So RAA are looking to have 750 kg MTOW as well as 1500 kg MTOW increases from CASA.

[facthunter]

Many restrictions and rules can be non effective in reducing aircraft accidents. Tracks are considerable easier to control. Everybody is in view of most people and behaviour can be quickly responded to. IF you don't comply you are removed . Australia is a large piece of real estate costly to travel to the scene of the accident. Often no reliable witnesses. People can get away with anything in remote areas.

 

A couple of unhelpful concepts.

 

" Limiting bank angle to a set low figure will reduce accidents" Every pilot will know where "down" is even in cloud. If you watch your airspeed you won't stall.. Everybody makes mistakes.. I've read a lot of books about flying. I'm pretty confident I can handle most things. Accidents happen to other people, not me. Human factors is BS. I don't need that $#1t.... The sky is really big. You won't hit anyone. I fly more relaxed after a drink.. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Unless CASA takeover all of RAAus 'operations' - then it couldn't happen because RAAus doesn't have the legal powers to conduct much in the way of 'compliance & enforcement'. Only CASA FOI's have such power, and they would have to be directed to become active within the RAAus pilot group. In any case, the 'big stick' approach hasn't worked in the past. An improved training syllabus , with more recurrent training requirements, is probably a more effective approach.

RAA is designated a Self-Administering Organisation by CASA, and if reported correctly in the last week RAA took a certificate off a pilot for some infringement, so it appears some C&E may be occurring from time to time.

However RAA C&E, using volunteers like most national sporting bodies can nest within CASA's designation.

 

The C&E I'm talking about doesn't extend to legal prosecutions, so you would not need to involve FOIs any more than they are now.

 

I've just outlined where it does work in speedways, and it also works withing the Sporting Shooters Association, and both those operations probably have roughly as many locations operating as there are active RAA airfields.

 

Explaining the structure is a little like, explaining the structure which reduced the Road Toll in one post; it's quite a complex subject in itself once you get into the checks and balances, ensuring natural justice with appeals etc.

 

Its also a red herring thrown up on this thread about The RAA's proposed technical changes.

 

 

[M61A1]

Are you serious suggesting that every strip should be legislated to have a non- flying volunteer standing by to point out the obvious?

 

These thing might work at organised events like speedway and target shooting comps, and such things do occur at most fly- ins, but what you are suggesting is like requiring that you should a a volunteer traffic advisor as you back out your driveway to tell you to watch out because the neighbour's bin is on the road, every time you go to the shops in your car.

 

I am also familiar with some in the gliding world who won't go back because they make unnecessary rules that go beyond those required by CASA, yet still, incidents occur at the same rate.

 

We are making rules in all facets of life that are having little or no positive value, but at great cost to personal freedom. I don't see that as a reasonable tradeoff.

 

 

[farri]

I've just outlined where it does work in speedways, and it also works withing the Sporting Shooters Association, and both those operations probably have roughly as many locations operating as there are active RAA airfields.

What do you consider an active RAA airfield,please?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Are you serious suggesting that every strip should be legislated to have a non- flying volunteer standing by to point out the obvious?

That would be silly, wouldn't it.

 

These thing might work at organised events like speedway and target shooting comps, and such things do occur at most fly- ins, but what you are suggesting is like requiring that you should a a volunteer traffic advisor as you back out your driveway to tell you to watch out because the neighbour's bin is on the road, every time you go to the shops in your car.

That would be silly, wouldn't it.

 

I am also familiar with some in the gliding world who won't go back because they make unnecessary rules that go beyond those required by CASA, yet still, incidents occur at the same rate.We are making rules in all facets of life that are having little or no positive value, but at great cost to personal freedom. I don't see that as a reasonable tradeoff.

I notice these unnecessary rules are unspecified, but it doesn't matter because rules weren't mentioned.

If you care to go back ti line 7 of #177, the comment was intended to show that tjis was a big subject, for a more formal arena that an internet forum.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What do you consider an active RAA airfield,please?

Not your place; an airfield where enough numbers of pilots were in regular attendance to make the policy feasible

Other sporting bodies would be working on around 100 locations around Australia with volunteers in attendance either full time, or from time to time on an Audit basis; flying has the advantage that pilots who may operate out of a paddock, pass through these centres.

 

 

[M61A1]

That would be silly, wouldn't it.

That would be silly, wouldn't it.

 

I notice these unnecessary rules are unspecified, but it doesn't matter because rules weren't mentioned.

 

.

That appeared to be exactly what you are suggesting. More rules.

