Pseudo GA

[turboplanner]

I have a lot of respect for Don Ramsay's comments but I have to say I'm horrified that we are spending 1.8 million on appeasing CASA.I call it "demanding money with menaces" which is illegal unless done by the government.

Why not give CASA what they pay for and no more?

Well Bruce, you might be just the man to sit down and see what the legal obligations, compare that with what they are asking, and negotiate to ensure the legal obligations are met, but that great ideas are paid for.

 

 

[storchy neil]

No ask CASA for nothing ok

 

600kgs limit

 

radio mandatory

 

no entry to controlled air space

 

just do your own matainace

 

no using rpt strip

 

Neil

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thats just the point Turbs... "Legal obligations" are part of the "menaces" situation.

 

Now if CASA give $ 100,000 to RAAUs then that pays for a "CASA liason officer" who should be the only person doing CASA bidding. They should have to wait until that person attends to one bit of CASA business before getting onto the next.

 

 

[frank marriott]

no entry to controlled air space

CTA has been available for RAA registered aircraft for years by virtue of CAO 95.55. The only restriction was licencing and certified aircraft etc. Nothing new there other then V4 of the Tech Manual introduced by RAA for NO justified reason - simply amazing.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Kasper,

 

It was good to meet you at the AGM and have the opportunity to shake hands and say hello.

 

From my perspective its an attitude, focus and direction issue. The world viewpoint of the 'old AUF' was we are outside the GA world and we want minimum regulation for maximum fun and this is not IMO RAAus so whil Yes we can still fly the rag and tube and fly at 500ft there are many ways I see RAAus going GA in tems of its world view

The reality is that the recreational pilots are moving away from rag and tube as evidenced by the financial collapse of Quicksilver (largest manufacturer of rag & tube).

Anyhow, I like to think that everyone who is not flying commercially (for reward) flies for recreation. I have enormous regard for people like the late Scott Winton who set world altitude records in the tiniest aircraft of his own design and build. My personal preference though, considering my skill level and tolerance for risk (low), is to fly something a built more robust and conventional.

 

To me there is no such thing as GA just people who fly for fun and people who fly for reward. CASA can have the latter and the rest should group together to protect and enhance our rights. The whole GA versus RA thing to me is an anachronism and should be left in the past.

 

1. GA attitude - controlled airspace - old school - we operate outside controlled airspace and we are OK with that.

You might be but what about the Rec Pilots who live in Canberra or Coffs Harbour or Tamworth and many other cities whose local airport is CTA? As soon as they are qualified they have to go somewhere else often a great distance from their nearest airport. And I, personally would love to be able to fly up the coast past Williamtown and Coffs and the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast.

 

Safety issue raised of being forced into lower level over tiger country the old school turns around and challenges the validity of the need for that controlled airspace - outcome no new regulations on ultralights and less controlled airspace for everyone. Current RAAus view is not to challenge the need for the airspace but to use the example as a need to gain access to that airspace for RAAus aircraft.

Not my understanding. RAAus is represented on all the RAPAC committees and persistently questions ever expanding CTA, especially military. Also, representations are made at the political level in Canberra about the extent of CTA and RAAus being excluded when not excluded in other equivalent countries including NZ. And CTA will never be forced on any RAAus pilot the same as it is not forced on RPLs. It will be there if you want to train for the endorsement and pass the tests.

 

2. Oversight of homebuilds - 4 stage inspections - old school said for 10 and 19 regn - you are the designer/builder owner of that airframe whilst ever you own it so minimum touch is needed as you can take responsibility for your own life ... and with the 19 group where there is a possibility of a passenger then overview inspection at the end and test hours to fly off. RAAus is apply 4 stage inspections on ALL airframes and remove owner modification without getting approval following change and further inspection - that is the MOST GA move to date.Overall its a view point of not accepting and advocating for minimal regulation - RAAus appears to be quite willing to move forward with significant new oversight and regulation within the RAAus documents over that which is in the CAOs.

