RAA against freedom in medicals

[turboplanner]

well buggar me so you don't get tired driving at high speed in a truck what brand were you on neil

Try googling it, especially the part about fatigue and excessive daytime sleepiness. Very relevant to flying.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I found this letter from the SAAA on their website, for those interested.https://saaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Letter-SAAA-Tony-White-to-Carmody-Walker-McCormack-20180628.pdf

And another statement on their site. Claims and Statements by RAAus | Sport Aircraft Association of Australia

 

Seems like RAAUS are alienating their fellow organisations....

Remember DIVISION was how the small clique gained control of a member’s organisation - certainly has potential for disaster in the long term. Try talking privately with members of the “perfect mini board” and you will get a picture of what is happening behind closed doors.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Instead of shooting down the GFA and RAAus privileges for more user friendly maintenance and medical standards, why don’t AOPA and SAAA apply for a Part 139 approval to provide a choice for pilots and aircraft owners?

 

 

[djpacro]

AOPA and SAAA are not "shooting down the GFA and RAAus privileges", to the contrary, the letters I see applaud those privileges however they are angry at RAA trying to stop some of those same privileges being given to those who fly under CASA rules - safety is the consideration not protection of someone's empire.

 

 

[440032]

CASA Part 139 - Aerodromes.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

CASA Part 139 - Aerodromes.

Sorry, out by 10 - should’ve read Part 149.

Djp, yes I was rushing that post and didn’t put enough thought into it. Really meant to have a level playing field with equal privileges.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Part 149 has nothing to do with it....I was speaking to a guy in CASA about it a couple of weeks ago and for us its a nothing..its to allow more control by CASA over organizations like RAA. Basically its like CASA become the ACCC of aircraft organizations

 

 

[turboplanner]

Part 149 has nothing to do with it....I was speaking to a guy in CASA about it a couple of weeks ago and for us its a nothing..its to allow more control by CASA over organizations like RAA. Basically its like CASA become the ACCC of aircraft organizations

He might think that, but the regulation points to the reverse; the government off loading legal responsibility on to the people deriving a benefit. It's certainly way more powerful than the ACCC, and the good part for CASA is that they don't have to lift a finger. If they do, and this guy may well be intent on that, THEY take back the legal responsibility (and lawsuits) for what they change.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

He might think that, but the regulation points to the reverse; the government off loading legal responsibility on to the people deriving a benefit. It's certainly way more powerful than the ACCC, and the good part for CASA is that they don't have to lift a finger. If they do, and this guy may well be intent on that, THEY take back the legal responsibility (and lawsuits) for what they change.

Might do to have a look at page 8 of CIVIL AVIATIONADVISORY PUBLICATION CAAP ADMIN-01 v2.0 which details the indemnity for delegates etc.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Might do to have a look at page 8 of CIVIL AVIATIONADVISORY PUBLICATION CAAP ADMIN-01 v2.0 which details the indemnity for delegates etc.

We're talking about CASA taking back legal responsibility, not individuals

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

My point is that they have taken liability back by way of the 100million indemnity for delegates etc. They exercise effective control by way of approval of the expositions and the inherent controls within the exposition and the regulation (CASR149). The effect on us poor sods at the end of the food chain is that if the RAA loses its certificate or goes bust or no one wants to be a director is that our investments in equipment may become worthless and we cannot fly (at least the RAA way) and for that there is no liability. See also AOPA and RAA thread

 

 

[turboplanner]

My point is that they have taken liability back by way of the 100million indemnity for delegates etc.

No, I'm referring to CASA as an entity. You may be talking about Directors and Officers liability, which is another subject related to to the actions of individuals.

 

They exercise effective control by way of approval of the expositions and the inherent controls within the exposition and the regulation (CASR149). The effect on us poor sods at the end of the food chain is that if the RAA loses its certificate or goes bust or no one wants to be a director is that our investments in equipment may become worthless and we cannot fly (at least the RAA way) and for that there is no liability

You can indeed be out of the air very quickly, as we saw in the Compliance Audits, but in a self administering organisation you're at the front of the food chain not the end, but several regimes have just sat back and done nothing about managing their own affairs. There should have been structures, such as SMS and Compliance and Enforcement built years ago.

[coljones]

driving a truck 12 hour a day is different to flying for a few hours on the weekend

It is getting getting so that quite a lot of people spend an inordinate amount of time at, sometimes, quite gruelling and stressfull jobs and then backing up on the weekend with kids sport. On Sunday there might be a Long drive to an ever decreasing number of airstrips. Trucking is stressful but so are lots of other job. The effects of sleep aponea can hit anyone, anytime, in the case of flying it can be fatal. Dr Karl did some very good ads about microsleep. If your Bain is being starved of oxygen you will probably have one.

 

 

[coljones]

Remember DIVISION was how the small clique gained control of a member’s organisation - certainly has potential for disaster in the long term. Try talking privately with members of the “perfect mini board” and you will get a picture of what is happening behind closed doors.

Sorry Frank but the board is now the result of an Australia wide election open to all members. Is this any better or worse than the old model where if you lived in the wrong state you weren't even afforded the opportunity to dump the non performers (and we had a few)

 

 

[frank marriott]

Sorry Frank but the board is now the result of an Australia wide election open to all members. Is this any better or worse than the old model where if you lived in the wrong state you weren't even afforded the opportunity to dump the non performers (and we had a few)

Fully aware of the make up of the board. Whether you agree or not with (a) the make up or (b) the direction being taken is up to each individual. I just wish a much larger percentage of members would vote and we would see a clearer picture of the overall opinions one way or the other (I accept it is difficult to create enthusiasm when you only get to vote for 2 directors - unknown to most - but that is the system good or bad)

 

 

[Keith Page]

Part 149 has nothing to do with it....I was speaking to a guy in CASA about it a couple of weeks ago and for us its a nothing..its to allow more control by CASA over organizations like RAA. Basically its like CASA become the ACCC of aircraft organizations

That is how CASA wants Part149..