We went through this once before...

 

here's just one good example:

 

FARs 91.13

 

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

 

b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

 

They nail it in two sentences, I'm not going to cut and paste our equivalent because it's huge.

 

We are one of very few countries that prohibit flight under 500 feet unless qualified and necessary. We don't have lower fatality rate.

 

Same again with aerobatics and dropping objects. They just tell you to do it where you won't hurt anyone or damage property...sensible, not restrictive.

 

We have restrictive rules in the workplace, on the road and essentially in everything we do, and we get extra ones almost every time some clot claims "it's not my fault" on A Current Affair, in front of a magistrate or has a coroner's report written about their demise.

 

I could also tell you about the pain of defence aligning themselves with civilian equivalents in both OH&S and airworthiness regs.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That appeared to be exactly what you are suggesting. More rules.We went through this once before...

here's just one good example:

 

FARs 91.13 etc etc etc.

Compliance and Enforcement is the ADMINISTRATION of an organisation's rules. If the rules are bad, an organisation or the government can change them; if they aren't as good as the USA, an organisation or government can aopt the US rules.

So once again, I was not discussing any MORE rules, or ANY rule for that matter, just impartially administering what's already there.

 

 

[aro]

Not your place; an airfield where enough numbers of pilots were in regular attendance to make the policy feasible

Maybe you're thinking of a rule something like:

 

When RAAus aeroplanes are operating from an aerodrome where an Flight Training School is based, the CFI of the Flight Training School has the authority to control and direct RAAus aeroplane operations.

 

If a fly-in is being conducted at an aerodrome where there is no Flight Training School, the most Senior Instructor (if instructors are present) is to assume those responsibilities.

 

Pilots of RAAus aeroplanes should obey all directions and instructions given by the holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval.

 

The holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval may (in the interest of safety) ground pilots and/or aeroplanes for the remainder of the day.

 

 

[kasper]

Maybe you're thinking of a rule something like:When RAAus aeroplanes are operating from an aerodrome where an Flight Training School is based, the CFI of the Flight Training School has the authority to control and direct RAAus aeroplane operations.

 

If a fly-in is being conducted at an aerodrome where there is no Flight Training School, the most Senior Instructor (if instructors are present) is to assume those responsibilities.

 

Pilots of RAAus aeroplanes should obey all directions and instructions given by the holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval.

 

The holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval may (in the interest of safety) ground pilots and/or aeroplanes for the remainder of the day.

Where the hell is that thumbs down crying in my drink icon when you need it

 

 

[turboplanner]

Maybe you're thinking of a rule something like:When RAAus aeroplanes are operating from an aerodrome where an Flight Training School is based, the CFI of the Flight Training School has the authority to control and direct RAAus aeroplane operations.

 

If a fly-in is being conducted at an aerodrome where there is no Flight Training School, the most Senior Instructor (if instructors are present) is to assume those responsibilities.

 

Pilots of RAAus aeroplanes should obey all directions and instructions given by the holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval.

 

The holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval may (in the interest of safety) ground pilots and/or aeroplanes for the remainder of the day.

I see that after saying twice that C&E is not a rule, someone suggested I might be thinking of a rule.

 

Then, based on that incorrect assumption, someone eles was moved to ask for a crying in my drink icon.

 

Then, based on that. one person liked the idea of a "crying in my drink icon", another agreed with it, and another thought it was funny.

 

You can see why I would be reluctant to get involved in policy development by forum.

 

As far as this suggested "rule" is concerned:

 

1. RAA operations occur at many places where there are no RAA Flight Training Schools; a key issue for RAA is how to manage the geographical spread.

 

2. As public liability cases have occurred, it has become obvious that Controlling Bodies can not only attract lawsuits should something go wrong, but can be used by members as shields where members can avoid their responsibilities. Therefore "controlling and directing" are not what you would want to build into a C&E operation.

 

3. Requiring pilots to obey directions and instructions of CFIs and Instructors makes those people legally responsible for their directions and instructions, where in fact Pilots in Command already have obligations.

 

4. Where a sanction is issued, such as grounding for the rest of the day by an approved person, there has to be grounds to be measured by and an appeals process.

 

5. Sanctions don't have to be issued; reminders, explanations, and retraining usually lift the person's skill base and safety awareness.

 

 

[M61A1]

It's not a "suggested rule"....it's some of section 4.01 of the RAAus Ops Manual.