RAAus firm policy is to never have harsher regulations than the current GA regs. Another policy is to have a risk based approach to regulation. If there is no safety case then no regulation. However, no safety case does not mean "no deaths attributable". In my experience, anyone who thinks they can design and build anything with nobody else ever looking over their shoulder at any stage is courting failure and in aviation terms that usually implies "crash and burn". Yes, that may be a step away from the laissez-faire approach of the early rag and tube days but I can not bring myself to prefer the "good old days" to a more considered approach. My personal view.

 

RAAus is now producing RAAPs - advisory pamphlets rather than going into print with more regulation. I would like to see much regulation moved to advisory status and enforceable regulation lifted to a much higher level like "It is the responsibility of the pilot to conduct a safe flight" much as is the case with where you can land an aircraft.

 

No idea . . . if the long awaited part 149 will impact further but the apparent mindset of CASA to any issue in GA was 'regulate, regulate regulate' and that is what I see in the RAAus view of the world.

Part 149 has been coming for nearly 20 years and still no sign of it happening with in the next 12 months. However, it has the potential to make regulation simpler and easier to know. Eliminate the exceptions and give us a firm basis for recreational aviation. Somehow, I think I might have hung up my spurs before Part 149 hits the deck.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I have a lot of respect for Don Ramsay's comments but I have to say I'm horrified that we are spending 1.8 million on appeasing CASA.I call it "demanding money with menaces" which is illegal unless done by the government.

Why not give CASA what they pay for and no more?

It is not appeasing CASA. The Board has often looked at telling CASA to stick the "Deed of Agreement" and refuse the $100k. While it costs RAAus $1.8 million to do CASA's bidding, if CASA had to do it for themselves, it would cost more like $10 million.

However, if we did tell them to stick it they would keep their $100k and demand we do it anyway. Very hard to argue with an authority like CASA that is a law unto itself.

 

The only way I can see this ever being fixed is to go political. Could you ever see an ALP/Greens government agreeing to give "rich aviators/polluters" $2 million? Might be a ghost of a chance with the Nats but nothing will happen without a concerted campaign by 10,000 pilots.

 

 

[kasper]

much clipped ...RAAus firm policy is to never have harsher regulations than the current GA regs. ...

Don,

Respect your opinion and only have issue with the bit left above ... SAAA who handle GA homebuilt do not have no 4 stage inspections. And given that the failures of airframes in the RAAus OMS reporting is not the primary cause of incident and accident AND when you look behind the airframe failures you find its NOT the homebuilts that are predominating its hard to support IMO additional stage inspections on 19 reg and impossible to support it as an introduction on 10 and 32 reg

 

 

[bull]

You might be but what about the Rec Pilots who live in Canberra or Coffs Harbour or Tamworth and many other cities whose local airport is CTA? As soon as they are qualified they have to go somewhere else often a great distance from their nearest airport. And I, personally would love to be able to fly up the coast past Williamtown and Coffs and the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast.

 

However, no safety case does not mean "no deaths attributable". In my experience, anyone who thinks they can design and build anything with nobody else ever looking over their shoulder at any stage is courting failure and in aviation terms that usually implies "crash and burn". Yes, that may be a step away from the laissez-faire approach of the early rag and tube days but I can not bring myself to prefer the "good old days" to a more considered approach. My personal view.

Sorry Don you just lost me again ,both these quotes are PURE GA a long way away from affordable aviation for everyone ,the original mantra of the AUF ,,, (edited...mod play the topic not the man...)

[Bruce Tuncks]

Don, I don't think there was an RAAus representative on the RAPAC committee which (I think , there has been no reply as yet and it is several weeks since their meeting ) has rejected my application for some unused airspace so that we could all fly over the Adelaide Hills with more safety.

 

If there was an RAAus representative, would they not have at least informed us all ? And would they perhaps have been a lone voice in favor?

