But wait there's more

[slb]

One could easily be a L2 restricted to Jabiru engines

Yes, a friend completed the Jabiru course and became a restricted L2 (Jabiru). He had to gain experience to get an unrestricted L2 and can now work on any aircraft, any engine (he worked on Rotax engines, under supervision to gain the experience).

The MRC and the HGFA Aircraft and Engine course both get you a L1 (for any type of aircraft). The iRMT Rotax courses held with Bert Floods in Vic, don't get you an L1, but would certainly count for a Rotax engine L2. Any course will help towards a L2. You need to send in a copy of your Certificate together with the paperwork to the Tech Office.

 

I think the wording in the Technical Manual is that 'other forms of evidence may be considered on a case by case basis, by the Technical Manager'.

 

 

[slb]

Why doesn't the RAA do anything? By the time it gets through management, safety, market research further analysis it's easier just to run meet and greets

The latest RAAus email states that they are (or will be soon). No specific details have been announced yet though.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

In the further analysis stage?

 

 

[red750]

Jaba,

 

1. The top/bottom arrows pop up whenever yo scroll the page one line, but only for a couple of seconds.

 

2. When you click on a thread in the What's New page, it automatically takes you to the first unread post in that thread, as it always did.

 

 

[Keith Page]

The latest RAAus email states that they are (or will be soon). No specific details have been announced yet though.

But!!! why have we all got to have a robust discussion about it all -- then in two years something is gunna happen, could.Why not listen and have something on the way of being correct first up?

 

This micro managing behind closed doors will never work.

 

KP

 

 

[jetjr]

Id guess all those who forked out big money for the first incorrect course will be upset when it needs repeating or isnt recognised.

 

 

[M61A1]

Id guess all those who forked out big money for the first incorrect course will be upset when it needs repeating or isnt recognised.

What makes you think that wouldn't happen anyway?The way the training, quality and safety systems keep themselves alive is by requiring continual refreshers and retraining as they keep changing their processes and rules. Very little, if any improvement ever occurs, but the system keeps changing and the system managers (and their assistant and assistant's assistants) still have a job.

 

 

[jetjr]

maybe correct, but I doubt anyone at RAA is looking for things to do.

 

Just back a few messages some were indicating some training wasn't recognised, from what slb says (and I thought) all training was considered in an L2 application

 

The problem with face to face training is on costs, that's why anything presented has to be good and worthwhile and be seen as value.

 

 

[M61A1]

but I doubt anyone at RAA is looking for things to do.

If there's a quality, safety or training manager, they are looking for ways to justify their job.Their jobs are "bullsh1t" jobs, you can tell that because no one would miss them if they weren't there.

 

 

[jetjr]

Arent they all the one role in RAA?

 

You do miss these people after a short time because regulator says stop everything until they are back.

 

A good person in these roles, makes things work as normal with minimum impact and boxes all ticked.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

So its true - RAA is only a subsidiary of CASA - not by virtue of the approved manual reaquired by the various CAO's BUT virtue of the memorandum of agreement which dictates CASA's demands which RAA acquiesce to for a paltry $100,000 (approx as current agreement not available on net). We are really paying twice to be regulated - once though our taxes (income and fuel tax for those who use avgas) and for sustenance of RAA through membership fees etc.

 

Time to make all RAA aircraft experimental by definition (thus absolving CASA of any responsibility see the CASR's) and creating a PPL lite for recreational pilots issued in the same way as PPL. Result is no need for sports aviation bodies as regulators but frees them up to be fierce advocates

 

 

[turboplanner]

So its true - RAA is only a subsidiary of CASA - not by virtue of the approved manual reaquired by the various CAO's BUT virtue of the memorandum of agreement which dictates CASA's demands which RAA acquiesce to for a paltry $100,000 (approx as current agreement not available on net). We are really paying twice to be regulated - once though our taxes (income and fuel tax for those who use avgas) and for sustenance of RAA through membership fees etc.Time to make all RAA aircraft experimental by definition (thus absolving CASA of any responsibility see the CASR's) and creating a PPL lite for recreational pilots issued in the same way as PPL. Result is no need for sports aviation bodies as regulators but frees them up to be fierce advocates

It's not a subsidiary, its an arms length body, a self administering body.If you remember, the bottom rung of aircraft and flying in Australia was in GA with things like the Cub and Tri Pacer, Drouin Turbulent, and a few others, and a Private Pilots Licence was required to fly on with 80% pass rates in BAK, Meteorology, Radio, Navigation, Performance and Operations. Today it would be operated by CASA.

 

Then a group of enthusiasts persuaded CASA to allow them to build their own aircraft, as long as they stuck to paddocks and didn't exceed 300 feet AGL. That kept them away from all GA operations. This was done by giving the AUF some EXEMPTIONS from GA regulations, allowing it to act as a self regulating organisation, which was a popular trend in all sorts of risky activities at that time. Then the aircraft started to get bigger and look more like GA aircraft (Skyfox etc), and some more exemptions were granted, and an administrative cost was added.

