CASA and SELF ADMINISTRATION OF GA

[cazza]

Dear members of this forum.

 

Some big political issues are coming up and you might wish to have your say. The first one is:

 

CASA and Self-Administration of GA. It is no secret that CASA is considering divesting itself of the administration of private GA. This is a big step for the industry and your input to your organization (RA-Aus, AOPA, SAAA) is important. Please feel free to address any or all of these possibilities and make sure your Board member is made aware of your feelings.

 

1. Should there be self-administration of private GA, or should it stay with CASA?

 

2. What are the benefits of self-administration and what are the pitfalls?

 

3. What are the criteria for organizations wishing to put their hand up?

 

4. Should private GA be administered by GA organizations?

 

5. Should private GA be administered by RA-Aus?

 

6. Should GA organization/s and RA-Aus amalgamate to administer all recreational aircraft?

 

Love to hear some ideas on this topic.

 

CAZZA

 

 

[facthunter]

Umbrella organisation.

 

Cazza, A couple of points.

 

1. Private GA will have to decide that one for themselves.

 

2. Benefits are that you would hopefully do what your members want (collectively). It would be tailored to our specific needs, so less complex.

 

Pitfalls are that if you don't do it properly, it will cost too much or you wont be allowed to do it for long. It's obviously a big job, and we would have to do it well.

 

3. Be capable, be what their members want, Meet CASA expectations.

 

4. ASK them.

 

5. I doubt that would go down well with them or us. If we want to keep our freedoms, why would we ever think of expanding our sphere of operations beyond what we are trying to achieve now? Just to clarify the answer NO!!.

 

6. NO. We have a RELATIVELY simple situation to administer. Some of the other areas are very complex, If we could assist in some way that's fine,and we should all cooperate with each other on the issues which affect us all. If there is some way that the unique circumstances that separate us can be dealt with by their own group making the decisions and accepting their operational RESPONSIBILITIES. without causing extra all-embracing restrictions, we should not object, and be ready to assist. Needless areas of duplication and territorial jealousies should be overcome. We all share the same sky and we all have something to contribute to aviation, regardless of which section of aviation suits us at the moment. Nev...

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Sundry prices of new GA aircraft -

 

(Source Business & Commercial Aviation magazine. Prices basic equip. and US $)

 

Cirrus SR20 $257,000

 

Cessna 182 $349,000

 

Piper arrow $378,000

 

Mooney M20 $442,000

 

Beechcraft Bonanza $596,000

 

I think the aeronautical and facility wants and needs of people who buy these sort of aircraft could be vastly different to the average RAAus pilot.

 

HPD

 

 

[Guest browng]

Sundry prices of new GA aircraft -(Source Business & Commercial Aviation magazine. Prices basic equip. and US $)

 

Cirrus SR20 $257,000

 

Cessna 182 $349,000

 

Piper arrow $378,000

 

Mooney M20 $442,000

 

Beechcraft Bonanza $596,000

 

I think the aeronautical and facility wants and needs of people who buy these sort of aircraft could be vastly different to the average RAAus pilot.

 

HPD

Oi! that is highly selective data, we don't all fly new aircraft. Try me, I am, "private GA" as well as RAAus.

 

1946 Piper J3 Cub (30kg too heavy for RAAus) currently one is advertised for $55,000

 

Jodel D113, also just too heavy for RAAus, bought mine for $22,000

 

This in the context of Sportstars etc costing well over $100,000 ? Hell, you would be hard pressed to find a C150, C152 or PA38 for more than $80,000, even with a full IFR panel.

 

To be able to get out from under CASA would be a real benefit for owners of homebuilt and historic aircraft, why should my J3 with over 15,000 built, 70 years of safe opearation, and just 4 AD's, be more stringently regulated than an RAAus 'plastic fantastic' with 5 minutes of operational history?

 

 

[Flyer]

1. About bloody time !! Especially experimental GA.

 

2. Cost reduction and less hoops to jump through and if you get it wrong, you wont be self administered for long as facthunter said.