 

 

[frank marriott]

You might be but what about the Rec Pilots who live in Canberra or Coffs Harbour or Tamworth and many other cities whose local airport is CTA? As soon as they are qualified they have to go somewhere else often a great distance from their nearest airport. And I, personally would love to be able to fly up the coast past Williamtown and Coffs and the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast.

Don

 

As you are fully aware, the new 11.4 of the tech manual makes GA certification of Raa registered aircraft (without even touching on non TSOed instruments) unrealistic for MOST operators. Has been operating for years by virtue of CAO 95.55 without any issues but introduced anyway by a couple of people. I know you are aware of my submissions (with support by other board members) but completely ignored by the CEO.

 

This is a major problem with the current approach, but I am aware that you know this, I have to raise it to keep things in context.

 

I would suggest some people will be extremely disappointed to find (after CTA approval is achieved for a pilot certificate) that they are up for another roughly $1000 for instrument certification annually/biannually- making the proposal unrealistic in real terms -remember this for day VFR Operations only - to suit 2 people in RAA, NOT for any other reason.

 

I realise that you (like myself) are no longer on the board, but some things cannot be overtly supported without including the FACTS.

 

Very sad outcome.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Not my understanding. RAAus is represented on all the RAPAC committees and persistently questions ever expanding CTA, especially military

Not true currently, a vacancy exists in the northern region - currently. As the current RAA does not support a regional representative, I resigned as I fail to see how one can realistic be a RAA regional representative for an organisation that is against regional representation - most people know it can not work without it, but that is the facts.

 

I was appointed as the rep before joining the board.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Respect your opinion and only have issue with the bit left above ... SAAA who handle GA homebuilt do not have no 4 stage inspections. And given that the failures of airframes in the RAAus OMS reporting is not the primary cause of incident and accident AND when you look behind the airframe failures you find its NOT the homebuilts that are predominating its hard to support IMO additional stage inspections on 19 reg and impossible to support it as an introduction on 10 and 32 reg

Kasper, I can't dispute the logic of your argument on this issue. It was an issue that trroubled the Board when it was brought up in Release 4.0 of the Tech Manual. In the end I was persuaded that, while there is insufficient evidence of it being a problem that needed a solution and that it was more onerous than SAAA, I was prepared to go along with it on the basis that I have always been a bit belts & braces when it comes to process and systems design. Checks and balances is something I exercised all my career for no reason other no human being I've ever met can perform lengthy and complex tasks and never make a mistake.

Also, don't the SAAA have a system of supervision and inspections?

 

Finally, since 4.0 still has its training wheels on you are entitled to request it be changed. Asking on RecFlying for it to be changed is not likely to be more effective than asking the CEO for it to be changed.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Sorry Don you just lost me again ,both these quotes are PURE GA a long way away from affordable aviation for everyone ,the original mantra of the AUF ,,,,You have just shown the whole membership your true agenda as was long suspected your first quote for example ,, what about those pilots ,,,that's what GA is for.....................your second quote is a double wammy as you say oh no regs without cause , and at the end you say "BUT Ifeel it should be done this way ,,,,,,,,as much of us already knew about you and your drive to turn raa into GA sorry you are a traitor to ultralighting in Australia and are the true definition of the GA pilot wanting our freedoms and medical exemption etc of TRUE recreational pilots {And No I will not apologise again to you Mr Ramsay as you have just shown your TRUE colours and AGENDA as long suspected .]

Bull, absolutely no need to apologise for saying how you see things. This is the way you honestly see things and you are entitled to that view. However, as I've indicated I see the world through a different lens.

 

I refuse to see what is currently called GA (not for reward) as any different to RA. Both are just people who fly for fun whether they fly a Drifter or a Caravan.

 

I also refuse to consider my pilot cert as a "privilege". I see it as a right that has some unreasonable restrictions arbitrarily placed on it by the Regulator. I see the restriction on the MTOW that I can fly and the CTA areas that I can't fly in as just that unreasonable restrictions and the sooner they are lifted the better.

