AOPA and RAA

[poteroo]

One might ask whether CASA might be engaging in a little of "divide and conquer"

Quite possible. There's a history of Machiavellian decisions from our regulator. But that isn't the issue here.

 

The issue is whether RAAus are selfishly trying to ensure their longevity, by undermining the entire industry effort to reduce regulation in every matter. Is our executive and Board exceeding their brief? Possibly, and I'd like to hear how they explain their position.

 

Disclosure: Member of AOPA for 55 years, SAAA for 20, and RAAus for 12.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's not what I would call "professional" behavior by the RAAus.. Look who they voted with.. That goes completely for CASA as well. Self interest everywhere and it's not OK to say, well what would you expect?. We should all be bigger than we are in looking for a "right outcome" here. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

AOPA AUSTRALIA ENROUTE TO CANBERRA TO MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVES, CASA CLASS 2 DEBACLE

 

The AOPA Australia President Aminta Hennessy and Executive Director Benjamin Morgan will meet with a range of Senators to discuss industry concerns regarding CASA’s failure to deliver meaningful class 2 medical reforms.

 

Many thanks to the following representatives for their time to meet today;

 

- The Hon Anthony Albanese MP

 

- Senator Rex Patrick

 

- Senator Glen Sterle

 

- Senator Fraser Anning

 

Under CASA’s new basic class 2 medical system private pilots are being forced to demonstrate a higher medical fitness than commercial truck drivers operating heavy B-double vehicles on Australian highways transporting dangerous goods!

 

CASA has imposed unfair differential safety standards that purposefully seek to deny RPL and PPL holders of a self certification private drivers licence medical standard. Yet at the same time CASA have provided a private business (RAAus) and its pilots these rights!

 

Quite simply it is either safe or unsafe for a private pilot to operate an aircraft in Australia on a Self certification private licence medical standard - CASA must end the double standards!

 

CASA should not be abusing its position and power in forcing unfair and biased aviation safety standards that seek to intentionally disadvantage RPL and PPL pilots, so as to force them into a private self administration business (RAAus) where they are exposed to fees and charges that do not exist within the CASA system!

 

Importantly, it appears that CASA’s decision to deny all general aviation RPL and PPL holders of a self-certification private drivers licence was made following calls from the RAAus self-administration for CASA to provide their business with a ‘competitive advantage’ threatening to hand back to the regulator the administration and management of the recreational pilot community should it adopt the same reforms as the USA and UK.

 

As a result of this egregious denial of pilots rights, CASA regulated RPL and PPL holders are forced to become customers of a private business (RAAus) that owns your medical, your licence and your aircraft registration! Pilots are forced to pay fees and charges that are unregulated and are subjected to oversight and disciplinary processes that are at the discretion of the private business and the personalities that run it. And, to prevent you from electing to stay within the government regulated general aviation industry, CASA have denied pilots the right to choose by refusing to provide an equal and unbiased self-certification private drivers licence standard.

 

It certainly appears that CASA has been influenced into protecting the private business interests of the RAAus, rather than protecting the safety concerns of the greater general aviation community.

 

Are we now seeing the wholesale corruption of our national aviation safety regulator? Why is CASA creating safety standards that disadvantage RPL and PPL holders, whilst deregulating the rules for a private business?

 

Does any of this pass the pub test?

 

The Deputy Prime Minister must now step up and end this abuse of power and demand that Australian private pilots be regulated equally and fairly.

 

red highlight is mine

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is what can happen when you step on to someone else’s turf.

 

CASA can’t go backwards in safety so what might emerge is the end of driver medicals to avoid this apparent discrimination.

 

What will come out in the open are all the medical cheat cases.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

There is a very good reason why medical incidents don't figure much in our operations. It is because people don't go flying when they feel crook. Our operations don't normally involve having to fly or go hungry as a result of no income.

 

There was a tug pilot around here who died while in possession of a proper GA medical certificate. But he didn't fly for his last few weeks of life because he didn't feel well. I reckon he is the most usual type where there was a serious medical issue.

 

If there were any sense in the requirement to have a medical certificate, the incidence of sudden and symptom-free loss of consciousness would have to be a lot higher than it is in reality.

 

 

[facthunter]

A predictable and necessary reaction to RAAus ill conceived approach on this matter.. Where does one go if not keen on belonging to the "Privatised NEW GA" PTY LTD. that used to be OUR show? Now the rest of the "Flying Scene" will avoid us like the plague.. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

There is a very good reason why medical incidents don't figure much in our operations. It is because people don't go flying when they feel crook. Our operations don't normally involve having to fly or go hungry as a result of no income.There was a tug pilot around here who died while in possession of a proper GA medical certificate. But he didn't fly for his last few weeks of life because he didn't feel well. I reckon he is the most usual type where there was a serious medical issue.