 

3. I'll think about that one for a minute.

 

4. Not quite sure I understand the question properly... GA organisations ?(plural) such as multiple schools etc or a GA organisation(singular) such as RA-Aus ?

 

5. Arr...No. RA is seen by some of the GA fraternity as the lowest common denominator in flying. Convincing the GA powers that be to be administered by a lower class fledgling organisation (like RA-Aus)may not work.

 

6. Maybe. I think it is still an us and them scenario. I have a foot in both camps so not having to have 2 licenses would be a bonus, however, I would prefer to keep RA and GA seperate as I think there are some substantial differences (as I sit here and type, I cant think of one...).

 

My 2 bobs worth

 

Regards

 

Phil

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Looks like the never ending aurguments of who has control will start again - MAFA, SAAA, AUF, etc...

 

HPD

 

 

[Guest browng]

Looks like the never ending aurguments of who has control will start again - MAFA, SAAA, AUF, etc...

HPD

No problem, I'll do it for $200,000 a year and a fatcat expense account...:big_grin: I'll start with a new jettisoning wings rating.

 

 

[Yenn]

Whoever takes on the job, there is going to be an expense incurred to run the system. At the moment I believe GA don't have any costs for aircraft registration. I could well be wrong here having never owned a GA plane.

 

Obviously the new organisation will have to levy a cost, and also there will have to be a licence cost. Both of these costs are levied by RAAus at the moment but I believe there is a membership cost even if you don't hve a pilots certificate or own a plane, again I could be wrong.

 

The new governing body will have to cover the same sort of costs and I can see GA operators being reluctant to pay up to RAAus.

 

There would have to still be a separation of GA and RAAus because of the differences with controlled areas, night and IFR flying.

 

My guess is that a separate body will run GA and probably also try to take over Recreational Flying. We will have to keep a good eye on what is happening to ensure we don't lose any of our present privelidges.

 

 

[Guest browng]

I believe GA don't have any costs for aircraft registration.

Unfortunately you are wrong, that was true a couple of years ago, but I paid $168 just to transfer my Jodel into my name. The 'user pays' regime is alive and well and living at CASA I'm afraid.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

It will be interesting to see what the GA maintenance people thing of allowing aircraft owners to do all their own maintenance - might be a voting push from the new collective membership to stop owner maintenance ?

 

HPD

 

 

[Flyer]

reducing the cost of a class 2 medical wont go astray either...currently up around $270 after all of the bloodsuckers have had a go.

 

Oh and after 40 this medical is required every 2 years...

 

Regards

 

Phil

 

 

[Guest browng]

It will be interesting to see what the GA maintenance people thing of allowing aircraft owners to do all their own maintenance - might be a voting push from the new collective membership to stop owner maintenance ?HPD

That is a valid point, and certainly something the maintenance guys are afraid of according to my LAME, but remember that owners of experimental category aircraft can already do their own maintenance, and this change will not apply to any aircraft on a commercial CofA, just private (e.g. recreational) aircraft.

 

 

[Guest browng]

reducing the cost of a class 2 medical wont go astray either...currently up around $270 after all of the bloodsuckers have had a go.Oh and after 40 this medical is required every 2 years...

Regards

 

Phil

Under this proposal the DAME will be able to issue class 2 and 3 medicals directly, and charge only his fee. My DAME reckons that he will be able to undercut CASA and still make more than he does now.

 

 

[facthunter]

Comments on self-regulation.

 

Don't be shy people, Cazza needs more than five to contribute and she is on the management team of OUR organisation. Try to stick to the thread for maximum effect. I'm happy to elaborate on what I've said earlier on. (Yes ,I am an urger on this occasion). Nev...

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

It is no secret that CASA is considering divesting itself of the administration of private GA.

I had not heard much about this before CAZA's post.

 

Is there a forum member from CASA that can give an outline as to why it is being considered ?

