RAA Tech Manual issue 4

[Yenn]

The final inspection is done by the builder, supervised by the L 4 or whoever is approved.

 

About 2 years ago I had a problem at re registration time and had to get the final inspection check list. Luckily RAAus found it in their records, but it is all about paperwarfare.

 

 

[geoffreywh]

As an L2 I will not be doing any signing. I may inspect out of friendly curiosity or interest. But get someone else to sign it off. You will carry the responsibility forever.

 

 

[facthunter]

The plane doesn't fly till the paper work equals it's AUW. Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

So Keith, you've read the new V4 of the Tech Manual from beginning to end and formed a considered view have you?

This issue Don!!!

The document was issued before the members saw the manual.

 

I will spell it out clearly. The document went to CASA be for approval before the member could pick it apart to get the corrections.

 

The big question,"How can this document be changed after it has been approved?"

 

If the document is changed the document has to go back for approval again.

 

The contemp for the members is not a good environment to endure. The organisation is a member based organisation and the members views are not being considered as I see it there is great contempt shown to members.

 

RAAus is moving to more regulation disciplinary procedures.

 

The views will be considered when a mass EGM is called.

 

What concerns me greatly, How will CASA consider RAAus if the members desert RAAus and fly illegally?

 

RAAus will not look good as members have to operate under a draconian system.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[storchy neil]

The contemp for the members is not a good environment to endure. The organisation is a member based organisation and the members views are not being considered as I see it there is great contempt shown to members.

 

totally agree keith

 

keith why don't you ask raaus for a copy the letter that they requested from me by raaus reps at the 14/5/2016 meeting that they have failed to answer except for "have referred to legal person "

 

at this meeting I did attend I should not have backed off on what I was going to do and say bloody cover up an none disclosure is still in the mind set off raaus

 

What concerns me greatly, How will CASA consider RAAus if the members desert RAAus and fly illegally?

 

please don't go down that path of flying illegally as that would do our cause not bit off bloody good because that is all bloody casa would need to red pen us all

 

RAAus will not look good as members have to operate under a draconian system

 

sorry keith but when you have muddy water its not safe to bloody drink you need to clean it and get rid off the shit out off it so as we all arnt getting sick

 

RAAus is moving to more regulation disciplinary procedures.

 

raaus had regulations that were not followed like persons reporting that a flight manual was in correct that because the plane did not have the xxx installed fore that person to be told your problem from raaus

 

for raaus to claim safety is our main concern flys out the bloody window neil

 

 

[Keith Page]

Thank you Storchy Neil,

 

I am pleased I am not the only member thinking down these lines. Plus a special thank you for your advice.

 

Correct me if I am wrong - get a good bunch of people together and toss the current bunch out and then treat the members with courtesy which they deserve.

 

The buzz word "Safety" every thing which can fall apart and damage is bundled under that. My case for that is - have good education and culture not having people getting about and resenting "Safety" teach education and culture and safety will arrive simply as a by-product.

 

How simple?

 

Treat the members with respect not as second class citizens.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[storchy neil]

safety what safety

 

keith what I see is safety begins with the operator off the said machine before I retired I had that many pieces of paper that assumed I was competent operator off road trains, mobile cranes, derrick cranes excuvators , explosive handling, forklift, dangerous goods, mining, marriage :oops:that one cost me

 

"Safety" teach education and culture and safety will arrive simply as a by-product.

 

yes

 

Safety as one off my instructors asked had I read the flight manual for the air craft he was about to teach me in me being half a smart arse I said " your the instructor you should know " with that he dropped the flight manual on the table "read it before you go flying with me "was the reply I got

 

when I mention this to raaus reps and suggested that the questions on the flight manual should be part off the cert questions to hard was the reply

 

what I have found is the stupid persons that believe that what horney harry or doufes daryl or mick the monkey says about an air craft is the fact so they don't read what is in the manual or abide by it

 

when reports of clear breaches of safety are reported and raaus puts their head under the pillow and don't want to know about it is to me clearly is don't bother us mentality sucks

 

what a pity that we have no other venue that we as recreational pilots can join I believe that should that happen raaus will be

 

Safety keith I am going to be at narromine in oct with the all the parts that in the opinion off several l2 should have led to me having a little accident lets see what raaus have to say about that and their explanation why it is my problem when its a bloody safety issue neil

 

 

[Happyflyer]

One good thing in the new tech manual is that underwing rego numbers are no longer required.