 

That's where is is today; operating under exemptions from CASA regulations, provided certain conditions are met, and for an administrative cost.

 

If you want an exemption from the GA requirement for mandatory LAME servicing then you have to ensure that the people who are maintaining their own aircraft meet a minimum standard of qualifications.

 

That's all this thread was about, and the thread shows it's quite a complex subject, and some very good points have been made, which RAA would be well advised to take note of.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

It's not a subsidiary, its an arms length body, a self administering body.If you remember, the bottom rung of aircraft and flying in Australia was in GA with things like the Cub and Tri Pacer, Drouin Turbulent, and a few others, and a Private Pilots Licence was required to fly on with 80% pass rates in BAK, Meteorology, Radio, Navigation, Performance and Operations. Today it would be operated by CASA.Then a group of enthusiasts persuaded CASA to allow them to build their own aircraft, as long as they stuck to paddocks and didn't exceed 300 feet AGL. That kept them away from all GA operations. This was done by giving the AUF some EXEMPTIONS from GA regulations, allowing it to act as a self regulating organisation, which was a popular trend in all sorts of risky activities at that time. Then the aircraft started to get bigger and look more like GA aircraft (Skyfox etc), and some more exemptions were granted, and an administrative cost was added.

 

That's where is is today; operating under exemptions from CASA regulations, provided certain conditions are met, and for an administrative cost.

 

If you want an exemption from the GA requirement for mandatory LAME servicing then you have to ensure that the people who are maintaining their own aircraft meet a minimum standard of qualifications.

 

That's all this thread was about, and the thread shows it's quite a complex subject, and some very good points have been made, which RAA would be well advised to take note of.

Thanks for the history lesson but we need to look for solutions to what is becoming an administrative nightmare.Whilst it may be true that RAA is not legally a subsidiary, the relationship is definitely not arms length, nor is RAA able to negotiate in any fearless way as an advocate would because they will always be fearful of what may be lost without the action of parliament - our bulwark against bureaucratic overreach. It is within the capacity of CASA to embrace alternative approaches - after all similarly developed western countries have been able to do so. The RPL was a step towards this and CASA is prepared to grandfather RAA certificates into RPL with essentially a flight review.

 

A bit of loosening of silo like attitudes on both sides is required to come up with an internationally comparable outcome. Remember that recreational flying is considered GA under ICAO rules.

 

 

[jetjr]

Not sure its a nightmare exactly, seems to flow pretty smoothly right now. You are right outlining the precarious position RAA is in regarding CASA.

 

But history has developed two distinct issues, very much linked, Different rules for Pilots and for Aircraft, you are forced to select a path for both so RPL doesn't really come into it, Cant fly RAA aircraft on an RPL so that needs to be changed as well as other way around.

 

Then aircraft, easiest way to line them up today, is sort out maintenance differences....LAME for everything, but we certainly done want that. If we were discussing a different regulator they would open up self maintenance for all PVT ops aircraft or something like that.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

In support of my argument for owner maintenance of RAA category aircraft, it may come as a surprise to some that “across the ditch” in NZ owner maintenance is permitted, including repairs to restore an aircraft to its originally manufactured state. Annual condition inspections by Part 149 organisation authorised persons (yes they have had P.149 for a number of years and there are several P.149 organisations servicing the sector) are required. The requirements for becoming an authorised inspector are not onerous (ie no Level 2,3,4 etc).

 

Examination of the NZ accident stats do not reveal any substantial difference in the nature of occurrences.

 

Given the 30+ years of intergovernmental effort to harmonise legislation between Australia and New Zealand, it is a wonder to me as to why after 20 years of discussion and navel gazing CASA has not simply adopted the NZ legislation for recreational aircraft.

 

 

[Admin]

Examination of the NZ accident stats do not reveal any substantial difference in the nature of occurrences.Given the 30+ years of intergovernmental effort to harmonise legislation between Australia and New Zealand, it is a wonder to me as to why after 20 years of discussion and navel gazing CASA has not simply adopted the NZ legislation for recreational aircraft.

I wonder whether the Recreational Pilot training in NZ has anything to do with it? It is far more stringent to get a Microlight Pilot Certificate including a Medical Certificate:Novice Pilot Certificate

 

A Novice Pilot Certificate from Sport Aviation Corp is a 'licence to learn'. This allows you to fly solo in the local area under the supervision of one of our instructors as you gain valuable solo experience towards your Intermediate and Advanced Certificates. To fly solo, you need to be a member of Sport Aviation Corp, hold a medical certificate that your own GP can issue and be 16 years of age - but you can start learning at any age

 

Intermediate Pilot Certificate

 

An Intermediate Certificate is an ideal qualification for pilots who just want to fly 'low and slow' machines around the local area. You need 25 hours of flying experience and passes in five short written tests followed by a flight check with one of our Senior Instructors. Then you are free to fly around the local area within a 10 nautical mile radius of the airfield. Once you have 35 hours of solo time, you can apply to have a passenger rating.

