RAAus Price gouging - what next??

[facthunter]

Provided it hasn't suffered from inactivity over the lay off period. How many engines in RAAus are inhibited properly when not in use? If it's left out in the open is a consideration too. Brakes, cables and hydraulic cylinders may stick/freeze. Birds build nests in the engine cowl. Wasps mud in Pitots, Tyre left flat Cracks. Water pooling in fuel system components, tank selectors Fabric deteriorating in sun from standing outside. Bumped by other aircraft in hangar. Rats chewing wooden spars etc Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Will the ACC or ACR actually find that damage sort of damage? You would need to strip out fuel lines and open carbies to clear the fuel system of old fuel.

 

I didn't think it was that intensive an inspection, its more of a paperwork inspection.

 

 

[docjell]

The problem is; you know that, we have your assurance that this is the case, whereas RA Aus apparently have neither, so on the face of it the situation IS analogous to registering a car that has been off the road. The rules are a little inflexible, but are intended to cover the majority of situations - in general if an aircraft hasn't been registered and by implication not flown, it suggests that there has been something wrong and I agree it is on the face of it reasonable to require an aircraft condition certificate. For all anyone knows it has been sitting in the weather for 2 years deteriorating. Annoying in your case, but as suggested, an approach direct to the man is the way to go - a public rant such as this is more likely to damage your cause imo.

Sorry for the dilatory reply,Bats. This situation is in no way, shape or form analogous to road registration because rego is a tax specifically applied to road users to pay for upkeep of gazetted roads, and has nothing at all to do with vehicle condition. Since (bizarrely IMO) our state government doesn't require regular vehicle maintenance (cf the annual 'MOT' vehicle check mandated in the UK- similar if you like to an aircraft '100 hrly/ annual inspection) they thus require a condition report as the only ( rather inadequate) means of ascertaining vehicle safety.

My 'public ranting' was frustration at the blinkered and submissive attitude of so many of our fellow pilots who I suspect have been brow- beaten by years of bureaucracy to the extent that they actually believe that administrators have our fundamental interests at heart. They do not- we have become obsessed with process not product. It was also telling that you felt that my 'rant' would 'damage my cause'. I don't have a 'cause'- I am seeking a sensible, reasonable and responsible resolution to a completely soluble problem - perhaps if more people would intelligently and politely 'rant' we could politely and sensibly have a voice in the evolvement of future rule making that effects us all

 

I have had a reasonable and productive discussion with RAAus technical division, and a good result seems achievable . Cheers Docjell

 

 

[kasper]

Here is the CASA form.https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjUoMDMgZjOAhVKjpQKHXz4Do0QFggbMAA&url=https://www.casa.gov.au/file/138806/download?token=fKKfWri6&usg=AFQjCNFBVc1Qfhps67Byc0xRPimOYmvv2A&sig2=bAjtnF-vWPAIQXW9j7szqQ&bvm=bv.128617741,d.dGo

Nobody - afraid that form is for aircraft with a certificate of registration in place supported by a permit to fly.

 

It SHOULD be within the power of CASA to issue a permission to fly not in accordance with the CAOs - particularly as the aircraft in question is an SLA type.

 

Under CAO 95.55 you could directly ask CASA for pemission to fly not in accordance with the provisions of the CAO under the power of CASA under CAO95.55 para 9 ... but that is probably not wide enough as it only specifically applies to the conditions in 7.1 ... and not being able to fly it in compliance with the RAA Ops manual (requires registration to be current) which is in 6.1.

 

But I am sure that CASA has the general power somewhere to grant a permit on an unregistered aircraft along the lines of the form and a call to them (if RAAus Tech have not sorted out an alternate to a full ACR) will probably sort it out.