 

I'd like to take my wife for a scenic around Sydney Harbour and why can't I? Because some petty official sitting Canberra thinks I should not be allowed to train or CTA nor be tested for the skill nor use the skill. What on earth gives them the right to place these restriction on my recreational flying?

 

 

[kasper]

Kasper, I can't dispute the logic of your argument on this issue. It was an issue that trroubled the Board when it was brought up in Release 4.0 of the Tech Manual. In the end I was persuaded that, while there is insufficient evidence of it being a problem that needed a solution and that it was more onerous than SAAA, I was prepared to go along with it on the basis that I have always been a bit belts & braces when it comes to process and systems design. Checks and balances is something I exercised all my career for no reason other no human being I've ever met can perform lengthy and complex tasks and never make a mistake.Also, don't the SAAA have a system of supervision and inspections?

Finally, since 4.0 still has its training wheels on you are entitled to request it be changed. Asking on RecFlying for it to be changed is not likely to be more effective than asking the CEO for it to be changed.

Don,

As I told you after the AGM I am no longer going to spend any effort in trying to fix RAAus documentation as I have decided that the organization is not my future flying organisation and I am in run off as a member with no intention to renew my membership.

 

The Tech Manual, the Ops Manual, the Constitution and the absolute dogs breakfast of the members charter and all the other garbage that has emanated from RAAus over the past two years is now all theirs to fix as I have stepped out of the arena.

 

To put it bluntly my experience with RAAus on both the interpretation and application of their own documents over the past 2 years is akin to a horse and water - you can lead a horse to water, explain repeatedly that water is needed to keep the horse alive and even shove the damn animals head into the water but its still possible it will stand there and slowly die of dehydration ...

 

 

[kasper]

Bull, absolutely no need to apologise for saying how you see things. This is the way you honestly see things and you are entitled to that view. However, as I've indicated I see the world through a different lens.I refuse to see what is currently called GA (not for reward) as any different to RA. Both are just people who fly for fun whether they fly a Drifter or a Caravan.

 

I also refuse to consider my pilot cert as a "privilege". I see it as a right that has some unreasonable restrictions arbitrarily placed on it by the Regulator. I see the restriction on the MTOW that I can fly and the CTA areas that I can't fly in as just that unreasonable restrictions and the sooner they are lifted the better.

 

I'd like to take my wife for a scenic around Sydney Harbour and why can't I? Because some petty official sitting Canberra thinks I should not be allowed to train or CTA nor be tested for the skill nor use the skill. What on earth gives them the right to place these restriction on my recreational flying?

Oh Don you make it so easy ...

"what on earth gives them the right to place these restrictions on my recreational flying?"

 

apply those words to the introduction of 4 stages inspections on 19 reg or any inspections on 10 reg and answer me the difference ... other than the petty official sitting in Canberra is the RAAus Tech Manager and RAAus CEO ... supported/ignored by the RAAus board

 

 

[DonRamsay]

And another thing,,when the AUF was first formed,, the GA side of Australian aviation turned their noses up at us as pilots , and many a quote could be heard, like not real pilots, or unsafe dangerous bastards etc and GA did not want to have a bar of the AUF/RAA but as we gained a few more freedoms and GA pilots started failing their medicals , the scene changed and people like yourself wormed their way into OUR side of aviation and mutated it into what it is now,,,PURE GA by default

Bull, I did not come over from the dark side. I have only ever had a Pilot Cert and flown "Recreational Aircraft" for, recreation!

 

I along with a very large percentage of members are disgusted by this takeover and will from now on speak with the wallet and as soon as another viable alternative is running RAA will have trouble paying the bar bill after a GM

Something of the order of 80% of the RAAus membership fly 3 axis aircraft that you seem to despise so it is hard validate your claim that "a very large percentage of members are disgusted".

You are always free to form your own SAAO any time you like and get CASA to approve it. It will need to be compliant with, among many things the proposed Part 149.