If there were any sense in the requirement to have a medical certificate, the incidence of sudden and symptom-free loss of consciousness would have to be a lot higher than it is in reality.

That's no doubt true Bruce and they deserve credit for that; another reason we don't see medical incidents in RAA is that the results of crashes are simply not published.

 

 

[Yenn]

If it is so dangerous for us to fly self regulated, then I think RAAus should not be allowed to let recreational pilots fly without a medical. It is time for GA pilots to turn the cart around and demand something is done to stop the unsafe RAAus pilots flying.

 

 

[facthunter]

I know what you are driving at Yenn but some one is likely to do what you ask Until we wanted to EXPAND to whatever the concessions were balanced with reduced privileges..ie you give something to get something.. We DO have a medical. I don't get why you say we don't. It's a declaration of meeting a standard or even more an actual doctor stating it on a piece of paper relating to a car driving standard.. Both are legally established situations. Perjury IS a crime as it should be. Nev

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

My mail is from some discussions I have had....is its a long long way off for the weight increase so dont be holding your breath. RAA are trying to make certain deals with CASA over it so thats why the current stuff out about it is really nothing set in stone anyway. Even after some sort of framework is sort of settled it then must go out for public comment then they will sit on it and come up with a determination. So if your planning on this weight increase sooner than later...you are very much mistaken despite what RAA is saying

 

 

[spacesailor]

I believe RAA will close it,s present business, Then rebirth itself as a GA recreational association.

 

They were quick to squeeze the rag & tube 95-10, out of their register.

 

Then apply for higher weight aircract that would normally be on the GA register.

 

I a wait a "New Light Recreational Aircraft Club"

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Once more - there is no need for RAAus or GFA to have any regulatory powers and indeed they should not have any. It leads to misuse of these powers by private people to carry on nasty little vendettas against other people. Seen it all too often.

 

It is CASA's responsibility to regulate civil aviation in Australia and any fond hope CASA may have of offloading liability (why anyway, as nobody in CASA will ever be personally liable for anything and nobody ever loses his or her job in CASA because they are incompetent) is in vain as by approving ops manual etc, CASA makes the regulation its own.

 

The whole debacle, including Part 149 can be avoided by some simple additions to existing licencing, medical and maintenance requirements in the main body of CASA regulation for a class of aircraft under 600 Kg and gliders and motorgliders. BTW motorgliders are simply utility aircraft under ICAO standards, as for example in Germany where all gliders with engines (even the sustainer type) are given D-ABCD rego and gliders without engines are D-1234.

 

We could also end the farce of pretending that RAAus aircraft are not Australian civil aircraft and give them VH-rego and put them on the ONE register CASA is required to maintain for Australian civil aircraft. There does not seem to be any ratioanle for the GFA maintaining part of the VH register either. CASA registration can hardly be run off their feet if they did it all.

 

Pilot licencing can be rationalised too and then it will be simple to move between under 600Kg aircraft, gliders and GA to the benefit of all.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Bruce Tuncks is right. Private pilots do not have to fly if things are not to their liking. Which can include feeling unwell, tired, weather marginal etc. I have often been happy not to fly or to get on the ground at a destination and be relieved that I don't have to fly any more that day.

 

This helps minimise the medical incapacitation incidents.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Once more - there is no need for RAAus or GFA to have any regulatory powers and indeed they should not have any. It leads to misuse of these powers by private people to carry on nasty little vendettas against other people. Seen it all too often.It is CASA's responsibility to regulate civil aviation in Australia and any fond hope CASA may have of offloading liability (why anyway, as nobody in CASA will ever be personally liable for anything and nobody ever loses his or her job in CASA because they are incompetent) is in vain as by approving ops manual etc, CASA makes the regulation its own.

The whole debacle, including Part 149 can be avoided by some simple additions to existing licencing, medical and maintenance requirements in the main body of CASA regulation for a class of aircraft under 600 Kg and gliders and motorgliders. BTW motorgliders are simply utility aircraft under ICAO standards, as for example in Germany where all gliders with engines (even the sustainer type) are given D-ABCD rego and gliders without engines are D-1234.

 

We could also end the farce of pretending that RAAus aircraft are not Australian civil aircraft and give them VH-rego and put them on the ONE register CASA is required to maintain for Australian civil aircraft. There does not seem to be any ratioanle for the GFA maintaining part of the VH register either. CASA registration can hardly be run off their feet if they did it all.