 

 

[spacesailor]

And again: "It's an examination of the whole aircraft by a "competent" person, so should give some assurance to a PURCHASER, of the aircraft's integrity"

 

BUT, the aircraft vendor does Not complete the ACR, the Buyer has to get it done so they can register it in their name, even if your new toy is a bag of bits, you need an ACR to change owner-ship.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bats]

I'm not sure that my post required a response, being a statement of opinion, however with respect, you seem determined to avoid seeing the point I and others have made. Matters not, you seem to have made progress by doing what you should have in the first instance, approach RAAus in a reasonable manner instead of making allegations about price gouging on a public forum. I'm also satisfied that I used "cause" correctly in my original post, in the sense of being an aim which you advocate.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I took proud ownership of my Evektor Sportstar in 2011, and happily carried out all the required regular maintenance as permitted by my level 1/owner status IAW the Evektor Sportstar Manual. I suppose I would qualify as a reasonably intelligent bloke- built two aircraft myself, always done my own maintenance as required, 250 hrs P1, Senior Lecturer and Senior Staff Specialist at the Townsville Hospital and JCU .I became unwell in 2014 and grounded myself- I mothballed the aircraft, and when I had been cleared ( I cleared myself with the blessing of my own GP) I went to re- register the aircraft , that had two years no-fly on her logbook. Of course we had carried out an appropriate 100hrly inspection, and a mandated 5 yearly ROTAX complete rubber replacement ( lines, mounts etc) the latter being carried out by an Independant qualified ROTAX engineer.

Well- ----------------------gobsmacked

 

I have to pay someone to provide an RAAus "aircraft condition certificate" which is a big ask in FNQ so I can register the aircraft - in other words to CONTINUE TO USE AND FLY THE AIRCAFT I HAVE BEEN MAITAINING FOR

 

THE PAST FIVE YEARS

 

This is fundamentally wrong and costs members money . This is CASA type ********- I thought RAAus was all about affordable flying for all. So RAAus, PLEASE "show good cause why you are charging this punitive and uneccessary fee for an aircraft already owned by the registeree and which has no undergone no fundamental changes whatsoever since initial registration .

 

This may extend to a legal challenge RAAus ! Depending on your response. I do not think a resort to "the rules" under these circumstances will be sufficient.

 

Cheers

 

Docjell

So going right back to the OP and the thread title. Seems to me to be quite melodramatic. I don't see this as price gouging. I see it as responsible management by RAA. Regulations cannot be directed at individuals, it must be directed at Joe Average. Yes in some cases it may seem like overkill but it certainly does not seem like price gouging to me. To be price gouging first the RAA would need to be profiting from it, that is certainly not happening in this case. Just MHO

 

 

[kasper]

So going right back to the OP and the thread title. Seems to me to be quite melodramatic. I don't see this as price gouging. I see it as responsible management by RAA. Regulations cannot be directed at individuals, it must be directed at Joe Average. Yes in some cases it may seem like overkill but it certainly does not seem like price gouging to me. To be price gouging first the RAA would need to be profiting from it, that is certainly not happening in this case. Just MHO

But it was not required by either the CAO or the RAAus Tech Manual - it was in effect the simplest admin situation from RAAus because it pushed all actions and costs directly to the RAAus member and requires specific costs and inspections by someone other than the member at the members costs.

And RAAus apparently)did not give/set out the option of simply providing documentation to RAAus supporting owner maintenance that is in compliance with both the CAO and the Tech Manual that would cost the member nothing in excess of photocopy and post costs BUT would require individual review and assessment by RAAus Tech ... not so much price gouging but activity transfer with significant direct cost to the member ... not really in keeping with the spirit of a member organization but I would not be happy with this from the tech office ... and on other airframes I have directly taken the RAAus tech office to task and pushed back to have a lower impact option that was entirely within the rules completed rather than the initial 'get an L2 to complete XYZ form' that came as the 'requirement' from Tech Office.

 

 

[spacesailor]

I'll still ask?.

 

Why a prospective owner has to get an ACR on a seller's aircraft. before it can be put into their name?

 

If it's not up to the buyer's standards and they declines to buy, does the seller keep the buyer's ACR,

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

In response to ft's It's only a "paper" thing. Any one I've been involved with was anything but. Inspection panels were made in the wing at every point where the structure could reasonably need inspection with the Fisher and with respect to the other two VH planes any time they changed hands it was a very extensive inspection. You have to sign saying certain things are done and if you just do as you allege ft, you shouldn't be in the Industry. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

Mine say's parts etc, relevant items (prop/engine) marked N/A.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[kasper]

I'll still ask?.Why a prospective owner has to get an ACR on a seller's aircraft. before it can be put into their name?

If it's not up to the buyer's standards and they declines to buy, does the seller keep the buyer's ACR,

 

spacesailor

The ACR is a point in time position on the airframe to let the new owner know what a separate knowledgeable set of eyes make of the airframe.

