RAA against freedom in medicals

[Jim McDowall]

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

I too have to deal with planning law but as any practitioner will tell you it is not "black letter" law. The High Court has repeatedly found that a planning consent is an offer subject to acceptance by the proponent- a proponent can choose to accept it or effectively give up - acceptance is essentially the creation of a contract.

Aviation law needs to be prescriptive in order to prevent the balancing of interests which occurs in planning law ultimately to produce inconsistent outcomes across a community.

 

Why would they need an exposition?

Better question is why do we need Part 149 ? - US deals with this effectively - CASA needs only to provide for the various sports aviation groups in the regs eg under 600 kg, gliders etc. and then make delegations to individuals / organisations as they do for the rest of aviation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I too have to deal with planning law but as any practitioner will tell you it is not "black letter" law. The High Court has repeatedly found that a planning consent is an offer subject to acceptance by the proponent- a proponent can choose to accept it or effectively give up - acceptance is essentially the creation of a contract.Aviation law needs to be prescriptive in order to prevent the balancing of interests which occurs in planning law ultimately to produce inconsistent outcomes across a community.

Better question is why do we need Part 149 ? - US deals with this effectively - CASA needs only to provide for the various sports aviation groups in the regs eg under 600 kg, gliders etc. and then make delegations to individuals / organisations as they do for the rest of aviation.

This probably explains the confusion.

If a government makes its laws prescriptive, it has a duty of care to make sure they don't hurt anyone, just the same as anyone else. Government departments have been quietly moving out of prescriptive legislation for about thirty years.

 

DIRDC (Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, which includes aviation and transport is a good example. In the construction of motor vehicles they have been moving away from some prescriptive Australian Design Rules, and have set up National Codes of Practice which designers can use if they wish. This is managed at the State level, not by the State Road Authorities, but by an authorised Group of "Signatories", which they audit. At the State level, the bulk of registration activity was handed over to private industry in the 1980s, so in any cheating with dimensions or specification, the liability goes to the dealer, not the State.

 

The States have retained the core of prescriptive road laws, and are prepared to take liability for that core; I would expect CASA to do the same with the core laws it administrates.

 

CASA was set up as an independent Authority in 1995, but nests under DIRDC and is responsible to the same Minister, so I would expect some similarities would filter down from departmental and Ministerial discussions along the lines of "how come you haven't caught up" and "you do realise you are exposing yourselves, and us, to unnecessary financial risk.

 

Ever mindful of the political fallout from dumping substantial financial responsibility from government (where an official signed a document to say you were "safe", e.g. car and truck registration, restaurant health standard, machinery safety (cranes, chain, cables, hoists), on to the users, governments have usually made the changes without giving any reasons. For example in Victoria the Department of Labour and Industry which employed hundreds of Inspectors going around factories, signing "tickets" to say the crane was OK etc. was closed down overnight and its records effectively disappeared.

 

DLI used to administer Speedway racing, and overnight all the race track dimensions - distance of spectators from the safety fence, safety fence specification, catch fence specification, lighting etc disappeared.

 

We weren't told anything, and the government, when asked suggested Police take it over;this was met by a masterpiece of obfuscation from the Police, who didn't see running sport as their business.

 

Our Federal Administrator in South Australia grasped the financial importance, and partnered with an insurance company to cover public liability at the race tracks, and I was deputised by the 23 Associations involved in speedway in Victoria to go and tell the government we were not happy with their idea of police being assigned to run race meetings.

 

I can remember sitting across the desk from the Minister for Sport and Recreation, and pouring our story; he said "Would you like to run it", I said "Yes", and we've been self administering ever since, with no involvement by the Victorian government.

 

There was no government announcement, no explanation.

 

That's why I have no problem with the current era where one of the last of the troglodytes is coming home to roost.

 

I would agree that the presence of an Authority between the current Federal Government and the people conducting aviation in Australia is way more complex than the situation I had to deal with, but the reasons are the same.

 

Therefore I look at Part 149, and say "one more step in allowing us to manage our own affairs and you look at it searching for the prescriptive element, but it's gone.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Therefore I look at Part 149, and say "one more step in allowing us to manage our own affairs and you look at it searching for the prescriptive element, but it's gone.

