CASA and SELF ADMINISTRATION OF GA

[Guest brentc]

I hope I don't upset anyone, however personally I don't believe that RA-Aus is equipped to deal with the influx of pilots and aircraft that would be coming over from GA if this were to go ahead. There is a lack of direction and reasoning for the direction taken. CASA and RA-Aus are very different organisations. One has a clearly defined set of rules and guidelines, but the other is flakey at best with no clear procedures and some gaping holes at best - hopefully part 103 might go some way towards fixing this.

 

CASA have so many rules and I think that's great because it gives you something to work with. There are rules to be followed and if you break them there are documented penalties if you don't. There are the occasional exceptions to some of the rules and there are procedures for dealing with these.

 

RA-Aus on the other hand seem to be out there changing rules frequently to be more like the GA world and making up new procedures and rules to best suit what people are after. eg. Engines running on condition, the change to the constitution regarding new members and even the change of name. If RA-Aus were to take over, they seemingly wouldn't be answering to anyone and things would be internal. On the other hand CASA have such a clear hierarchy and level of responsibilities that if anything wasn't done properly internally it would be rectified immediately. At present to me there seems to be like a marshall law where people in the power of RA can do whatever they want (I can provide examples off-line).

 

I've been involved with CASA for 4 years and involved with RA-Aus for something like 7 years. I've NEVER seen anything political take place from a CASA perspective and have enountered nothing but a professional, organised and helpful organisation. I wish I could say the same for RA-Aus. I have a string of issues as long as my arm that I have been aware of over this time and I don't see anything coming in the future that will change that.

 

I think it's a bad idea and that RA-Aus is growing more than fast enough as they are now.

 

I think that if anything, a sub-section of CASA should be set up for private / light aircraft operators and run under the same rules and regs as GA, but as a different cost centre that is answerable back to CASA head office.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

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

That pretty much sums up my response. I can't see how further expanding RA-Aus responsibilities would provide any benefit to ultralight flyers.

 

John

 

 

[cazza]

Dear Brent,

 

You certainly are NOT upsetting me. I am seeking opinion because as a representative of the people I want to ensure I always present the thinking of the members and not my own. There are about three viewpoints and I think all organisations need to weigh up risks and benefits to members before leaping into any

 

task of the magnitude of administering GA. So everyone is welcome to say what they think. I take no offense, just notes.

 

Cheers, Cazza

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

(Just read Cazza's latest post as I was about to post - Thank you Cazza, you are most gracious Lady!)

 

Oh Dear! How history repeats itself!

 

My views on GA being administered? Sure RAAus will make a bid for it – it has been a main agenda item for years – just that the members really were not informed, any more than they were really informed/allowed to control the transition from AUF to RAAus in any realistic sense!

 

What particularly interests me is some of the expressions being used on this thread . Do I sense that some of you “new wave” RAAus members are feeling a trifle threatened by big brother GA jocks outnumbering you and threatening your prized freedoms? Because that is how honorary bodies work sportsfans – it is a numbers game. The most numerical elect their representatives and those reps control policy and where expenditure and effort of interest is applied.

 

Perhaps you may now understand some of the alarm expressed by the rag and tube traditionalists about their freedoms going down the gurgler when this process was started about 10 or 11 years ago?

 

So – some practicalities from my point of view!

 

• Self Administration means a great deal more than who runs the place! So far in Oz all the self administrated bodies have been honorary in nature, certainly had to have an administrative structure, but also had to effectively control ops and airworthiness, supply relevant manuals and support structure, provide surveillance of flying schools and maintenance bods etc. Yet still CASA has the final word, has to give approval for EVERYTHING, and ultimately is the Regulator (Because legal power under Acts of Parliament flow directly through them and are NOT going to be vested in a bunch of guys elected into office annually on popular political whim and self interest from a very small sector of the population!
   
  

 

 

 

 

• Funding is one issue! Look at the infrastructure and costs of running CASA! OK our membership would go to around 20,000 – but then you will see “User Pays” in all its glory! CASA/ASA run on a budget allocation – they will want ALL of it to meet their own perceived main tasks. The honorary bodies will have to fund themselves in practical terms what CASA does now from the public purse! Don’t hang out on annual funding allocation to us – it is only a few years since CASA withdrew funding almost entirely from us and it was a fight to get some of it back. What they have already done they may well do again!
   