 

Your point 3. is what I would be most concerned about. I'm quite sure that written somewhere else, the PIC has the final say.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's not a "suggested rule"....it's some of section 4.01 of the RAAus Ops Manual.

Either way, it's not a C&E policy or operation.

 

Your point 3. is what I would be most concerned about. I'm quite sure that written somewhere else, the PIC has the final say.

This is what aro quoted: "Pilots of RAAus aeroplanes should obey all directions and instructions given by the holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval."

 

This is what the Ops Manual says (4.01.7)

 

"Pilots of RAAus aeroplanes should obey all directions and instructions given by the holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval. Such persons may (in the interest of safety) ground pilots and/or aeroplanes for the remainder of the day. Should grounding be required the Operations Manager or Technical Manager (as appropriate) is to be advised by the quickest possible means."

 

Yes, it's very risky having written instructions to override a Pilot in Command, and I'd certainly recommend taking it out.

 

 

[kasper]

It's not a "suggested rule"....it's some of section 4.01 of the RAAus Ops Manual.Your point 3. is what I would be most concerned about. I'm quite sure that written somewhere else, the PIC has the final say.

Except of course the horrendous drafting of the ops manual leaves 4.01 applying to ops at “aerodromes” with a definition linking that to airfields and airports and ALA .... but fails to actually define them OR import the appropriate definitions from other legal docs etc.

Hate to think what an actual lawyer might say in defence of anyone actually attempted to be diciplined by the RAAus under any of this area of the ops manual.

 

But I’m not worried. After all RAAus have an a1 lawyer at their call so I’m sure it’s all absolutely kosher.

 

Oh and please do not point me at the note at the front that says RAAus have the absolute and final call on all definitions and meanings of the manual. Courts give short shrift to those sort of clauses and tend to read their power minimally in favour of the party claiming or relying on them.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

The SAAA some time back developed a similar sort of plan to have chapter safety officers. This officer would have among their roles to do preinspections of places we were planning to visit - in particular builders projects, sites for fly ins etc. these preinspections would then entail advising where risks exists and remedial actions to be taken by the owner/builder etc. Also if a member did anything risky the officer was to speak or confront the member, where appropriate pass on the the SAAA - essentially become a chapter policeman.

 

That went down like a lead balloon. Basically ours and every chapter that I had contact with said they could shove it. Events would become non-chapter events. There was talk that chaptersbwould dissolve and become local flying clubs without affiliation to SAAA. The idea of having one of our become a little Hitler was an anathema. and we were really concerned that the type of person who would relish taking on this kind of job was exactly the type of person we didn't want doing it.

 

Further I got legal advice from a magistrate who advised we run a mile and have nothing to do with this. As soon as a safety officer exists then there exists a string of responsibility and a chain of people who can be sued when the inevitable accident ( whether it is an aviation one or just a life related one like someone getting burned by hot coffee or getting a shock from an electric urn) occurs.

 

Paradoxically it's way better to have no one responsible, and if sued have a court say, " you should have had someone looking out for this" than to have have someone responsible, then someone else responsible for that persons training, then someone else responsible for the oversight of the program and then the committee members ultimately responsible for the oversight of the chapter officers.

 

Anyway, when all this chapter policeman stuff was removed ( well, they actually said it was "never part of the role" but we had it in writing that it was certainly perceived to be by those in the head of the national organisation) the role was devolved to one about collating actual safety related events ( inward and outward from the chapter to the head office) which is far more acceptable to the membership.

 

 

[facthunter]

The PIC is master of the vessel and is at law required to operate the aircraft in the most safe manner possible under the circumstances involved. Some other authoritys view or actions would be contributing factors in any decision. MY words. Nev

 

 

[Beejay]

I've done more calculation, scenarios and costing than most in this area over the last few years and 600kg sux for larger people who want to actually go somewhere with baggage in safety (and in a cheaper aircraft).

My wife and I have been planning a flight into remote central Aust. for many years but it can't happen under the current 600kg MTOW. We are two "well rounded" people and current calculations, including baggage, spares and safety gear, limit us to 15 litres of fuel before we hit MTOW (J230). So I for one would relish the increase, even though we could only use 700kg of it. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

 

[turboplanner]

My wife and I have been planning a flight into remote central Aust. for many years but it can't happen under the current 600kg MTOW. We are two "well rounded" people and current calculations, including baggage, spares and safety gear, limit us to 15 litres of fuel before we hit MTOW (J230). So I for one would relish the increase, even though we could only use 700kg of it. Just my 2 cents worth.