 

What I can't understand and have never understood is how my flying a LSA impacts on you flying rag and tube?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

DonAs you are fully aware, the new 11.4 of the tech manual makes GA certification of Raa registered aircraft (without even touching on non TSOed instruments) unrealistic for MOST operators. Has been operating for years by virtue of CAO 95.55 without any issues but introduced anyway by a couple of people. I know you are aware of my submissions (with support by other board members) but completely ignored by the CEO.

This is a major problem with the current approach, but I am aware that you know this, I have to raise it to keep things in context.

 

I would suggest some people will be extremely disappointed to find (after CTA approval is achieved for a pilot certificate) that they are up for another roughly $1000 for instrument certification annually/biannually- making the proposal unrealistic in real terms -remember this for day VFR Operations only - to suit 2 people in RAA, NOT for any other reason.

 

I realise that you (like myself) are no longer on the board, but some things cannot be overtly supported without including the FACTS.

 

Very sad outcome.

Frank, As you would know and many on here my expertise to the extent i have any is not in the Technical area. For that reason, for me to argue against you, Trevor or Tony would be not helpful. On a good Board there are people with different skills and experience. All a person like me can do is listen to the arguments and decide which makes the most sense to me. I was never in a position to lead such a discussion.

If you want to fly in CTA then you must expect to operate with the same standard of instrumentation that GA are currently obliged to have and the same level of currency. In CTA you are more likely to be mixing it with the big boys and the risks are much greater than flying along at 3,500 feet in Class G.

 

But, if you don't want CTA then you can continue with your Class G instrumentation and currency of calibration.

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . o put it bluntly my experience with RAAus on both the interpretation and application of their own documents over the past 2 years is akin to a horse and water - you can lead a horse to water, explain repeatedly that water is needed to keep the horse alive and even shove the damn animals head into the water but its still possible it will stand there and slowly die of dehydration ...

Reminds me of a mate trying to get his horse to urinate before he put in the trailer.

 

He used to say "You can lead a horse to drink but you can't make it water."

 

Well, I thought it was funny.

 

 

[coljones]

It is not appeasing CASA. The Board has often looked at telling CASA to stick the "Deed of Agreement" and refuse the $100k. While it costs RAAus $1.8 million to do CASA's bidding, if CASA had to do it for themselves, it would cost more like $10 million.However, if we did tell them to stick it they would keep their $100k and demand we do it anyway. Very hard to argue with an authority like CASA that is a law unto itself.

The only way I can see this ever being fixed is to go political. Could you ever see an ALP/Greens government agreeing to give "rich aviators/polluters" $2 million? Might be a ghost of a chance with the Nats but nothing will happen without a concerted campaign by 10,000 pilots.

If we painted greyhounds on the sides of the plane and called it something like "Mother's Boy" the Country Party might be interested. In its failure to maintain the tax base the Liberals are just as likely to say that the payment to RAA should be user pay and no, you can't get a slice of the GST on Mogas used in RAA planes. But you are right we do need to go and muscle the politicians.

 

 

[coljones]

Frank, As you would know and many on here my expertise to the extent i have any is not in the Technical area. For that reason, for me to argue against you, Trevor or Tony would be not helpful. On a good Board there are people with different skills and experience. All a person like me can do is listen to the arguments and decide which makes the most sense to me. I was never in a position to lead such a discussion.If you want to fly in CTA then you must expect to operate with the same standard of instrumentation that GA are currently obliged to have and the same level of currency. In CTA you are more likely to be mixing it with the big boys and the risks are much greater than flying along at 3,500 feet in Class G.

 

But, if you don't want CTA then you can continue with your Class G instrumentation and currency of calibration.

 

Don

And on any case you don't need a transponder in D space which makes it easier to get into and through place's like YSBK, YSCN, YMAY, YCFS, YMMB, YMAV, YPPF etc. William town and Surfers are both Mil or Cspace so need a higher level of equipment. In any case ASA is proposing low level E-space in the Sydney basin to the west of YSBK down to 700 feet near the Lane North. This will impact both transponders and clearance from cloud base.