 

Pilot licencing can be rationalised too and then it will be simple to move between under 600Kg aircraft, gliders and GA to the benefit of all.

You need to separate your obvious feelings for GFA from RAA; they are two separate entities with two separate histories, and two quite different current statuses

RAA is already self regulating and has a mature set of powers which in general have been used wisely.

 

CASA offloaded most liability to RAA some years ago, Part 149 theoretically has now finished the job, however CASA has done some things which have reattached liability in some areas, so it's not a clean break.

 

When most of the other government departments offloaded liability about 30 years ago it was never about their employees being personally liable, it was about State and Federal governments being seen as soft targets with unlimited money to give to plaintiffs.

 

Part 149 cannot be avoided since it is now law, and nor is there any open debate about an alternative way of running aviation in Australia. There's an endless supply of people who say they could do it better, but they are talking to themselves, and usually have no idea of the magnitude of the task.

 

All RAA has to do, right now is check the safety systems to make sure they are in line with, and will meet the requirements of Part 149.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

You need to separate your obvious feelings for GFA from RAA; they are two separate entities with two separate histories, and two quite different current statusesRAA is already self regulating and has a mature set of powers which in general have been used wisely.

 

CASA offloaded most liability to RAA some years ago, Part 149 theoretically has now finished the job, however CASA has done some things which have reattached liability in some areas, so it's not a clean break.

 

When most of the other government departments offloaded liability about 30 years ago it was never about their employees being personally liable, it was about State and Federal governments being seen as soft targets with unlimited money to give to plaintiffs.

 

Part 149 cannot be avoided since it is now law, and nor is there any open debate about an alternative way of running aviation in Australia. There's an endless supply of people who say they could do it better, but they are talking to themselves, and usually have no idea of the magnitude of the task.

 

All RAA has to do, right now is check the safety systems to make sure they are in line with, and will meet the requirements of Part 149.

Turbs,

 

I doubt you have been around aviation all that long.

 

RAAus grew out of the AUF which used the GFA model of self ADMINISTRATION (note not REGULATION). Internally things are somewhat differently organised but the orgs have the same basic concept at the core. Any body that requires CASA approval of its existence and requires CASA to approve its ops manuals and has a contract with CASA can hardly be said to be self regulating. Nor can CASA claim it has off loaded any liability at all.

 

In the sport and recreational aviation world several court cases have now established that anyone who flys a recreational aircraft is taking his or her life in their own hands and claims against instructors, supervisors, organisations etc will be very unlikely to succeed. They are recognised as dangerous activities. I don't think this is entirely fair but there it is in case law.

 

CASA actually doesn't care what we do to ourselves. They assume that recreational aviation is indulged in by "informed, consenting adults". Their concern is innocents on the ground and other airspace users.

 

Part 149 has NEVER been publicly and properly debated, mainly because nobody ever knew what it would look like. It was in train since 1998 and only less than a year ago was a final public form put up as a "fait accompli" by CASA. It will not be operative until organisations sign up to it and are approved as Part 149 organisations.

 

I have it in writing from CASA that organisations will not be forced to be Part 149 organisations but if they wish to operate as present must apply to have current exemptions extended. CASA also admits it has no idea what will happen if for any reason an organisation ceases to exist or is unable to carry out its contract with CASA.

 

Now imagine what happens if a RAAus aircraft or glider collides with a Dash 8 or Saab 340 near a regional airport. 20 or more dead. CASA, RAAus(or GFA) get sued by relatives of the deceased. The first thing that will happen is that the organisation's insurance company will refuse to pay on the grounds that the law or regulations were broken, which led to the accident. The very next thing is the org will have nobody to run it as its executive decide they need to spend more time with the family or claim medical incapacity to carry on. If these people are dragged in to court they will claim that they were operating in accordance with their manuals (approved by CASA) and their agreement with CASA. CASA will then have to admit this and as CASA was charged by parliament with administering the safety of civil aviation in Australia, guess where the buck stops?

 

BTW put in enough detail into the RAAus or GFA manuals and you will find that is used against you because it will be nearly impossible to comply in every detail.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs,I doubt you have been around aviation all that long.

My first experience with an ultralight occurred in 1979, and I went to Mangalore; not sure if that is long enough for you.

 

RAAus grew out of the AUF which used the GFA model of self ADMINISTRATION (note not REGULATION). Internally things are somewhat differently organised but the orgs have the same basic concept at the core.

You just have to look carefully at the two Constitutions to see what I was saying about the differences, and the "histories" I mentioned refer for example, to the clauses in the GFA Constitution which lock out the members, and the structure of the RAA Company, which has a different set of disadvantages for members. There's no point in lumping them together to have a general rant, because fixing each one requires a completely different strategy from a different set of people. Lumping them together doesn't solve anything.