 

Advanced Pilot Certificate

 

The SAC Advanced Pilot Certificate is the Microlight equivalent of a Private Pilot Licence for small aeroplanes. You can fly anywhere in New Zealand that your plane lets you and if you have 35 hours solo time, you can hold a rating to take passengers too. You need to meet all the requirements of an Intermediate Licence, but also have completed a 10 hour cross country navigation training syllabus. If you already have (or have held) a PPL or higher, you will be issued with an Advanced Certificate.

 

Just wondering whether this has any impact?

 

 

[ave8rr]

In support of my argument for owner maintenance of RAA category aircraft, it may come as a surprise to some that “across the ditch” in NZ owner maintenance is permitted, including repairs to restore an aircraft to its originally manufactured state. Annual condition inspections by Part 149 organisation authorised persons (yes they have had P.149 for a number of years and there are several P.149 organisations servicing the sector) are required. The requirements for becoming an authorised inspector are not onerous (ie no Level 2,3,4 etc).Examination of the NZ accident stats do not reveal any substantial difference in the nature of occurrences.Given the 30+ years of intergovernmental effort to harmonise legislation between Australia and New Zealand, it is a wonder to me as to why after 20 years of discussion and navel gazing CASA has not simply adopted the NZ legislation for recreational aircraft.

And clubs can import a kit, build it, then put it on line for training and hire etc. Good to teach new members a bit about aircraft construction / Maintenance.

[Jim McDowall]

The medical requirements is less than the RAMPC, and basically if you are fit to drive a private motor vehicle you will get your certificate (see attached CAA form - actually it is a declaration). The flying experience requirements are sensible and actually probably reflect the real life experience of people who go from ab initio to cross country rating in Australia.

 

Also people who have Part 61 licences can fly ultralights with a flight test and examination of aspects of microlight flight. The downside of the NZ approach is their requirement for type ratings rather than group ratings which means if you have a unique aircraft it will be difficult to findan instructor with a type rating who can issue the endorsement. But there is no need to adopt this peculiarity as our categoriries work well enough.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Forgot attachment

 

RAANZMedicalDeclaration.pdf

 

RAANZMedicalDeclaration.pdf

 

RAANZMedicalDeclaration.pdf

 

RAANZMedicalDeclaration.pdf

[Keith Page]

In support of my argument for owner maintenance of RAA category aircraft, it may come as a surprise to some that “across the ditch” in NZ owner maintenance is permitted, including repairs to restore an aircraft to its originally manufactured state. Annual condition inspections by Part 149 organisation authorised persons (yes they have had P.149 for a number of years and there are several P.149 organisations servicing the sector) are required. The requirements for becoming an authorised inspector are not onerous (ie no Level 2,3,4 etc).Examination of the NZ accident stats do not reveal any substantial difference in the nature of occurrences.Given the 30+ years of intergovernmental effort to harmonise legislation between Australia and New Zealand, it is a wonder to me as to why after 20 years of discussion and navel gazing CASA has not simply adopted the NZ legislation for recreational aircraft.

You are on to it Jim. Why go and reinvent the wheel?

Look over the ditch yep they are doing things not too far wrong. I have to confess that I have had a very good look at their systems, *maintenance *operations *administration. Why not go have a chat with our NZ brothers and sisters and glean what they are doing, will save a lot of grief.

 

While you are there ask:- *can this be done better? *would you do this again? *are you completely happy with this?

 

My honest view over here, the egos are in the way and they so terrified some jobs might go. i.e. CASA & RAAus.

 

Have Part149 and Part103 should be implemented simultaneously and with that situation aviation in Australia will be in a dawning of new era.

 

Best thing in the world learn from someone else's successes, achievements and mistakes, quite simple.

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

And clubs can import a kit, build it, then put it on line for training and hire etc. Good to teach new members a bit about aircraft construction / Maintenance.

That is a wonderful idea as great deal of home builders are so talented they are more interested in getting things correct than the normal ego jockeys about the place.The other aspect of the home builders nothing happens until there has been a pile of research gone into the project. With this type of thinking we are getting away from engineered learning.. i.e. all doing the same thing as they all have been taught the same way. (Think)

 

KP

 

 

[kgwilson]

The other thing about the NZ system is with an advanced rating you can fly into controlled airspace and controlled aerodromes. I think that a transponder is mandatory, but that is quite reasonable as they need to be able to identify you.

 

An interesting snippet is that some of the smaller controlled aerodromes are going digital where the tower has screens instead of windows and the systems cameras can identify anything flying in the zone including birds with the ability to zoom in on anything. The controller can be located remotely and monitor several smaller airports an once. The system is installed in Scandinavia & being trialled at London City & Singapore Changi airports.