In terms of who 'owns' the ACR its the person who pays the L2 for its completion.

 

If the sale contract is contingent of a satisfactory ACR from a nominated/agreed L2 to be paid for by the prospective purchaser then the prospective purchaser owns the ACR. If the seller paid for it then it belongs to the seller.

 

On the RAAus getting the ACR on transfer of registration:

 

If its a 95.10 then its purely a paperwork exercise on the part of the RAAus when they get it - as would be the case for a 19 reg 95.55 or homebuilt 95.32 because the design authority on each airframe in theses series sits with the current owner.

 

If its factory built under any registation series then the RAAus Tech can assess the information in the ACR and can take action in response in relation to registration as they are required to be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers requirements.

 

Helpful or more confusing than ever?

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

Kasper, helpful,

 

But, "If the sale contract is contingent of a satisfactory ACR from a nominated/agreed L2 to be paid for by the prospective purchaser"

 

It's only good for the toilet to failed purchaser.

 

As mine is & never will be flyer'able the ACR will have no bearing on it 's condition until its removed over-seas, or another ACR from a new owner .

 

spacesailor

 

PS I still enjoy sitting in My bird, with the motor purring, Close my eyes pull gently back on the joy stick & my heart soars like an eagle.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[DonRamsay]

FIrstly, any time a staffer at RAAus gives you an answer you are not comfortable with, do the obvious thing and take it to the next level - to the Board if you absolutely have to. In any organisation there are people with different levels of knowledge and discretion. You need to make sure your enquiry is handled at the level where the right level of knowledge and discretion are applied to the issue. Clearly taking that approach this time provided a sensible answer for docjell.

 

Secondly, the Board of RAAus voted to get rid of the ACR back in 2012 but was stymied by CASA who demanded its reinstatement. That fight should have gone further at the time but it didn't as RAAus descended into chaos under the registrations fiasco. The current Board still have the ACR in their sights even if it still exists in V4 whose release is closer than imminent. RAAUs should never get involved in commercial transactions between two individuals.

 

Thirdly, I recently managed the sale of an aircraft and of course was required to have an ACR done as part of the transfer of ownership and registration. Cost for an aircraft in sound airworthy condition is typically is around $250 depending on the work required. The seller paid for the ACR and it ends up with RAAus and the purchaser.

 

Fourthly, the ACR is no guarantee of airworthiness as has been mentioned above - it is merely a report on the condition of the aircraft. For that matter an aircraft being registered does not have to be airworthy. If I were shelling out $20k for a used car, I would seriously consider getting the car checked out by a competent person for a fee. If I'm coughing up $75k to $100k for a used aircraft I most certainly want it thoroughly evaluated and, as I would be flying it home, I would want a guarantee from a competent person that the aircraft was airworthy. Simple prudence. Caveat Emptor applies and if I were buying the aircraft I would choose to pay for the ACR and/or airworthiness guarantee.

 

Before an aircraft can be first registered it must be airworthy. It seems reasonable to me that an aircraft to be registered after a period of not being registered should be airworthy. If not airworthy why register it? As to how you prove to the registration authority (RAAus Ltd) that the aircraft is airworthy I'll leave to others better versed in the regs than I am.

 

Don

 

p.s. I am no longer a Director of RAAus and so of course my views continue to be my views and not those of RAAus Inc or Ltd.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Thanks Don,

 

But even your views contain the same item.(1) "the ACR is no guarantee of airworthiness as has been mentioned above - it is merely a report on the condition of the aircraft."

 

(2)"Before an aircraft can be first registered it must be airworthy. It seems reasonable to me that an aircraft to be registered after a period of not being registered should be airworthy. If not airworthy why register it?"

 

The answer is," the registered aircraft is worth more & insurance cost less"

 

Even interim rego works that way.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Not sure how something can be worth more but cost less to insure.

 

 

[facthunter]

A house with a good fence and security system is that "something", as an example. (Compared with the same house without). The ACR is JUST that. A Condition report. It only does what it's supposed to do (at best) A plane to fly safely has to be airworthy but that's a separate consideration of a much more nebulous nature and can vary from one flight to another. Ie the load sheet must be done correctly and the plane loaded in accordance for the plane to be airworthy. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

FC.