Put ICAO into the equation, then it becomes a different equation.

 

ASAO is a different animal to the CASA wishes so the control will be deminished and to have ones audits compliant to Part 149, the organisation can have the ICAO compliant audit conducted by a non Australian authority.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

and to have ones audits compliant to Part 149, the organisation can have the ICAO compliant audit conducted by a non Australian authority.

Doesn't that depend on the exposition approved by CASA? Will they accept an audit by an external party irrespective of what any treaty says?

 

 

[Keith Page]

Doesn't that depend on the exposition approved by CASA? Will they accept an audit by an external party irrespective of what any treaty says?

Jim the implementation of Part149 which announces what the Part149 organisation is going to operate and Part103 is how it will be done and run.

Those both parts are implemented by the government of the day, hence CASA will be moving more to an overseeing role. The overseeing role is what CASA is supposed to be doing -- advising the government of the day.

 

Accepting an external audit that is what the government of the day is supposed to do.

 

KP

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Accepting an external audit that is what the government of the day is supposed to do

And CASA has proven time and time again it is beyond government. No politician with an eye to the future sees any worth in bringing CASA to heel unless it impacts the major airlines. Put simply there are no votes in it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

And CASA has proven time and time again it is beyond government. No politician with an eye to the future sees any worth in bringing CASA to heel unless it impacts the major airlines. Put simply there are no votes in it.

CASA has guidelines it must meet. Wild accusations are not guidelines.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Wild accusations are not guidelines.

I was merely pointing out that CASA is beyond the management of government. For proof you only have to follow CASA's performance in meeting the targets set by government in response to the Forsyth report. Part 149 is only about 3 years behind schedule and by their own documentation cannot be completely introduced until Part 91 is implemented which is programmed to be in December 2019! https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/regulatory-progress-timeline

Part 149 is dependent on Part 103 being implemented which is dependent on Part 91 being implemented.

 

Turbs are you a senior CASA bureaucrat?

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Turbs are you a senior CASA bureaucrat?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I was merely pointing out that CASA is beyond the management of government. For proof you only have to follow CASA's performance in meeting the targets set by government in response to the Forsyth report. Part 149 is only about 3 years behind schedule and by their own documentation cannot be completely introduced until Part 91 is implemented which is programmed to be in December 2019! https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/regulatory-progress-timelinePart 149 is dependent on Part 103 being implemented which is dependent on Part 91 being implemented.

Turbs are you a senior CASA bureaucrat?

Firstly this is what you said: "And CASA has proven time and time again it is beyond government. No politician with an eye to the future sees any worth in bringing CASA to heel unless it impacts the major airlines. Put simply there are no votes in it."

That just isn't true.

 

Secondly, Your proof for CASA being beyond the management of government is irrelevant

 

We've covered this so-called Forsyth report before; the government in November 2013 decided to conduct an Aviation Safety Regulation Review and appointed a Panel consisting David Forsyth as Chair, Don Spruston from Canada and Roger Whitfield from the UK.

 

They were given certain aspects to review.

 

A lot of the submissions ignored the basic direction, and could best be described as wish lists or complaints about organisations, procedures or even people; one tipped a bucket on RAA. Several, using identical wording told the Panel Part 149 was the best way forward, and so on. Overall it was a lot of people going off in a lot of directions.

 

The Panel made some recommendations, and the Minister, Warren Truss published them, and that was that. There was no obligation on the government from that panel report, and there is nothing unusual about that.

 

A few people on this site and another one, apparently thinking that their submissions were binding on people to do something made a lot of noise, but the truck is that governments conduct reviews all the time, panels are set up, and make reports, and the governments may decide to act on some.

 

If the Government issued CASA with an instruction in accordance with the appropriate powers, and CASA refused to carry out an instruction you may have a case condemning them, but that hasn't happened with Part 149. I didn't find anything in Part 149 calling up Part 103. Part 103 contains the criteria for CASA consolidating rules applying in Part 149. It doesn't say they have to change any rules right now and it doesn't prevent SAOs upgrading their own rules.

 

Thirdly, no I'm not a senior CASA bureaucrat.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

The Panel made some recommendations, and the Minister, Warren Truss published them, and that was that. There was no obligation on the government from that panel report, and there is nothing unusual about that.

Turbs, have a look at Aviation Safety Regulation Review and be informed.

In relation to Part 103 look at https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/casr-part-103-sport-and-recreational-aviation-operations

 

In particular:

 

Part 103 of CASR will consolidate the rules applying to people who carry out recreational aviation private flight operations, maintenance, and training for recreational aviation in the following kinds of aircraft:

 

• gliders (including sailplanes, hang gliders, paragliders and powered variants thereof meeting defined criteria)
   
   
  
• manned balloons and hot-air airships
   
   
  
• rotorcraft that meet defined criteria and are administered by a recreational aviation administration organisation
   
   
  
• ultralight aeroplanes (defined by weight and stall speed) that are administered by a recreational aviation administration organisation.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

All rules relating to private or recreational use of balloons or gliders will be found in Part 103.

 

It is hard to see how anyone can sensibly write an exposition for Part 149 without the benefit of Part 103. Anything else is a continuation of the dogs breakfast that currently exists.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Depends whether they want to make changes in the short term.

 

I thought Part 149 was a lot easier to understand than a lot of Planning legislation I have to deal with.

 

Why would they need an exposition?