New Tech. Manual

[billwoodmason]

The Tech managers GA background is irresistibly coming to the fore to the members detriment. It was also interesting to note the CEO stated in the recent podcast that they met with CASA weekly and the Chairman monthly to discuss issues. No doubt these meetings are where they are indoctrinated with CASA's wishlist. We need a member association to protect us against our own limited liability Co. RAA is losing it's way and becoming a clone of CASA. Introducing heavier classes of aircraft to the register will only make regs worse and increase the cost of membership and registration. ( It has already begun without consultation of members.)

 

 

[facthunter]

When someone like the RAAus is beholden to someone like the CASA to continue to exist there is a tendency to be quite hard on the people you control just to ensure CASA leaves YOU alone. This has happened in certain Airlines in the past. I think some of that is happening here. If it isn't then the potential certainly is. In that circumstance the RAAus is not the one you can go to for help. It's because they play a dual role that has conflicting interests. Hard to make THAT work well. Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

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!

With the DooMaw build I'm in the same boat and I'm quite certain it won't be finished in the next 5 months, but from the RAAus ENews Issue 24 email I received yesterday -

 

3. The process for initial registration of amateur built aircraft has changed. New amateur built aircraft where the construction commenced after 1 August 2016 will need to comply with the process outlined in Version 4, section 3.1. Staged inspections and the Permit to Fly scheme have been introduced.

 

I would read that to mean that any aircraft build commenced before the end of July 2016 (as yours and mine were), would continue to be built under the provisions that were in place when the build began.

 

 

[rankamateur]

That is a lot fairer than a rigid six month transition as was previously suggested. There is no safety advantage to be had with a rush to a deadline!

 

 

[facthunter]

A rush to complete could be a safety risk. Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

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.

Hello Frank,

That being the case- RAAus is not being steered by the Board guiding the CEO.

 

Looks like there should be some instant dismissals. They will have no come back under the cover of, unfair dismissal as they did not carry out safe, clear, fair instructions.

 

KP

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Me thinks thing are not good for the future may be pushing towards a lot of people leaving the ranks of the Raa .

 

Is a shame there killing of a great pastime but time will tell .!

 

 

[rankamateur]

I would read that to mean that any aircraft build commenced before the end of July 2016 (as yours and mine were), would continue to be built under the provisions that were in place when the build began.

Still would be very unsatisfactory to the guy who has paid the deposits on a kit but hasn't got possession yet. Guess he could see this coming when he did his due diligence.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Still would be very unsatisfactory to the guy who has paid the deposits on a kit but hasn't got possession yet. Guess he could see this coming when he did his due diligence.

No, Who would pick that. We build for recreation and learning not to help someone ego who thinks he has a lot of muscle.

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

The Tech managers GA background is irresistibly coming to the fore to the members detriment. It was also interesting to note the CEO stated in the recent podcast that they met with CASA weekly and the Chairman monthly to discuss issues. No doubt these meetings are where they are indoctrinated with CASA's wishlist. We need a member association to protect us against our own limited liability Co. RAA is losing it's way and becoming a clone of CASA. Introducing heavier classes of aircraft to the register will only make regs worse and increase the cost of membership and registration. ( It has already begun without consultation of members.)

That is a good idea get a members organisation within RAAus. What is RAAus it is supposed to be a members organisation?

Best move is get a few members together and call a special meeting and remove a few of these deaf people who can not hear what members are saying.

 

KP

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Who are you removing? Only 2 of the original board will remain past the AGM unless they are reelected.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Those who are left. Because who is running RAAus it is not them.

 

They are letting others run the show what hope have we?

 

The tech and opps managers are running the place. Read what has been said Franks post answers all clearly. What we being served up is basically a mini GA. Read the opps and tech manuals how can RAAus survive as affordable aviation. Look at recreational building what do you think of that?

 

KP

 

 

[-Rod-]

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

Just for the record it was proposed that the new Tech Manual be presented to RAAus Members in the same way as a notice of proposed rule making would be by CASA. Unfortunately this proposal did not achieve majority support within RAAus. As a result a new TM has been implemented without member consultation.

 

What can anyone do about this now?

 

A new RAAus Board will be elected soon. Please take the time, write to all RAAus Board members individually, and state the policy concerns you have. Be logical, be factual and itemise items if you can to ensure the best result. How successfully will this be? Well one thing is for sure if no one states their case then you can be guaranteed that nothing will change.

 

There may be one additional problem, obtaining contact details for new RAAus Board members may be a little difficult to obtain!

 

Rod Birrell

 

 

[TK58]

I'm sure if RAAus came up with a way to provide free aircraft to everyone with no strings attached there would still be people on this forum complaining about what a lousy job RAAus was doing.

 

The Tech Manual is out for member consultation NOW. The 6 month phase in period is the time for members to digest the manual and let RAAus know what works and what doesn't. At the end of the 6 months if changes are required they will be made. So don't just have a whinge on here. Write your concerns or suggestions for improvement down and send them in.