  

 

 

 

 

• Practicality of what we are obliged to do and what can be done is another issue! We have just two guys responsible for 2000 aircraft (and I believe that is totally unreasonable and mismanagement of the first water in the existing movement but there is no funds to do anything else!). How the devil will we deal with what would then come under our ambit? 20,000 members would go nowhere near paying the base salary bill to replace even streamlined CASA staff functions without considering the “fringe benefits”, transportation etc etc.
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

• Precedent is another main issue. If the new “Rec GA” segment had to have additional funding to even look like functioning, but be on very similar, or the same, control structure as GFA, ASRA etc then why should they not have proportionate additional funding as well? Equally, if the new “Rec GA” came under the same control as the other honorary bodies then why should they not have the same freedoms? That opens a far more volatile can of worms!
   
  

 

 

 

 

• One thing that has amazed me over the consequences of the weight increases and certification categories that RAAus have promoted is the total inconsistency between alternate registration and control over identical aircraft. Say a Gazelle can be totally rebuilt by the local council street sweeper who has an L2 rating, and another identical Gazelle is subject to the full box of dice by the LAME system, and consequent costs. The LAMEs are NOT going to sit back and let their entire careers go down the toilet with most of their market gone!
   
  

 

 

I could go on but will not. I think the issues are plain enough to anyone who has just the sprinkling of knowledge about aviation and its control. So I will cut to the chase!

 

Cazza – thank you so much for bringing up this subject and inviting opinion. That is a most healthy attitude we have been somewhat bereft of for over long.

 

If this possibility is under active consideration by the Board then I believe that for once the responsible thing MUST be done. I do not believe that can be by briefing Board Members (I have been a Board Member and know only too well what can happen).

 

I believe that if there is only the inkling of interest in putting up a hand to take more of GA then there MUST be an open postal referendum to the membership and that needs to be very simple – should RAAus make a bid to administer a greater part of GA – Yes or No! Then comply with the wishes of the membership – it is their movement!

 

If the Board do not do this then I believe that we are on clear notice that the “hidden agenda” is alive and well!

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Arnaud]

If RA-Aus was getting too close to GA, you could well see "basic flyers" like myself drifting towards HGFA.

 

The question is not if RA-Aus is capable enough to handle the additional responsabilities or if CASA or GA support the idea...the only question to be asked is: Is this what the majority of the RA-Aus membership wants ?

 

Easy to find out: A couple of pages dedicated to both sides of the argument together with a ballot paper in a future edition of the RA-Aus Magazine.

 

Democracy at work !

 

Arnaud

 

 

[Admin]

Tony, you have hit on some good points and a referendum I also feel would be the most "professional" step that the board could take in this decision.

 

One thing that I feel I should say to qualify my post is that we also need to think strategically. If we try and maintain our isolation from the CASA objectives we just may find ourselves in trouble hence why I said that we should go for it but with clear distinction between the lines of RA and GA. If CASA wants to off-load the administration of the recreational arena of flying then we may well find other organisations going for the whole box and dice - remember we are still controlled by CASA under licence. I personally don't feel that CASA would like to just hand it all over and have no control - they want someone else to do the work but still have the control. It would therefore make sense for CASA to only have one body that they can easily control to administer the entire recreational arena. So, strategically I felt that it was better to be us with as I said distinct lines of differentiation, then to risk the potential of losing our current freedoms by having some other body, perhaps driven by GA or warbirds or experimental etc taking control of us.

 

Perhaps there are other ways to protect us then to try and keep us in a box - you know the saying - keep your friends close by and your enemies even closer :big_grin:

 

Just a thought to add to the discussion!

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Ian, I have to respond mate and I am not picking on you. But your words enable greater clarification of issues.

 

So a few points that you wrote and my alternate view to them:

 

1. “we also need to think strategically.†- Yes we do but we also have to think clearly and practically.

