New Tech. Manual

[Keith Page]

I see on the latest ENews it is up and running.

 

Two things here.. It had CASA approval well before it was out for members approval. (Members consultation time???)

 

The other where is the members approval time?

 

I thought this is a members organisation, not a police state.

 

To me there is a lot of, "Sit down shut up this what you are getting". (Members)

 

I have been talking to a lot of people and their very valid suggestions have been ignored.

 

Could be a lot of people leaving in droves to take up other activities.

 

Because RAAus going like a mini GA.

 

KP

 

 

[planesmaker]

I wrote emails to CEO, tech man and all board members asking for their justification to introduce the new rules in respect to staged inspections for build projects, the only response was a call from the tech man, who could not give me a valid reason for the change, no one else even acknowledged my email! Member organisation? I don't think so. Very disappointed ! Tom

 

 

[pylon500]

Welcome to GA....

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you look at the discusssions on this site and then deduct from those discussions the people who will always seek to water down the discussion, no matter what the subject, on the grounds that "they know best, that's what we elected them for, why don't you stand as a director" etc. there are very very few of the 9,000+ members who will attempt a logical strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threat analysis, let alone even read or understand the document.

 

So I would not suggest there will be a lot of people leaving in droves to take up other activities.

 

What is more likely is that if they didn't understand the manual in the first place, and there are no local volunteers or representatives to ignore the meetings where these people get most of their understanding of rules and policies, then they'll just ignore it.

 

That will just bounce back on the organization, and so the situation will go round and road.

 

This is not just limited to RA, it's spread through most activities within our communities.

 

Therefore you have to address the weakness, which is the process of communication, and the will to communicate.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Welcome to GA....

I think GA's a bit different.

If you keep your head down and your nose clean you can do your ting and stay out of trouble for decades.

 

 

[planesmaker]

GA got rid of stage inspections nearly 20 years ago!

 

 

[Keith Page]

OK.. If no one in RAAus is listening.. Call a special meeting and have questions from the floor, none of this must be on the agenda before it can be tabled.

 

If the constitution and both the tech and opps manuals were not presented to us in an open and honest manner, I have to ask what else is not presented honestly. Even this election for the board is not done honestly.

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

Welcome to GA....

We are RAAus not CASA, so why follow the CASA line. Some one is looking after their ego?

KP

 

 

[M61A1]

So I would not suggest there will be a lot of people leaving in droves to take up other activities.

What is more likely is that if they didn't understand the manual in the first place, and there are no local volunteers or representatives to ignore the meetings where these people get most of their understanding of rules and policies, then they'll just ignore it.

 

That will just bounce back on the organization, and so the situation will go round and road.

 

This is not just limited to RA, it's spread through most activities within our communities.

 

Therefore you have to address the weakness, which is the process of communication, and the will to communicate.

Part of the RA issue is that there is no alternative, RAAus is all there is and if you don't think it is adequate, you can't go elsewhere (legally). So, no they won't leave, unless they have really had a gutful, if you really want to fly, you're stuck with whatever hoops they decide you should have to jump through.

 

CASA laid down the regs, (CAO 95.10/ 95.55 etc) so why make them more complex than it needs to be?

 

A pilot flying privately under GA rules, doesn't need a SMS, only those running a business, need and AOC and the associated stuff.

 

 

[Keith Page]

It is obvious then, now is the time for another organisation to get up and going, that will put a cat among the pigeons.

 

KP

 

 

[Ron5335]

Not a bad thought.... Headline could read

 

Newly appointed boss at CASA shows initiative by breaking ties with the old regime.

 

He would start accumulating brownie points straight away, and could identify and action anyone

 

who wants to throw a spanner in the works in getting it up and running.

 

 

[jetjr]

RAA is the parrallel path to GA,

 

a selcted range of members did see tech manaul for comment early on, assume they made corrections or adjustments. Probably still can if the problem is valid

 

Not much point releasing a document SSAO wont approve of.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Yes "selected" is the operative word. Why not be game and let all have a look? When those things are done like that I think that will generate suspicion.

 

The other point, still can change if points are valid, big NO for that. As the document is changed there will have to be another approval.

