAus aircraft until the paperwork was brought up to date. No way RAAus would ever want to end up in that situation ever again.

 

 

[Oscar]

The decision to make audits of paperwork was - I believe - made quite some time ago. The log-books for our (L2-maintained, FTF-used) aircraft are an absolute disgrace. We took pictures of a repair job ( installing a new front leg) signed off by said L2 to RAA to discuss the faulty (and dangerous) work which had the steering push-rod rubbing on the hole in the firewall to the extent it had bent the rod-ends considerably; had it failed it could have jammed the rudder hard over. The RAA Asst. Tech Manager was appalled at the state of the log-books (from before our ownership of the aircraft); my co-owner pointed out that in fact, if produced in Court, they would have shown serious evidential deficiencies that any audit would have picked up. If the accident that totalled our aircraft had been the subject of a Court case, all hell would have broken loose.

 

Just before people jump onto the 'intruding into our freedoms' bandwagon, they might want to consider a few points.

 

Firstly: if you have an accident that results in a Court case ( e.g. an injured passenger claiming 3rd party damages), and there is any question as to the airworthiness of the aircraft at the time, the log-books are your only defence.

 

Secondly, if you need to make an insurance claim and again, the condition of the aircraft is in question at all, you can BET that the Insurance company will require you to prove you have properly maintained it. Try getting QBE to shell out on nothing more than your assertion that it was all ridgy-didge.

 

If you drive a car on the road, it requires registration and in most jurisdictions, that requires some sort of annual inspection and certification that it is, in fact, roadworthy. In several States at least, there is Police number-plate camera registration check technology - so you are being 'audited', de facto, any time you pass a suitably-equipped police vehicle. If you live in one of these States - do you protest that this is an encroachment on your rights?

 

If you are entirely prepared to assume ALL liability for your aviating, then yes, your rights to assume that liability are being encroached upon. RAA membership - I believe - includes automatic Public Risk and third party insurance - or do I have it wrong here? If you avail yourself of that protection, then I think RAA has a duty to all of its members to ensure that the Insurance cover pool that all contribute to via their membership fees is at least guarded by ensuring that the owners of aircraft that cannot PROVE they are compliant with all applicable conditions are not taking advantage of those who scrupulously ensure their aircraft are 100% compliant. Perhaps there needs to be an 'opt-out' provision: that you don't have to pay the Insurance cover part of your membership (and you thereby do not qualify for the RAA bulk cover protection) and in exchange for that, you receive indemnity from 'paperwork' audits. I would whole-heartedly support this option for those who fly their single-seater, self-built only within the confines of their own property.

 

Finally - and I believe this is an important point for the future of All sport aviation - consider the question of responsibility to the rest of your fellow sport/recreational aviators. We all live under a somewhat precarious regime, where the 'general public' tends to think we are all a bunch of rich cowboys and, when accidents DO happen, there tends to be a negative reaction on the lines of 'get rid of this menace from the skies'. For our 'responsible authority' to be able to show that it is doing a thoroughly professional and responsible job of maintaining 'standards', is not something which we should take lightly, lest we lose far more than we gain from the removal of a small irritation.

 

Please: before you just go off incandescent at what your perceive to be an arbitrary action on the part of RAA: look at the big picture. I believe that I can (and I know I will) maintain my aircraft to the applicable standards, and that means complying with a lot of tedious paperwork. I will be BLOODY annoyed, if some 'free-spirited' person who considers that all of that is so much horse-manure, causes a celebrated accident that results in us all having our access to airspace, decent airfields etc. knocked over by a vengeful populace convincing their government representatives to cut us all off at the knees.

 

 

[poteroo]

More than a little paranoia showing here.

 

It's very likely that RAAus OPS/TECH need to demonstrate a certain level of auditing, (compliance checks), in order to satisfy a criteria of their Safety Management System,(or whatever it's called this year!). It would eventually lead up to a CASA requirement perhaps. I'd be surprised if it presented any great threat to privacy or individual freedoms.

 

Harking back to my earlier career, I was involved in widespread and repetitive checking of plants for diseases and pests in order to 'prove' that Australia was able to maintain 'area freedom' from those things which our intended customer country didn't want in the Aussie exports. It seems all a waste of time, but under WTO rules, if we don't do it, then we lose an export market.

 

I see any 'internal' checking by RAAus as being rather similar. We, (RAAus), actually need to demonstrate that checks have been done - here's the results - and if you are unhappy - then check through the raw data yourself.

 

The probable alternative is 'on-the-spot' physical checking by an RAAus employee or delegate - at considerable cost to everyone.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Keith Page]

Bruce, I don't understand why you'd address this question here when the only people who can give you a reliable answer are at RAAus. Just give Jared a ring and ask him. He's a very reasonable fellow and he can give both the legal basis for the request and the policy thinking behind it.Unfortunately, not everyone keeps their paperwork as up to date as is required and RAAus would be negligent for not having a checking process. As far as I know, RAAus does not issue any kind of penalty (CASA's job) but, if your paperwork was not up to date they would ask that it be brought up to date and explore as to why it wasn't so that they can better understand our ordinary members. I would guess that a request to see the paperwork would be enough for most aircraft owners to ensure it was up to date before sending it in.