 

I contend the ACR Does Not do it's designed job, an ACR can find an aircraft can't fly, safe or not, but still an ACR for owner-ship transfer.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

Airworthy is a technical term in this context. Altering it's design, or not performing certain required inspections will affect this and is covered in a separate way. None of this condition thing changes the airworthiness requirements. If you are one minute over the allowed time for doing an inspection (without a specific authority) as an example, it's not airworthy.. To the man in the street being airworthy seems obvious. A plane should be airworthy. You as the owner are responsible for having the things done that keeps you plane airworthy, on an ongoing basis. Who you get to do them is not. You may entrust someone, ie a LAME by agreement to do it but the law holds you responsible. The owner or the operator is responsible for the aircraft complying.

 

The engines condition as an example could only be determined in the ultimate by dismantling and inspection as per the engines specific stated tests, wear and life of components figures. That is why the N/A comment in one case mentioned on this post in the engine section.. Nev

 

 

[nong]

It seems reasonable to me that an aircraft to be registered after a period of not being registered should be airworthy. If not airworthy why register it? As to how you prove to the registration authority (RAAus Ltd) that the aircraft is airworthy I'll leave to others better versed in the regs than I am.

Really? What has the process of registration got to do with airworthiness?

Certainly, CASA will happily register a pile of damaged parts.

 

Condition reports were never about declaring a machine to be airworthy.

 

They are about providing some guidance to, a possibly aviation ignorant, new owner.

 

As docjell is not aviation ignorant, it is reasonable that the system should provide for him to waive the intended buyer protection, that was the original rationale for the ACR/UACR.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

An ACR gives RAA an assurance that the aircraft exists and a trusted third party has seen it and is reasonably convinced that it is the same rego. Just me being suspicious - imagine the owner prangs his aircraft doing something dodgy, doesn't report it, fails to pay the rego for a couple of years, gets offered a Rotax that fell off the back of a truck, finds some parts from another wreck, wires it all together and then attempts to "renew" the rego as if nothing happened.

 

 

 

New forms out 1st August 2016 - ACR (tech form 013) is quite comprehensive. Is this form different to previous?

 

 

 

Continuing to pay the rego looks like a cheaper option than letting it lapse.

 

 

[facthunter]

THAT may be the case but is it a good thing? The recorded info still stays on file. Your allocated rego number, (but for how long)? Your plane and engine have ID dataplates. You should be able to purchase a plane without an ACR if for instance you are going to renovate, modify it extensively, over a fair period of time before flying again. The ACR would perform no real purpose in that situation. Like all things aeroplane when matters need some scrutiny and some record available a pile of notes and images are worth having. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The ACR seems a bit redundant now that the registration process includes several photographs of the aircraft, including a few more photos of the aircraft could save owners the expense of the ACR.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Really? What has the process of registration got to do with airworthiness?

I still fail to see why in a system where you pay to have an aircraft registered that you would want to register an aircraft that cannot leave the ground.

 

Certainly, CASA will happily register a pile of damaged parts.

What CASA do is often a mystery for me and I am happy to add this one to the list.

If there is no money changing hands then whether something is registered or not hardly seems to matter.

 

Condition reports were never about declaring a machine to be airworthy.

As I stated earlier.

 

They are about providing some guidance to, a possibly aviation ignorant, new owner.

And why would RAAus want to involve itself in a commercial transaction between two consenting adults?

If a person is "aviation ignorant" is of no concern. If they are not commercial ignorant then they will appreciate caveat emptor and have the aircraft evaluated by somebody who they trust that is not "aviation ignorant." Again, there is no role for RAAus in that process.

 

RAAus is there to register aircraft that are fundamentally airworthy (leaving alone issues like overloading or out-of-balance loading, etc.).

 

As docjell is not aviation ignorant, it is reasonable that the system should provide for him to waive the intended buyer protection, that was the original rationale for the ACR/UACR.

Nothing was changing hands in this example from docjell - he was just trying to re-register his own aircraft that he had allowed to the registration to expire.

RAAus sees a role for itself in insisting that aircraft it is asked to register are fundamentally airworthy. They were using the ACR (incorrectly in my view) to be assured of the condition of the aircraft prior to accepting it fro registration. In the end a sensible solution was arrived at.