 

 

[bull]

But Don if you should want to fly into cta

 

etc,WHYshould the majority of raa members who DO NOT want to fly into cta be penalised by default ,as in fee increases etc so raa can fight casa to give a small percentage of members who, apparently have the means to get their instruments etc at great cost ready to be able to do so,,,,,why is it not a better way to have a USER pays system ie,increase those fees for cta access very signifigantly to cover the cost of lobbying to do so ,and see if it is really financially viable. Now if that occurred I can hear the screaming already from you few that want that access.

 

 

[frank marriott]

In CTA you are more likely to be mixing it with the big boys and the risks are much greater than flying along at 3,500 feet in Class G.

My point was that the certification requirements for CTA in the old manual were adequate, safe and approved - no need to impose greater costs for no justified reason or because someone 'thinks it is a good idea'. I have been legally operating my LSA in Class C D & E for the last 8 years without any problems, as have others. (Transponder certification was always there)

 

The proposal for CTA for pilot certificates has nothing to do with increased certification requirements of the aircraft instruments - the instruments always needed calibration testing (12 monthly for CTA) just not by a GA licenced business operator.

 

The risk of conflict in "flying along at 3,500 feet in class G" is far greater with many/some not using area QNH then it is in controlled airspace, but again that is a pilot issue - nothing to do with instrument calibration.

 

Anyway no point in carrying on here, I just wanted to make my point clear that this is further costs imposed on an area that was working fine already - my frustration at trying to have V4 addressed "before" being submitted to CASA compelled me comment, fully aware that it will achieve nothing constructive.

 

 

[old man emu]

I also refuse to consider my pilot cert as a "privilege". I see it as a right that has some unreasonable restrictions arbitrarily placed on it by the Regulator. Some petty official sitting Canberra thinks I should not be allowed to train or CTA nor be tested for the skill nor use the skill. What on earth gives them the right to place these restriction on my recreational flying?

This is the whole crux of the problem we have with CASA - "some petty official". I wonder how many of these 'lesser gods' have ever put their bums in anything smaller than a Boeing or Airbus.

 

Does the Minister responsible give a care about any aspect of private aviation? Not likely ... more important to consolidate the electoral result so that the next election does not result in a new JobSearch.

 

Does the Head of Department care about private aviation? Not likely .... a career Public Servant in the mold of Sir Humphrey Appleby.

 

Do senior public servants care about private aviation? Only if they can become emperors in their own niche empire.

 

Does the media care about private aviation? Only if a Cessna of any description plummets earthwards barely missing a school or children's playground.

 

Does Big Business care about aviation? Only if it can close down airports in metropolitan areas so the lovely flat land can be released for real estate development.

 

Does the general public care about aviation? Of course they do ... Get rid of those noisy aeroplanes that fly over our Macmansions.

 

OME

 

 

[coljones]

But Don if you should want to fly into ctaetc,WHYshould the majority of raa members who DO NOT want to fly into cta be penalised by default ,as in fee increases etc so raa can fight casa to give a small percentage of members who, apparently have the means to get their instruments etc at great cost ready to be able to do so,,,,,why is it not a better way to have a USER pays system ie,increase those fees for cta access very signifigantly to cover the cost of lobbying to do so ,and see if it is really financially viable. Now if that occurred I can hear the screaming already from you few that want that access.

What is the basis and quantum of these extra costs you are talking about? Why will having plastics and CTA cost more? Pilots with a GA Licence and CTA endo can currently fly CTA in an RAA plane, why do you think that CTA endos for RAA pilots will cost RAA rather than the pilot

 

 

[Admin]

If you want to fly cta Don, don't join RAAus and demand as you say your right to fly GA....why don't you just leave RAAus and fly GA, you will be much happier then and as horses have been brought into the stable...horses for courses