 

HPD

 

 

[facthunter]

Forum member from CASA.

 

Like, "I'm here from the government, I only want to help you."

 

Self-Administration..... The Gliding Federation went that way ages ago. The RAAus and Air Ag. groups seem the most obvious to follow suit. I haven't followed this in intimate detail HPD, but I thought this move had been around for a while. There have been surveys out before and I assume this is part of an on-going process of survey and consultation. My view is that there would be pitfalls for some sections of aviation in trying to go it alone. Also, is CASA, as it now stands and operates, the only alternative to DOING IT YOURSELF, or could we achieve a better outcome than we currently have, within the existing structure? Many who have been around for a while would be somewhat sceptical, in relation to my last proposal. Cost and effectiveness have to be balanced out. I personally can't see the top-end (complex & high-tech, in competition & diversified) sector of GA being able to do the job. My attitude is that, if the question is asked of that group, THEY are the ones to respond to it, as long as the result doesn't adversly affect the conditions we might reasonably otherwise expect to enjoy. CASA would be the body retaining overall responsibility under law, I believe. Nev..

 

 

[Arnaud]

We are not particularly shy, but it is a highly controversial subject and whatever opinion you express some members will take it badly.

 

There is also the very familiar feeling that no matter how valid your contribution is, somewhere in the stratosphere the decision has already being made so why waste energy on a lost cause...

 

Anyway, you asked for my opinion and there it is:

 

GA people should sort out their problems amongst themselves and RA-Aus should stay well clear of this issue.

 

The lure of saving a few hundred dollars in various fees could tempt some of us but be aware you cannot buy real crab meat at the price of seafood extender.

 

In plain English: don't expect to have the GA privileges on a RA budget.

 

Pilots who would like to fly highly sophisticated gear ( including ADSB !) into controlled airspace should bite the bullet and get a PPL.

 

RA-Aus is a lightweight organisation for ultralight flyers, lets keep it that way.

 

Before I retire to the safety of my bunker I let you know that twenty years ago I obtained a PPL with hight rating and a few endorsements. After 150 hours I gave it away because it was too expensive, too complicated and not enough fun.

 

Thanks to RA-Aus and a Redback trike the fun is back !

 

Arnaud

 

 

[cazza]

I am not from CASA, but my information is that CASA is really only interested in administering commercial operations, rpt, qantas and so on. Private GA, like Gliding, Ultralights, Powered parachutes, etc they want to give to organisations like the HGA, HGFA, RA-Aus, or a GA consortium, or a recreational aviation group. The benefits for the members could be less red tape, less policing-like tactics, more say so in the administration. The risks could be less harmony in the industry, people taking advantage and doing the wrong thing, losing some of the priviliedges, or whatever. I am guessing that the group that front up to CASA and prove they can do the job will get the job. But should it be a group like RA-Aus that has runs on the Board, but has grown out of the ultralight movement, or a GA group that has no experience in self-administration. That is what CASA is faced with.

 

Cazza

 

 

[Admin]

Thanks Cazza (as always)!

 

I will weigh in on this from a personal standpoint and not as the admin of these forums.

 

I believe it would be great for the RA-Aus to go whole hog into securing the rights for the admin of GA BUT with a string attached. That the RA as it is today remains that way, in other words that the freedoms that we have remain with say a MTOW of 600kg as a differentiation barrier. The GA side is administered with somewhat of the same constraints that are currently in place.

 

The benefits to us RA members is that we get a strong and powerful organisation that can represent us to the politicians with more clout without losing our freedoms (maintenance, flying costs etc) plus our membership costs should actually go down as our current admin overheads like wages, rent, power etc would be spread across a larger user base - although given that extra employees would be needed but still they would be paid for by GA - economies of scale!