 

 

[geoffreywh]

F**k it!....That's going to be a bugger to get those bloody great, painted on, numbers from under my Jodel wing...........I remember what it was like getting them on there....... I know it only says "no longer required" But you wouldn't want anything painted on the wing that you don't need, would you?

 

 

[facthunter]

If it's difficult to do I wouldn't be rushing it. Nev

 

 

[biggles]

Leave it there Geoff , might be worth big money one day . You know, like a 'curio' , 'work of art' or something .... Bob

 

 

[Flyingphot]

ridiculous regulation increases non-compliance and eventually normalizes non-compliance to the point that necessary regulation is ignored. We should be reducing regulation and increasing compliance....Bill

 

 

[turboplanner]

ridiculous regulation increases non-compliance and eventually normalizes non-compliance to the point that necessary regulation is ignored. We should be reducing regulation and increasing compliance....Bill

That's understood, and there have been a lot of similar posts here from people who have ignored my advice to spend about the cost of an hours aircraft rental to take advice from a public liability lawyer, not the family lawyer, not someone who does conveyancing, but a public liability specialist.

There you will learn all about Duty of care.

 

You will learn there are reasons companies and organisations are introducing specific definitions, pre-use qualifications, specifications which put the onus on designers, builders, component suppliers, renters, users - all the people responsible for putting the product in your hands.

 

Then, if you ask the right questions, such as:

 

"What happens if my aircraft is not officially airworthy, but I take it up anyway, and someone gets hurt including me?"

 

"What happens if I fly below 500 feet, and someone gets hurt? ...or decide not to comply with a safety regulation because it's ridiculous to the point where I ignore it?"

 

And you will come away with a much better idea of where your duty of care lies, and what the implications are if you ignore it.

 

 

[Flyingphot]

I agree totally Turbo, but much of the increasing level of regulation is of a totally bureaucratic nature and the 'duty of care' excuse is again trotted out. Too often the care in Duty of Care stands for Cover Arse Remain Employed.

 

For decades aviation has been carried out safely, by applying common sense and personal responsibility. Now it must be regulated so the lawyers can make a lot of money arguing over the meaning of a word which was unnecessary in the first place.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Too often the care in Duty of Care stands for Cover **** Remain Employed.

That's right, plus "keep house, car, kids toys etc"

However, there is PLENTY of scope for an organisation to set relevant standards to both address risk and provide continued economical operations; it's just that many organisations don't make use of the practical skills and knowledge of their employees/members, so a proactical solution doesn't get thrashed out.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

"For decades aviation has been carried out safely' date=' by applying common sense and personal responsibility. Now it must be regulated so the lawyers can make a lot of money arguing over the meaning of a word which was unnecessary in the first place.[/quote']I understood AUF/RAA was all about personal responsibility, so why drag third parties into the equation by seeking an "experts opinion" during the build? There's a disclaimer stating the inspector isn't vouching for the airworthiness of the aircraft, so what's the purpose of the inspection then?

[facthunter]

Your first sentence is the essence of the RAAus, and it's a lot more the case in even in GA than people might think. Owning or being the registered operator of a plane is a big jump. YOU have to make sure requirements are covered AD's Annuals etc. When you hire a plane you don't get involved with all that, as some of the responsibility remains with them but YOU still have your checks to perform, so do them thoroughly..

 

AS for building, IF you reach a point where you are not sure of something YOU get advice, or get someone to check it whether it's spelled out in hard and fast rules or not, unless you are a complete fool, and don't belong in an aviation environment. As often pointed out Aviation isn't tolerant of errors. I "THINK" it's OK isn't enough. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

Owning or being the registered operator of a plane is a big jump

 

you are spot on nev bloody right the plane that I did own was on cross hire to a flight school I took it out for that reason duty off care is a legal night mare on what I should have known and what I did know

 

neil

 

 

[SSCBD]

Bah Humbug

 

Remember how it all started!

 

Well back in the grass roots days PRE AUF and AUF days we were flying below 500ft all day long, my preferred height was 10ft above the tress back then.

 

These flying machines had no rego or certification. Home built and some of the guys were self taught - no two seat training - no GA training oh and no ops manual or pilot certs. Imported and aussie factory built also had no rego or certificates. It was also very cheap to fly.

 

We survived, (yes some didn't) same as now, flying was fun and great days and nights with the guys.

 

Also how many people are flying without rego or cert and out of eyesight NOW in the back blocks?

 

 

[facthunter]

My reference was primarily relating to GA. I didn't make that clear enough. Hiring does still keep you isolated from the problem to a great extent, in GA or RAAus, but you have to trust the organisation's maintenance. Your own could be better in many cases. Nev