The shiny new-look RAA?

[Oscar]

The engine in the Sting was NOT Certificated by CASA; is was Certified by the manufacturer. As far as I am aware, the only aircraft engines Certificated by CASA ( as the National Authority responsible for the manufacturer) were several versions of the Jabiru 2200 engine. Rotax engine are made in Austria, not Australia. The two extra letters in 'Australia' are not legally insignificant.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The engine in the Sting was NOT Certificated by CASA; is was Certified by the manufacturer. As far as I am aware, the only aircraft engines Certificated by CASA ( as the National Authority responsible for the manufacturer) were several versions of the Jabiru 2200 engine. Rotax engine are made in Austria, not Australia. The two extra letters in 'Australia' are not legally insignificant.

Was there a reason given for joining CASA then?

 

 

[facthunter]

It's in the hands of the claimants. acting on the legal advice no doubt, of their Lawyers.. If the amount claimed was large, one would need to seek it beyond the resources of the RAAus. Co- joining is not unusual in such circumstances.. This hung over the RAAus for ages and was an ongoing problem compromising it's future operations . It was my view that the CASA should have indemnified RAAus in the role it had thrust upon it. It was hard to get any info about what was going on. I still don't know the outcome, but can't claim to have pursued it with any vigour lately.nev

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

From my perspective the CAO's only require membership of the relevant SAAO , for CASA to approve tech and ops manuals, and for the aircraft to be registered with RAAus. CASA gathers its audit powers as a result of the agreements that come with the funding that CASA supplies. I don't know about anyone else I would be happy to tell CASA that their funding was not required ( at the cost of $12 - 15 per member) and thus the requirements of the funding agreement would lapse. CASA would be hard pressed to explain why the manuals that they have approved are suddenly no good.

 

CASA can easily escape liability if it extends CASR 201.003

 

"Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases

 

Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, orarising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair,

 

maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or anexperimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done ormade in good faith in relation to any of those things."

 

to include aircraft excluded from the CASRs by virtue of CASR 200. By definition as they are exempt from CASR Part 47 they are not registered australian aircraft (CASR 200.025)

 

I often wonder if the CASR's are explicit that RAAus aircraft are unregistered Australian aircraft, How is it that CASA regards the RAAus register as its own. Indeed, if CAO's are so clear that the only qualifications to the CAO's are those previously mentioned how is it that CASA can then re-insert various provisions of the CASR's by inclusions in the manuals or via the funding agreement when Parliament has instituted a regime that sets aside the CASR's.

 

Part 149 will not come into force until the issue of liability of the delegates and organisations is settled.

 

 

[facthunter]

CASA makes a system of Strict Liability apply to all Operators and Pilots but contracts out of liability for Itself. ? Yeah that seems fair. BS. Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Wonderful what you can do when you get to write the rules.. If Ian were to write them, I would expect Forumites to be completely immune from anything nasty.

 

The government has done something similar with respect to rural fencing... they are excused from any rules which apply to everybody else.

 

And just think about tax... if some other lot, like the Mafia, were to do the same it would be called " demanding money with menaces" and be a crime.

 

 

[storchy neil]

bruce 10 years ago the name you mention tried to but owing to the top brass so called leaders the crap that you had then today has continued

 

why worry just let me fly I don't care what the rules are when the sheeeet hits the fan make a new rule neil

 

 

[turboplanner]

CASA makes a system of Strict Liability apply to all Operators and Pilots but contracts out of liability for Itself. ? Yeah that seems fair. BS. Nev

A PPG zoomed under the trees at a Fair a few years ago, almost scraping the tops of the tents, and caught his chute on a tree.If he had hooked up on a tent and dragged the machine down through the dozens of people, killed a few, made one a quadriplegic, and left a liability bill of $25 million, in your wildest dreams do you think the Regulator should pay for this person’s sport?

[turboplanner]

The government has done something similar with respect to rural fencing... they are excused from any rules which apply to everybody else.

Which government? Local? State? Federal? Trump?And what have they done now?

 

 

[spacesailor]

If the pilot passed All the bureaucratic test imposed by CASA, Then they should be liable.