 

In regard to stage inspections, they are required by SAAA as well (so it's incorrect that they've been abolished in GA) and they are not that onerous. All that's required is to get another person with a L1 (i.e. an RAAus owner/maintainer authority) to look over the work. It is NOT a requirement to get an Amateur Built Inspector to do stage inspections.

 

Is anyone seriously suggesting that a first time builder getting all the way to final inspection without anyone else having looked over their work at various points is a safe approach to amateur building?

 

Very few people would actually do that. Nearly everyone would be showing it to their mates as the build progresses. All that's required is for one of those mates to have an L1 ( or higher) and the requirement's been met.

 

As for Frank's concers in relation to instrument calibration, the requirements haven't changed. All that's changed is the new Tech Manual is much clearer about what the requirements are.

 

Is it perfect? Of course not, there will always be room for improvement. But improvement will only come from members providing constructive feedback to RAAus, not just having a whinge with their mates.

 

 

[TK58]

There may be one additional problem, obtaining contact details for new RAAus Board members may be a little difficult to obtain!

Rod Birrell

Rod is being somewhat disingenuous here. He knows very well that Board member contact details are published in Sport Pilot.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Just for the record it was proposed that the new Tech Manual be presented to RAAus Members in the same way as a notice of proposed rule making would be by CASA. Unfortunately this proposal did not achieve majority support within RAAus. As a result a new TM has been implemented without member consultation.What can anyone do about this now?

 

A new RAAus Board will be elected soon. Please take the time, write to all RAAus Board members individually, and state the policy concerns you have. Be logical, be factual and itemise items if you can to ensure the best result. How successfully will this be? Well one thing is for sure if no one states their case then you can be guaranteed that nothing will change.

 

There may be one additional problem, obtaining contact details for new RAAus Board members may be a little difficult to obtain!

 

Rod Birrell

Hello Rod,

The arrogance of the way the Tech. Manual was put out is a disgrace.

 

The lie involved of saying it was still in formulation and all the members will have a look in due time BUT the Tech. Manual all ready been to CASA for approval.

 

The other point you mentioned have look and it will be changed????. If it is changed it then becomes a new documents do has to presented again. In the mean time destabilises and dividesRAAus further.

 

Why not present the Tech. Manual in an open and honest way not this hidden process.

 

KP

 

 

[Ron5335]

KP, There are 2 ways of looking at it.

 

Your way, or

 

What's the point of putting out a document for comment, if at the end of the day it would not get approval from CASA. (Back to square one !)

 

This way, at least you know the document as a whole has already been given the Green light by CASA, so if any of the members suggest changes,

 

the changes can be weight up against, the delay it would take to am mend the situation, or can the changes be implemented once the document is in force.

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Why don't the RAA have a forum so member can speak there mind and maybe get some feedback on the Inquiries or concerns ?

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hello Tony,

 

I wonder why it had been presented to CASA for approval when at the same time we were being told it was being finalised and all would have an opertunity to have a look before presentation.

 

With changes it will become a new document and will have go through all the approval processes again.

 

Same as the constitution, ""We know it is not correct but give it a yes then we can fix it on our journey.""

 

Why not do things correctly in the first place:- Looks like you fellow writers need a staged inspection on these important documents as you build them too.

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

Ron5335,

 

*If the amendments are accepted it will become a new document and the approval process again.

 

*You say CASA gave it a green light. OK???.How happy were they? What traps are they thinking about?

 

You alluded CASA is happy.. How do you know? did you check?

 

*Why not have a final document we all sorta approve of before approval not that hard.

 

This what has happened puts more fuel on the suspicion fires.

 

KP

 

 

[skeptic36]

we all sorta approve of before approval not that hard.

Just having a read through these forums, l.'d say extremely hard, but more likely impossible ....

 

 

[Keith Page]

Why don't the RAA have a forum so member can speak there mind and maybe get some feedback on the Inquiries or concerns ?

Good idea Doug. At least there will be some other views to digest.

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

:roflmao:Just having a read through these forums, l.'d say extremely hard, but more likely impossible ....

People will have a clue what is going on at least. Yes there will be an outcome as people will be able listen, think and consider not just jammed down their throat.

KP

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Does the RAA have a list of L1 inspectors and guidelines for inspection?

 

 

[planesmaker]

In regard to stage inspections, they are required by SAAA as well (so it's incorrect that they've been abolished in GA) and they are not that onerous. All that's required is to get another person with a L1 (i.e. an RAAus owner/maintainer authority) to look over the work. It is NOT a requirement to get an Amateur Built Inspector to do stage inspections.

tk58 SAAA do not require stage inspections they are only reccommenfded, RAAus have made them mandatory and to be done by L2/L4 thus adding cost and redtape to fix what problem?

I do recommend having others look over your work as most would do, but it should be encouraged not forced upon us!