 

• “If we try and maintain our isolation from the CASA objectives we just may find ourselves in trouble†- Why? RAAus runs the show (under the Regulator) for ultralight flying – that is the mandate we have. If sections of RAAus wanted to mount an attack on GA “territory†without any adequate resources or capability to run the ground we have already gained then I seriously doubt that we have much credibility at all – and in fact very liable to be knocked over at will when it suits. Trying to take more will resolve nothing and make that situation even more likely because we will be under extreme political pressure!
   
   
  
• “we may well find other organisations going for the whole box and diceâ€Â. Really? Who? I cannot see the other honorary control bodies doing it – they are flat out surviving themselves – as we in fact are when it comes down to it!
   
  

 

 

No Ian, to take it on you need specific ops and airworthiness expertise that has to be member dedicated at a basic level – just waving a rule book around is NOT recreational aviation in its many forms!

 

The only way this could happen is if a new dedicated control group abruptly came into existence. To do that there would have to be assured government funding of sufficient level that we have never seen before just for that new body. It would be cheaper (and more effective) to build a Rec Aviation area within CASA itself and that is what I believe is most likely. But with the existing strictures on GA that cannot be discarded without the question of why can they now be discarded when they have been so expensive for so long, the sensible approach would be to make the “poor relations†comply with the New Order!

 

I cannot see any such group abruptly forming unless it was for personal gain in terms of jobs or ego! Ten years ago AUF and AOPA tried to field AVMIN (a very similar concept that the new GA proposal could be easily welded to). The bastards did not have the balls to start a new GA rec group while AOPA, SAAA and Warbirds had more than enough clout to launch it. Instead they rode on the back of AUF because they wanted the CAO 95 series freedoms!

 

I fought that one as a Board member virtually single handedly and won overall at great personal cost. If I had not done so AUF would have been stone dead in practical terms within six months! That is the quality of leadership we had and was reflected in how little the members were told about what was going on!

 

4. “they (CASA) want someone else to do the work but still have the control.†That will always be the case Ian. CASA is the regulator and DO have control.

 

• “to risk the potential of losing our current freedoms by having some other body, perhaps driven by GA or warbirds or experimental etc taking control of us.†This puzzles me. I thought that the issue was a different control over GA – what has it got to do with ultralights (sorry, recreational aviation). You may be speculating on scenarios. Such scenarios I agree are possible but only so because of what policies RAAus have persued. We have invited this ourselves with the inevitable outcome that we must go the full distance now. Bull Dust we must!
   
  

 

 

CAO 95 series is not yet dead, quite. It represents the freedoms of each of the honorary Groups. It is an act of Parliament and was their unique protection. Once 103 is in Ian all of that will be gone and what you say will have to come to pass.

 

Hey mate – I joined a simple little ultralight body with unique freedoms – that have been raped and prostituted in the years since. Why pick on us? If anyone wants to do something then have the balls and wherewithal to go out and do it – not hitch a ride on somebody else because they are too weak to fight and win the same thing for themselves!

 

T.

 

 

[Admin]

Tony, I will PM you some info that might help

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

[quote

 

CAO 95 series is not yet dead, quite. It represents the freedoms of each of the honorary Groups. It is an act of Parliament and was their unique protection. Once 103 is in Ian all of that will be gone and what you say will have to come to pass.

 

Hey mate – I joined a simple little ultralight body with unique freedoms – that have been raped and prostituted in the years since. Why pick on us? If anyone wants to do something then have the balls and wherewithal to go out and do it – not hitch a ride on somebody else because they are too weak to fight and win the same thing for themselves!

 

T.

 

tony you have a pretty good grip on what is real.

 

it really goes back to the very start of Minimum Aircraft's ANO 95:10 ,thats ANO

 

not CAO. right from the beginning there were a range of machines that did not comply but they were tolerated. in hindsite they should have been forced to obtain there own ANO. another great mistake was MAFA rolling over the membership to the AUF, could rave on and on but i prefer to gear up to fight 103.

 

as far as i am concerned i was here first so those who get great joy out of manipulating my life can blow on back to GA.

 

ozzie