 

As Pilot has done all that was asked.

 

I paid for a Raa registration, then it was reneged on, should Raa repay my cost?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[turboplanner]

If the pilot passed All the bureaucratic test imposed by CASA, Then they should be liable.As Pilot has done all that was asked.I paid for a Raa registration, then it was reneged on, should Raa repay my cost?.

 

spacesailor

In the case of a GA pilot that might be true, and they are tying up the risk much as possible with strict liability to minimise the payout.In the case of the Self Administering Organisations, it’s up to them how they do it; CASA didn’t issue the certificates.

 

As far as reneging on your rgistration, i take it that was the Hummel Bird, and it would depend on the facts.

 

 

[spacesailor]

That's the one. Four flying, sixteen in the making And then they say too bad it's no longer a 95-10-1103, (which was on their rego list).

 

Now either VH or 19 reg which means No self maintenance.

 

Dave King has a 19-1944 registered (R503) Hummel-Bird

 

 

spacesailor

 

 

[jetjr]

Why no self maintenance on 19 reg?

 

 

[M61A1]

That's the one. Four flying, sixteen in the making And then they say too bad it's no longer a 95-10-1103, (which was on their rego list).Now either VH or 19 reg which means No self maintenance.Dave King has a 19-1944 registered (R503) Hummel-Bird

 

[ATTACH]54415[/ATTACH]

 

spacesailor

How long have you been building this HB? The wing loading has been the same for at least 20 years.

[spacesailor]

YES

 

I keep running the engine, sitting in the cockpit & dreaming of Flying like an eagle.LoL

 

But I've stopped doing any more to it. (maybe one day, I'll brake the law & have a taxi-run, etc) been offered quite a few flying places away from civilization ))

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

A PPG zoomed under the trees at a Fair a few years ago, almost scraping the tops of the tents, and caught his chute on a tree.If he had hooked up on a tent and dragged the machine down through the dozens of people, killed a few, made one a quadriplegic, and left a liability bill of $25 million, in your wildest dreams do you think the Regulator should pay for this person’s sport?

But he didn't!. Situation is no different than an unlicenced driver wiping out a few pedestrians in an unlicenced car. At theend of the day the community bears the cost. We should not be reduced, as a community, to legislating for the lowest common denominator - in this case the stupid and reckless. In aviation it will only result in CASA's dream result - the only users of airspace would be the major airlines.

[spacesailor]

"maybe one day, I'll brake the law & have a taxi-run,". The Vicroria River Downs Airport" looks a good place, when I passed it a couple years ago, was full of helicopters.

 

When they made it compulsory to wear helmets I stopped riding motoer-bikes,sold or gave away all my bikes & gear.( had a full set of Indians) Took fifty years till I had the next ride,(after nearly an hour getting into a helmet)

 

If Casa & the bureaucrats, get their way, we ( the majority) will no longer be able to comply with All their Laws & rules, and will be confined to push-bikes or Public transport !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Space, I read that the compulsory helmet law killed more people than it saved, for exactly the reason you gave. There were people who stayed active by riding bikes etc. When then gave up, they became prone to all of the deadly diseases caused by inactivity.

 

 

[turboplanner]

But he didn't!. Situation is no different than an unlicenced driver wiping out a few pedestrians in an unlicenced car. At theend of the day the community bears the cost. We should not be reduced, as a community, to legislating for the lowest common denominator - in this case the stupid and reckless. In aviation it will only result in CASA's dream result - the only users of airspace would be the major airlines.

It was Facthunter suggesting it wasn't fair that the government had opted out of bearing the costs.The law, which we've had for years is, the idiot who causes the problem bears the cost.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

CASA makes a system of Strict Liability apply to all Operators and Pilots but contracts out of liability for Itself. ? Yeah that seems fair. BS. Nev

Do you really want the Government to be responsible to the community at large for your actions? The courts have already decided that recreational flying is a dangerous pursuit where the participants assume the liabilities themselves.What CASA is saying in CASR 201.003 is that they are not responsible for those activities associated with the operation experimental and limited category aircraft. If an RAAus aircraft causes a loss (financial or otherwise) CASA will distance itself and any action against it will probably fail as it has it has in the past when a GFA pilot who failed in an action against the GFA sought to attack CASA.