 

It would be interesting to know the reason behind the incredible cynicism expressed above but I think I can guess - the calamitous result of 4 failed CASA audits of RAAus paperwork and the grounding of RAAus aircraft until the paperwork was brought up to date. No way RAAus would ever want to end up in that situation ever again.

Are those requests in the Tech. or Opps. Manuals?

If the format for requests not there, how can one comply?

 

To me it is making up rules at a whim.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[dsam]

It would be interesting to know the reason behind the incredible cynicism expressed above but I think I can guess - the calamitous result of 4 failed CASA audits of RAAus paperwork and the grounding of RAAus aircraft until the paperwork was brought up to date. No way RAAus would ever want to end up in that situation ever again.

Don, I would call it "credible" cynicism for exactly the reason you state.

 

As I said, I wasn't particularly fussed about it, though I felt the request going for 2 years straight was a bit of a nuisance, and perhaps not truly "random"

 

Dave

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Are those requests in the Tech. or Opps. Manuals? If the format for requests not there, how can one comply?To me it is making up rules at a whim.

Regards,

 

KP

Why do you need to ask what might or might be in the Tech Manual, Keith? Surely, since you know the Tech Manual and comply with everything in there you would KNOW what is required - or not.

I know, don't call me surely.

 

Don

 

 

[Oscar]

I think, Don, that you don't want to be called Shirley. Or possibly, surly. Surely...

 

 

[Keith Page]

Why do you need to ask what might or might be in the Tech Manual, Keith? Surely, since you know the Tech Manual and comply with everything in there you would KNOW what is required - or not.I know, don't call me surely.

 

Don

Looks like other people do not know what is in the Tech. Manual as they would not be asking for information outside the content.

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Perfectly legit to ask for clarifications but I imagine Tech Staff would get tired eventually of people who haven't studied the manual asking them what's in it.

 

 

[Yenn]

Question. What is airworthiness paperwork?

 

RAAus must have some of it in their files from our registration. What else is needed?

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Operations Manual 2.03

 

Pilots of recreational aircraft are required to participate with compliance

 

checks conducted by the Operations Manager, Technical Manager or

 

approved delegates.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Question. What is airworthiness paperwork?RAAus must have some of it in their files from our registration. What else is needed?

How about Maintenance Log Books? ADs up to date, servicing recorded, etc.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

So Don, you don't think that we'll go back to the performance of the old days..

 

Re my registration renewal recently which I referred to in my previous post - RAA failed to notify me that it was due for renewal. If not for me following up with the Office I would have been unregistered and unable to partake in a fly away the next weekend.

 

I am also due for a Biannual Review in a few days and have not been advised of this either- does any of this seem familiar to the performance of the old days?.

 

I was tied up in the backlog of registrations during the days of the the audits - unregistered for a time.

 

All that nonsense about retrospectively putting extra placards on aircraft that were factory built to the standards required of the day.

 

What about the aircraft that are in limbo over ongoing airworthiness/registration issues?.

 

How about the ongoing Jabiru fiasco and RAA's roll. Owners have been thrown under a bus. (Members Association my arse)

 

What about the accountability of the board when it was found we were running in the red.

 

What about the increase in fees for a Pilot Certificate and for registration - will it never end.

 

Who's happy with the outcome of the magazine issue?

 

What about a CEO who keeps bleeting about how good things are going since he got the job when the rank and file like myself experience a different RAA.

 

Changing the Constitution is purely cosmetic, the problems of the past should have been picked up by those in charge and rectified - that was their job!!

 

And another thing - who said we need a weight increase, all I see is an organisation that wants to take over as many categories of aircraft it can while not catering for those already on the register.

 

For all the good intentions of those in charge and those on the board, all we've ended up with has been a torrid few years of seemingly rudderless rule by an ever demanding master.

 

And the worst problem of all is that it has forsaken it's existing and shrinking membership.

 

Cheers,

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

How about Maintenance Log Books? ADs up to date, servicing recorded, etc.

Don don't mandatory AD's only apply to GA aircraft. RAA aircraft are subject to Service Bulletens which are advisory only.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Don, the reason I asked my question here and not to RAAus head office is that on this forum there has always been good and prompt answers.

 

I have in recent times sent two things to RAAus head office, and in neither case was there any reply at all. And yes, they were polite things. One was an offer to help set up another maintenance weekend at my club ( I had done one with Steve Bell) and the other was a technical article about air-cooling of engines.

 

This is another reason why I really appreciate your input to this forum. I have got more answers from you here than the rest of RAAus put together.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

Well, I sent the copies of the last two pages of my maintenance log off today, as requested. I'll sit back and wait and see what happens. As far as I can tell I have been doing the right thing. If I get a beating, I shall wear the lace and they can wear the leather.

 

 

[Peter Anson]

I was asked for copies of the last two years of my maintenance log when I renewed registration. In my case, with all the daily inspections it was 11 pages long. Michael Monck spoke to members at the Holbrook Easter fly-in so I took the opportunity to ask him the purpose of the random collection. His explanation was the obvious one; they were trying to find if members were keeping suitable maintenance records and carrying out the required maintenance and complying with service bulletins. I wish them well reading through all my scrawl. I think I have been doing the right thing but if not, it would be good to know.