That's a common dilemma right up the aircraft range Beejay.

What appears (and I use that word because there is very little public detail about this) to have happened is RAA applied to CASA for an increase in MTOW only.

 

If that is true then whoever did that doesn't appear to be aware of the consequences in terms of additional empty weight required for the engineering.

 

I'd be interested on your comments on the Cessna 152, at 752 kg MTOW, and a common lowest common denominator tourer for two people the Cherokee Warrior at 1056 kg MTOW.

 

C152 (kg) 2 seat

 

MTOW 758

 

Empty 490

 

Fuel 70.5

 

Pax, Baggage 197.5

 

(Max wt per person, no baggage 98.75)

 

Warrior (kg)

 

MTOW 1056

 

Empty 607

 

Fuel 130.5

 

Pax, Baggage 318.5

 

(Max wt per person, no baggage 79.63)

 

The Warrior could take three people at average 106 kg, no baggage, or two rotund people with reasonable baggage.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The SAAA some time back developed a similar sort of plan to have chapter safety officers. This officer would have among their roles to do preinspections of places we were planning to visit - in particular builders projects, sites for fly ins etc. these preinspections would then entail advising where risks exists and remedial actions to be taken by the owner/builder etc. Also if a member did anything risky the officer was to speak or confront the member, where appropriate pass on the the SAAA - essentially become a chapter policeman.That went down like a lead balloon. Basically ours and every chapter that I had contact with said they could shove it. Events would become non-chapter events. There was talk that chaptersbwould dissolve and become local flying clubs without affiliation to SAAA. The idea of having one of our become a little Hitler was an anathema. and we were really concerned that the type of person who would relish taking on this kind of job was exactly the type of person we didn't want doing it.

 

Further I got legal advice from a magistrate who advised we run a mile and have nothing to do with this. As soon as a safety officer exists then there exists a string of responsibility and a chain of people who can be sued when the inevitable accident ( whether it is an aviation one or just a life related one like someone getting burned by hot coffee or getting a shock from an electric urn) occurs.

 

Paradoxically it's way better to have no one responsible, and if sued have a court say, " you should have had someone looking out for this" than to have have someone responsible, then someone else responsible for that persons training, then someone else responsible for the oversight of the program and then the committee members ultimately responsible for the oversight of the chapter officers.

 

Anyway, when all this chapter policeman stuff was removed ( well, they actually said it was "never part of the role" but we had it in writing that it was certainly perceived to be by those in the head of the national organisation) the role was devolved to one about collating actual safety related events ( inward and outward from the chapter to the head office) which is far more acceptable to the membership.

[turboplanner]

The SAAA some time back developed a similar sort of plan to have chapter safety officers. This officer would have among their roles to do preinspections of places we were planning to visit - in particular builders projects, sites for fly ins etc. these preinspections would then entail advising where risks exists and remedial actions to be taken by the owner/builder etc. Also if a member did anything risky the officer was to speak or confront the member, where appropriate pass on the the SAAA - essentially become a chapter policeman.That went down like a lead balloon. Basically ours and every chapter that I had contact with said they could shove it. Events would become non-chapter events. There was talk that chaptersbwould dissolve and become local flying clubs without affiliation to SAAA. The idea of having one of our become a little Hitler was an anathema. and we were really concerned that the type of person who would relish taking on this kind of job was exactly the type of person we didn't want doing it.

 

Further I got legal advice from a magistrate who advised we run a mile and have nothing to do with this. As soon as a safety officer exists then there exists a string of responsibility and a chain of people who can be sued when the inevitable accident ( whether it is an aviation one or just a life related one like someone getting burned by hot coffee or getting a shock from an electric urn) occurs.

 

Paradoxically it's way better to have no one responsible, and if sued have a court say, " you should have had someone looking out for this" than to have have someone responsible, then someone else responsible for that persons training, then someone else responsible for the oversight of the program and then the committee members ultimately responsible for the oversight of the chapter officers.

 

Anyway, when all this chapter policeman stuff was removed ( well, they actually said it was "never part of the role" but we had it in writing that it was certainly perceived to be by those in the head of the national organisation) the role was devolved to one about collating actual safety related events ( inward and outward from the chapter to the head office) which is far more acceptable to the membership.

This sound like an unfortunate experience which will have repercussionson SAAA.

For C&E to work, it has to operate over a clear set of rules - the rules already in existence by the organisation, which have been voted on by the organisation in general meetings.

 

When that happens most members will be comfortable.