 

My proposition is that RAAus aircraft are included in CASR 201.003 so that CASA or others can cease using the excuses regularly trotted out to support increased regulation (eg CASA made me do it).

 

In respect of the strict liability issue the following is worth reading.

 

From Strictly liable, fairly enforced | Flight Safety Australia

 

Breaches of most of the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, and a few of the provisions appearing in the Civil Aviation Act, are offences of strict liability.

 

 

 

Dr Aleck says there is an unfortunate misunderstanding about what this means. ‘Many people believe that “strict liability” somehow involves a presumption of guilt, as opposed to the presumption of innocence that is central to our system of justice; and that it also involves a reversal of the burden of proof, shifting that burden from the prosecutor to the person charged with the offence. This is simply not so,’ he says.

 

 

 

The difference between strict liability offences and other ‘fault-based’ offences has to do with the mental element, the Associate Director says.

 

 

 

‘There is no requirement for (and hence no need to prove the existence of) a mental element, that is a particular state of mind—intent, knowledge, recklessness or negligence—on the part of a defendant charged with a strict liability offence. This is the norm for a wide range of legislative requirements involving public health and safety matters.’

 

 

 

The parallel is in traffic law, where most ordinary road traffic offences are offences of strict liability. ‘So, for example, if a driver decides to dispute a charge of driving without a seat belt, the prosecutor need not prove that the driver intended not to wear, knew they were not wearing, or simply forgot to wear, their seat belt. All that needs to be proven is that, in fact, the driver was not wearing their seat belt,’ Dr Aleck explains.

 

Importantly, however, strict liability does not reverse the burden of proof, and there are no provisions in any CASA legislation (current or proposed) that do so. ‘Every element of a strict liability offence must be proven by the prosecutor, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not and has never been the case that the defendant must prove that they did not commit the offence.’

 

 

 

Moreover, the defence of ‘reasonable mistake of fact’ is always available to a person charged with a strict liability offence under the civil aviation legislation. Section 9.2 of the Commonwealth Code Act expressly provides that a ‘person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is no fault element if: (a) at or before the time of the conduct constituting the physical element, the person considered whether or not facts existed, and is under a mistaken but reasonable belief about those facts; and (b) had those facts existed, the conduct would not have constituted an offence.’

 

 

 

If, for example a driver charged with a strict liability traffic offence was able to show that their vehicle’s speedometer had suddenly begun reading wrongly, or a pilot charged with a strict liability offence involving unauthorised low flight was able to show that the altimeter had, without reasonable warning, begun to read incorrectly, that would be a ‘reasonable mistake of fact’ because belief based on the mistaken readings of the instruments would be reasonable (provided the driver had no other reason to believe they were driving too fast or the pilot had no other reason to believe they were flying too low.)

 

 

[M61A1]

Do you really want the Government to be responsible to the community at large for your actions? The courts have already decided that recreational flying is a dangerous pursuit where the participants assume the liabilities themselves.What CASA is saying in CASR 201.003 is that they are not responsible for those activities associated with the operation experimental and limited category aircraft. If an RAAus aircraft causes a loss (financial or otherwise) CASA will distance itself and any action against it will probably fail as it has it has in the past when a GFA pilot who failed in an action against the GFA sought to attack CASA.My proposition is that RAAus aircraft are included in CASR 201.003 so that CASA or others can cease using the excuses regularly trotted out to support increased regulation (eg CASA made me do it).

 

In respect of the strict liability issue the following is worth reading.

 

From Strictly liable, fairly enforced | Flight Safety Australia

 

Breaches of most of the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, and a few of the provisions appearing in the Civil Aviation Act, are offences of strict liability.