The Self Administering Organisation has the power to make its own Rules or Regulations, so it is both.

 

Any body that requires CASA approval of its existence and requires CASA to approve its ops manuals and has a contract with CASA can hardly be said to be self regulating.

A decision was made to allow RAA aircraft to fly by a set of exemptions from GA regulations, and subject to certain conditions. It's self regulating in terms of how it goes about managing the risk it assumes. A rough parallel to that is that although there are strict regulations in the meat and restaurant industries, you can BBQ sausages outside Bunnings where you self administer the operation by requiring a Certificate III in food handling to discharge your duty of care because you are going to be sued for food poisoning, not the government.

 

Nor can CASA claim it has off loaded any liability at all.

It doesn't have to make any claims; RAA is actively managing duty of care along with you (with the few exceptions where CASA has made a mistake, or has deliberately decided it needs to control something and will take the liability for that.

 

In the sport and recreational aviation world several court cases have now established that anyone who flys a recreational aircraft is taking his or her life in their own hands and claims against instructors, supervisors, organisations etc will be very unlikely to succeed. They are recognised as dangerous activities. I don't think this is entirely fair but there it is in case law.

I've yet to see one which absolves owners and pilots of their duty of care. Two were quoted on this forum, as an example of the power of the little badge on the panel, but in both cases the defendant was found not to have breached his duty of care.

 

CASA actually doesn't care what we do to ourselves. They assume that recreational aviation is indulged in by "informed, consenting adults". Their concern is innocents on the ground and other airspace users.

I think you'll find a number of RAA members have been sanctioned by CASA, some in conjunction with RAA. The minute you start the engine you are entering the CASA regulation arena.

 

 

Part 149 has NEVER been publicly and properly debated, mainly because nobody ever knew what it would look like. It was in train since 1998 and only less than a year ago was a final public form put up as a "fait accompli" by CASA.

How many years do you want? In Planning, I usually get 90 days to comment on legislation which affects several million people. What you are referring to as a 'fait accompli" is the draft. Anyone is entitled to address faults in the draft, and if the comments are found to be justified, they will be changed. Not only that, but this legislation went through Parliament so you had the benefit of going to your local Member and pointing out any defects so he/she could raise them in debate.

 

It will not be operative until organisations sign up to it and are approved as Part 149 organisations.

It is operative now; people who are cleverly holding back and ranting about it just won't have the advantage of its protection.

 

I have it in writing from CASA that organisations will not be forced to be Part 149 organisations but if they wish to operate as present must apply to have current exemptions extended.

The way I see Part 149 is as a set of industry benchmarks, a bit like the Australian Standards; very handy if you're being sued for negligence to be able to say you met that standard and therefore discharged your duty of care. You can operate without these things, but when your passenger becomes a quadriplegic and sues you it helps to be able to point to a definition of professional conduct

 

CASA also admits it has no idea what will happen if for any reason an organisation ceases to exist or is unable to carry out its contract with CASA.

If someone asks them how long a piece of string is they can't help but give that answer, however some idea can be gained by the Compliance Audits, where RAA worked through some aircraft with the owners and got them back in the air, but quite a few were abandoned. In the case of RAA, members have much less control over a company than they have over an incorporated association where they can move in fund it back into compliance with a levee, or reform it into compliance. The bottom line is if you're given the luxury of flying by exemption, you make sure you don't lose that priviledge.

 

Now imagine what happens if a RAAus aircraft or glider collides with a Dash 8 or Saab 340 near a regional airport. 20 or more dead. CASA, RAAus(or GFA) get sued by relatives of the deceased. The first thing that will happen is that the organisation's insurance company will refuse to pay on the grounds that the law or regulations were broken, which led to the accident. The very next thing is the org will have nobody to run it as its executive decide they need to spend more time with the family or claim medical incapacity to carry on. If these people are dragged in to court they will claim that they were operating in accordance with their manuals (approved by CASA) and their agreement with CASA. CASA will then have to admit this and as CASA was charged by parliament with administering the safety of civil aviation in Australia, guess where the buck stops?BTW put in enough detail into the RAAus or GFA manuals and you will find that is used against you because it will be nearly impossible to comply in every detail.

If that happens the lawyers will wait until ATSB has produced their report, and the legal process will decide all that, based on who was negligent, or the share.

The real danger is that the Parliament will have a fit, and here will be a knee jerk reaction, something like what happened after the Port Arthur massacre. Cancellation of flying by exemption would be the biggest risk.