 

the above in my opinion represents two powerful reasons why we should support the board in going for it - we will still be us and have what we have now but cheaper and finally heard ;)

 

 

[Admin]

Oh, and another thing - in fact there are a lot of things to consider - but the criteria for board members would have to change - don't get me wrong with what I am saying but to administer a group like this you would need to have a strong board. The problem I am getting to is that we will find all the GA'ers coming in on the board and Recreational (ultralights) would be forgotten - this is an issue that could be addressed by a 50/50 split of where the board members come from but the Ultralight board members would have to be darn strong members as the GA'ers could be airline pilots, big business people etc, all very strong people.

 

 

[Mathew Ker]

Following on from Ian's point, could RA-Aus retain its identity with respect to Recreational Aviation, but 'be employed' to service the needs of the private GA members? In this way we might be able to have our cake and eat it. The private GA operators would receive the benefits of taping into the RA-Aus administrative network that's already in place, we benefit from additional clout and cost benefits. Both flying groups retain their distinctives yet benefit from the areas where there is natural crossover. There's probably a colourful venn diagram justing waiting to be drawn to illustrate this :confused:.

 

Regards, Mathew

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

I think GA is best left with CASA. Apart from the ADSB proposal they look to be doing a good job of running it.

 

Having a number of people within CASA looking out for GA directly on a day to day basis, (as now) can only help with the relatively positive 'attitude' corporate culture towards private GA. If those people were removed, I wonder how the CASA 'attitude' towards private aircraft will change - perhaps it will take on a more airlines safety centered approch, where the required safety level will be unafordable to most pilots.

 

HPD

 

 

[facthunter]

Member from CASA.

 

CAZZA, just to clarify a point, I did not suggest that you were from CASA. My line was in response to HPD's post, asking," IF there was a forum member from CASA, that can give an outline as to why it is being considered". unquote. I would hope that we don't have any members from CASA on the simple basis that we would tend to be a bit inhibited if they were on this forum and I would question their integrity if they were there without declaring it. THIS IS NOTHING AGAINST ANY PERSON OR CASA. IT"S ETHICS.

 

I must reiterate that (in my opinion) the likelyhood of a lot of GA pilots wanting to be "in with us" is close to zero. So GET REAL!. You would have to do a lot of work to change that situation. I don't say I agree with it, but I keep my ears open, and that is my considered opinion.

 

Why? Myriad reasons:- I will suggest a few.( Now don't shoot the messenger).

 

1. It was a little presumptuous to adopt the all embracing name of Reacreational Aviation, at the time we did. It was above where we were. We had some good reasons to do it , but it seemed a little cheeky.

 

2. Straight -out snobbery. Exists everywhere with pilots. the "Mines bigger than yours" syndrome.

 

3. Sometimes we let ourselves down, with individual performances, and of course the MEDIA love it.

 

4. Jealousy, Some would love to do what we do, but are too proud and maybe a bit scared to do it. We do, after all get more bang for our buck, and we have taken some of the mickey out of GA. The fact that it was moribund, or in severe decline is not acknowledged.

 

5. Vested interests in GA have tried to "bad image" the movement. The enlightened ones have moved some of their operations to us. To me there will always be a line between us & them and it is about our operational environment, the key feature is that we accept responsibility for ourselves & our "PASSENGER" singular.(being an "aware person".).and for our aircraft (in varying degrees) and so on. It's about limiting our LIABILITIES, and therefore our costs.

 

It's got nothing to do with a weight limit Ian, THAT is purely arbitrary, and would limit development of slightly overweight, non high-tech ,simple low cost and safe, strong 2-seater aircraft, capable of being designed & built by the sort of handymen that we have catered for in the past. THE factor of compliance should be TWO seat maximum mainly. Nev..

 

 

[cazza]

REsponse to HPD

 

I had not heard much about this before CAZA's post.Is there a forum member from CASA that can give an outline as to why it is being considered ?HPD

 

Hi Nev, I was just responding to this quote and wanted to let people know I am not from CASA but postulate on why I think it is being considered. Cheers, Cazza

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

I agree with Nev and his thoughts re the five questions - RAAus should stay well clear of GA.

 

HPD