 

Dr Aleck says there is an unfortunate misunderstanding about what this means. ‘Many people believe that “strict liability” somehow involves a presumption of guilt, as opposed to the presumption of innocence that is central to our system of justice; and that it also involves a reversal of the burden of proof, shifting that burden from the prosecutor to the person charged with the offence. This is simply not so,’ he says.

 

The difference between strict liability offences and other ‘fault-based’ offences has to do with the mental element, the Associate Director says.

 

‘There is no requirement for (and hence no need to prove the existence of) a mental element, that is a particular state of mind—intent, knowledge, recklessness or negligence—on the part of a defendant charged with a strict liability offence. This is the norm for a wide range of legislative requirements involving public health and safety matters.’

 

The parallel is in traffic law, where most ordinary road traffic offences are offences of strict liability. ‘So, for example, if a driver decides to dispute a charge of driving without a seat belt, the prosecutor need not prove that the driver intended not to wear, knew they were not wearing, or simply forgot to wear, their seat belt. All that needs to be proven is that, in fact, the driver was not wearing their seat belt,’ Dr Aleck explains.

 

Importantly, however, strict liability does not reverse the burden of proof, and there are no provisions in any CASA legislation (current or proposed) that do so. ‘Every element of a strict liability offence must be proven by the prosecutor, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not and has never been the case that the defendant must prove that they did not commit the offence.’

 

Moreover, the defence of ‘reasonable mistake of fact’ is always available to a person charged with a strict liability offence under the civil aviation legislation. Section 9.2 of the Commonwealth Code Act expressly provides that a ‘person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is no fault element if: (a) at or before the time of the conduct constituting the physical element, the person considered whether or not facts existed, and is under a mistaken but reasonable belief about those facts; and (b) had those facts existed, the conduct would not have constituted an offence.’

 

If, for example a driver charged with a strict liability traffic offence was able to show that their vehicle’s speedometer had suddenly begun reading wrongly, or a pilot charged with a strict liability offence involving unauthorised low flight was able to show that the altimeter had, without reasonable warning, begun to read incorrectly, that would be a ‘reasonable mistake of fact’ because belief based on the mistaken readings of the instruments would be reasonable (provided the driver had no other reason to believe they were driving too fast or the pilot had no other reason to believe they were flying too low.)

That doesn't mean that 'strict liability isn't a nasty idea. The only reason that rules exist is for safety, and if anyone's safety isn't compromised when a strict liability offence is committed, then we all we have achieved is more restrictive legislation than we need, solely to make life easy for those enforcing it.

[Mick]

Now either VH or 19 reg which means No self maintenance.spacesailor

Where are you getting the idea that 19 rego means no self maintenance?

[Jim McDowall]

That doesn't mean that 'strict liability isn't a nasty idea. The only reason that rules exist is for safety, and if anyone's safety isn't compromised when a strict liability offence is committed, then we all we have achieved is more restrictive legislation than we need, solely to make life easy for those enforcing it.

Agreed, but what is it in the Australian psyche that thinks that if we make a new rule the problem (actual or imagined) is fixed which really only results in more regulation and usually more bureaucracy. eg before we had urban planners we had surveyors and they did a pretty good job (such as the celebrated Colonel Light in Adelaide) - no problems getting stuff built - now urban planners interfere with everything and impede growth etc.

[Bruce Tuncks]

My 19 reg plane gets nothing but self-maintenance. I reckon I could prove to any fair hearing that it gets better maintenance than any other aircraft. Except maybe equalled by some other similar planes, or those where the owner takes a lot of interest in the professionally delivered maintenance.

 

 

[M61A1]

Agreed, but what is it in the Australian psyche that thinks that if we make a new rule the problem (actual or imagined) is fixed which really only results in more regulation and usually more bureaucracy. eg before we had urban planners we had surveyors and they did a pretty good job (such as the celebrated Colonel Light in Adelaide) - no problems getting stuff built - now urban planners interfere with everything and impede growth etc.

They like to see that something has been done. It doesn't matter whether or not the problem is real or whether or not the fix actually achieved positive results. They were SEEN to have done SOMETHING. Problem solved. The concept of SMSs and Quality management may be great, but the Australian execution is woeful.