 

KP

 

 

[jetjr]

If it was sent to everyone for their input it wouldnt be released for years

 

A range of members asked to review id guess.

 

Much of the changes were specified by SSAO, not the other way aroind i believe.

 

Not sure how some think a new organisation would be subject to different rules......the same people would be overseeing it too. CASA.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Much of the changes were specified by SSAO, not the other way aroind i believe.

You think so. Much was introduced because a couple of people just think it is a good idea. I tried unsuccessfully to change BEFORE being sent to CASA, and I thought worked , but did not happen.

 

Best of luck with the new smaller board, I give up. My prediction is not as rosy as yours, but time will tell.

 

 

[planesmaker]

Having stage inspections as far as I can tell, is tech manager's idea, it is not a CASA requirement. There is nobody listening there! Why do we have more regs placed on us for no good reason? What happened to keep flying affordable as far as possible?

 

 

[ave8rr]

Back in 2013 or there abouts I pointed out to the Tech Mngr that it was no longer a requirement to display underwing rego markings on GA and why did RAAus still require it.

 

I got a reply saying that that requirement was being dropped with release of the new Tech Manual. It has been. Same reply also stated that RAAus would not require more regulation than GA! Why then stage inspections with owner builder?

 

 

[jetjr]

No Frank, my outlook is not rosy at all. I think we just lay the blame differently.

 

Many seem to think we have some kind of control over this when in fact whatever CASA/SASAO says is what is happening, RAA tech try to find a way around or compromise to whatever BS they come up with.

 

Nowhere does it say SASAO has to have same rules as GA - they can revert to whatever rules they think are needed. Id say they would want full LAME maint and no mods at all. LSA only.

 

RAA has far less regulation than GA and to say otherwise is silly. Most of our aircraft wouldnt be flying were this not the case.

 

Its a matter of resisting the push to add regs or remove exemptions.

 

The discussions with SASAO have been ongoing for ages, it wasnt drafted and then sent for approval.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Its a matter of resisting the push to add regs or remove exemptions.

I agree with you on that, just not where some of the additions and removals are coming from, and I spent a few months in debates about some of these issues, and they were not mandated from external authorities.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Id say they would want full LAME maint and no mods at all. LSA only.

Yes I agree BUT have a look at 12.4 Tech Manual ref instruments and guess where that came from - BLOODY RAA. Instrumentation has been certified without problems since the CAO 95.55 exemptions. Nothing has changed (including CTA) but "OUR" RAA has decided it is a good idea!! (Lack of understanding of non TSOed instruments probably).

 

I could go on but no point, what's done is done, until there is a groundswell for change, just cop it.

 

As I said I am over it all.

 

 

[rankamateur]

This must mean we now have the remains of six months to get our partly built kits flying and registered. Mine is not that far off, only a bit of painting and engine install to go. It was always meant to be a hobby I did when I have the time and inclination, not a race to the finish. There is no way my build can go back and be stage inspected from where I am up to, so I wonder where I will end up if it takes me seven months to get it finished. Pity I started before RAA entered their latest spiral dive!

 

 

[rankamateur]

I could go on but no point, what's done is done, until there is a groundswell for change, just cop it.

It is past time to break the MONOPOLY!

 

The argument against another registration and licencing organisation has always been that our membership will have less influence on the regulators and the minister if we divide our critical mass. Well that argument, usually spouted by people who went on the join the board, is total crap because the membership has NO INFUENCE ON OUR ASSOCIATION let alone anyone else so we now have everything to gain and bugger all to lose.

 

 

[planesmaker]

Rankamateur I think you will find that if you started your build before august 2016 that it will be exemt from stage inspections, my understanding.

 

 

[planesmaker]

Rankamateur I think you will find that if you started your build before august 2016 that it will be exemt from stage inspections, my understanding.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Rankamateur I think you will find that if you started your build before august 2016 that it will be exemt from stage inspections, my understanding.

The message that came out earlier was that we would have a six month transition period to allow started builds onto the register. The six months was obviously set by someone who has never built a plane or has only worked in an aircraft factory because I am betting the average time of an owner build is considerably more than twice that.