 

 

[ave8rr]

CASA CONFIRMS AND DOUBLES DOWN ON PRIVATE PILOT DOUBLE STANDARDS!

 

Friday, 21th September 2018

 

Mr Shane Carmody

 

Director of Aviation Safety, CASA

 

GPO BOX 2005

 

Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

 

Mr Michael McCormack MP

 

Deputy Prime Minister

 

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport

 

PO Box 6022, House of Representatives

 

Parliament House

 

CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia

 

Dear Mr Carmody,

 

Further to our previous correspondence on self-certification private drivers licence medicals for government regulated Recreational Pilots Licence (RPL) and Private Pilots Licence (PPL) holders. In today’s Australian newspaper, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has gone on the record to state;

 

“…the authority had carefully assessed the safety issues and risks in determining the various classes of aviation medical certificates, taking into account things like other airspace users, aircraft passengers and people and property on the ground… CASA considers self-medical certification to be appropriate for recreational pilots operating in small aircraft with one passenger, and outside controlled airspace under licences issued by Recreational Aviation Australia.”

 

If CASA considers it safe for a private ‘recreational’ pilot to operate in small aircraft with one passenger outside of controlled airspace, then why has CASA denied all government regulated RPL and PPL holders of this risk-appropriate permission?

 

Why has CASA implemented aviation medical safety standards that serve to force RPL and PPL holders into a private business (the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited) that exposes them to unregulated monopoly fees and charges?

 

Why are Australia’s aviation safety regulations being used to benefit one specific private business, whilst denying all CASA RPL and PPL holders of their rights?

 

Could CASA please provide a copy of its ‘risk-assessment’ that details how the regulator arrived at the conclusion that it is safer for a pilot of a light aircraft with an MTOW of 600Kgs to be flown outside of controlled airspace by a member of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited versus a CASA regulated RPL or PPL pilot?

 

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

BENJAMIN MORGAN

 

Executive Director

 

Can't see CASA backing down. Medicals for all RAAus pilots??

 

 

[Downunder]

The difference being the mtow and stall of the aircraft flown?

 

 

[Nobody]

The difference being the mtow and stall of the aircraft flown?

But there are VH registered aircraft that are under 600kg and have a low stall speed....

 

 

[Downunder]

But there are VH registered aircraft that are under 600kg and have a low stall speed....

I agree, but the vh aircraft are not registered in a class that defines under 600 kg and 45 kt stall limits....

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Let us go back to basics.

 

Damage to people on the ground is likely proportional to kinetic energy which is proportional to stall speed squared and mass and you multiply that by the probability of a mishap and probability of actually hitting anything of value which in turn depends on the ground density of valuable targets.

 

So we have Risk = k *mass * stall speed * stall speed * prob mishap * density of ground targets.

 

If you fly outside very populated areas the last factor gets small which adequately describes the vast majority of Australian land mass and the risk is demonstrably very low indeed, approaching zero.

 

Historically RAAus aircraft and gliders suffer higher rates of mishap. One of the mishap causes may be medical but there is no evidence of that being significant and most are from other causes, mostly pilot stupidity and yet this is regarded as acceptable by CASA.

 

Whether an aircraft is in a defined class or not, risk analysis says if it is under 600 Kg and 45 kt stall the risk of the pilot not having an aviation medical is the same as if it is in a class so there is no RATIONAL basis for not allowing a RPL or PPL holder to fly such a VH registered aircraft if his medical lapses (NOT is rejected for cause) and he can still drive a private motor car. Note his aircraft is maintained either by the builder or a licenced workshop so prob mishap may be lower due to maintenance errors (that is the reason for licenced workshops).

 

Risk to other airspace users would appear to be just due to your presence in the airspace and has nothing to do with stall speed or mass. It may have to do with prob mishap if pilot training is poor ( a PPL does much more training than does an RAAus or glider pilot) and is proportional to air traffic density. Again this last factor is low in most of Australia.

 

Note that the 61 knot max stall that most certified light aircraft and the vast majority of amateur built comply with has less than twice the kinetic energy due to speed and is still less than a factor of three typically when small aircraft weights are taken in to account. Most in fact stall around the 50 knots or so so really a factor of two overall is likely.

 

So yes, Mr Carmody - show us the actual formal CASA risk analysis. Bet somebody just plucked it from their nether regions.

 

I'm glad Ben Morgan and AOPA have realised that Australia's private pilots got shafted over the medical non reform and that RAAus had a hand in this is shameful. They might also realise the dangers of Part 149 from this "force RPL and PPL holders into a private business (the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited) that exposes them to unregulated monopoly fees and charges?"