 

Confronting a member who "did anything risky" is not acceptable, because it's so open ended and prone to abuse, so that was never going to work.

 

Spelling out the powers of a C&E officer is also critical; training is essential, and the officer needs to know there's an apppeals process which could work against him.

 

Sitting on a Tribunal for a few years taught me a lot about the behaviour of pafrticipants, and C&E is primarily about improving behaviour.

 

I reversed about 5% of decisions, and those reversals primarily centred around a Chief Steward not being given the correct facts from Stewards or witnesses on the night, rather than faulty decisions on his part.

 

Rarely is there need for serious sanctions; on many occasions a Machine Examiner has marked up a fault in my Log Book, which I've fixed, and no sanctions have been involved. Invariably that process leads to improvement.

 

Out of one group of 1100 people I was involved with about five people per year would appeal against sanctions; one case was forging a doctor's signature on a medical, another was driving into a safe area in a temper, misjudging and knocking over a woman changing a baby on the back seat of a parked car.

 

C&E is the method used to reduce the chance for injuries and fatalities caused by failure to adhere to the rules of the organisation, and for Australia, where rule flouting is a National pastime, the most effective way. A byproduct of this is that it leads to less public liability claims, and the chance of long term survival for the organisation.

 

I have always recommended that anyone wanting legal information relating to public liability should go to a lawyer who specialises in public liability.

 

Even then if you colouryour request with some BS, or keep something hidden, the advice of that specialist is worthless.

 

It seems odd to me that someone would seek advice from a Magistrate, particularly if that Magistrate didn't specialise in hearing PL cases.

 

If someone gets electrocuted by an urn or burned by coffee, or there's an aviation issue, the lawyers will be going after the people responsible in any case, and worse, you're going to have to admit that you didn't take any action at all to discharge your duty of care.

 

In one case, the owner of the property was sued along with the track lessee, the Association's national officer, and the fire marshall who saved the driver's life; it was the plaintiff's lawyers who selected this chain.

 

I'm sure collating "actual" safety related events is comforting to the members, but just wait until there's a major accident and some of them a dragged into court and asked directly "You had a duty of care to ensure that xxx didn't happen; what actions had you taken to ensure this?"

 

Good luck with "Well we collate actual safety related events"

 

That's about as effective as "We are a safety based organisation, and we require all members to fly safely"

 

 

[facthunter]

IF you go into Central Australia and go away from roads you should have LOTS of water to last anytime at all in the event of an outlanding in the summer months anywhere and even in the DRY season in the North It's still quite hot. Water weighs about 3/7ths more than fuel per litre. Nev

 

 

[aro]

This sound like an unfortunate experience which will have repercussionson SAAA.

The problem is that the SAAA is like the RACV, in that it offers some benefits to membership but they have zero authority to enforce rules. GA Experimental is operating 100% under rules set and enforced by CASA.

 

If the RACV decided to implement a safety management system and apply it to members they would have a similar problem.

 

There is a suggestion that the SAAA will become an organization like RAA where people are required to be members. The claim (like the MPC) is that this is being driven by CASA, I have some doubt about that.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The problem is that the SAAA is like the RACV, in that it offers some benefits to membership but they have zero authority to enforce rules. GA Experimental is operating 100% under rules set and enforced by CASA.If the RACV decided to implement a safety management system and apply it to members they would have a similar problem.

 

There is a suggestion that the SAAA will become an organization like RAA where people are required to be members. The claim (like the MPC) is that this is being driven by CASA, I have some doubt about that.

Have a look at this site: Self-administering organisations | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

It says: "CASA currently oversights the following self-administration organisations"

 

It lists as one of those: "Sport Aircraft Association of Australia"

 

The benefit of the self - administering organisation is that it allows specialists to manage their own special area, and put duty of care in their hands.

 

If the self-administering bodies don't want to protect themselves, then there's a much higher chance that they'll be paying out.

 

 

[aro]

Have a look at this site: Self-administering organisations | Civil Aviation Safety AuthorityIt says: "CASA currently oversights the following self-administration organisations"

It lists as one of those: "Sport Aircraft Association of Australia"

There is a clue on that site: For every other organization it says "... administers".

 

For SAAA it says "... provides support". SAAA don't actually administer anything.

 

 

[robinsm]

When given a direction by someone purporting to have authority to make you do something, get the direction in writing quoting the appropriate article and signed by them in whatever capacity they call them selves.

 

, then inform them that you will be seeking legal advice using their written direction as evidence. Sorts the wheat from the chaff very quickly......just sayin.