I would have no problem with part 149 if the organisations were "fee for service" and did not require memberships (ie the same a GA) - any delegate can revoke an authorisation in the event that the conditions of that authorisation were proven to be violated. This would permit multidiciplinary authorisations without attendant membership costs.(GFA+RAA is about $1000 per annum before you turn a wheel). Also the possibility that your flying "privileges" could be removed for a non-aviation related matter such a "bringing the organisation into disrepute" would not exist. "Surveillance" would be left in the hands of the regulator who has proper investigatory powers and who acts on reports from the public. All this can be handled by existing branches of CASA (such as the Office of Delegate Oversight) without the costs to CASA of managing relationships with a dozen or so organisations largely managed by a revolving door of volunteers who, as well meaning as they may be, will be putty in the hands of professional bureaucrats.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

Getting back to the subject in hand on RA Aus, There is a document going around for a call for a special general meeting. Ben Morgan can pass on the details of the person sponsoring it. (David Jardine). As the Board elections are on I suggest that those wanting to take some action pass on their proxy to David Jardine and Ben has his details. He is seeking a couple of resolutions and success with this would start a process that might bring about change.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

[ATTACH=full]61858[/ATTACH] Have a look at the AOPA letter and attached extract showing how Monk votes AGAINST medical reform for private flying.For those still to realise the disastrous mistake made giving the autocratic control to a couple of people that quite obviously have a hidden private agenda that is contrary to the wishes/desires & benefits of ALL private flying.

Members of RAA really need to re-assess their position on this type of behaviour before an implosion

Do we know who voted for?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I would have no problem with part 149 if the organisations were "fee for service" and did not require memberships (ie the same a GA) - any delegate can revoke an authorisation in the event that the conditions of that authorisation were proven to be violated. This would permit multidiciplinary authorisations without attendant membership costs.(GFA+RAA is about $1000 per annum before you turn a wheel). Also the possibility that your flying "privileges" could be removed for a non-aviation related matter such a "bringing the organisation into disrepute" would not exist.

Well I won't bring up the 40 cents per year cost of our National body in the 1980s,

 

You might have a point if Associations like Sporting Shooters Association (18,000 members) and BMX Australia (about 8,000 members), were not controlling their own destinies.

 

Any organisation can go under due to bad management, bad representation or the reasons you give.

 

Associations usually cycle between good periods where the sport grows and costs come right down, and bad periods where a clique forms, favours start to occur, and the general membership gets disgruntled and throws out the Committee, then the climb back to the good times usually starts again.

 

If RAA Ltd were to go belly up today, an association could be formed in the next two days, and the active flyers have enough financial power to restructure within a few weeks.

 

If the operations were not changed, there would be every reason for CASA to expedite the agreements necessary to resume flying.

 

"Surveillance" would be left in the hands of the regulator who has proper investigatory powers and who acts on reports from the public.

You can fly for about the same cost, if not less, per year WITHIN the CASA system now in the aircraft fleet they supervise. Then you also have the prescription you mentioned.

 

All this can be handled by existing branches of CASA (such as the Office of Delegate Oversight) without the costs to CASA of managing relationships with a dozen or so organisations largely managed by a revolving door of volunteers who, as well meaning as they may be, will be putty in the hands of professional bureaucrats.

If you fly in GA, as I suggested, you fly within the CASA system, but if you want higher risk flying categories or performance based systems the risk will always be at your cost, and the best way to minimise your risk cost will be by joining an organisation, because all governments like to keep their day to day relationships to "Peak Bodies" rather than hordes of Type A personalities.

 

As far as having your flying privileges removed, you've touched on an interesting point.

 

I view RAA as a self administering organisation which has never really gone down the path of setting itself up as a self administering organisation. A limited company almost rules it out because of the horizontal structure required to geographically cover Australia.

 

Even before the switch a company, the RAA Inc. Constitution was little more than more than the Model Rules provided by the ACT Department of Justice, but the clauses which would have brought it to life and made it much more active and given members much more control over their sport were never enacted.

 

Sorry to have gone around the subject, but it makes it easier to answer your question. With Compliance and Enforcement comes a set of self administering sanctions. With these in place it is necessary to temper the sanctions with natural justice, and that entails volunteer Appeals Tribunals, and they can extend from suspended sanctions to encourage a change in behaviour to cancellation of Certificate and membership. Given that natural justice is ensured the maximum penalties imposed are likely to be about the same as CASA imposes on its pilots, but without the financial sanctions.

 

With that system in place, and a low fatality/accident rate, there's a lot less need for CASA to intrude.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Given that natural justice is ensured

Natural justice is a concept that many have not experienced in GFA - people just give up and go away - often pissing up tens of thousands of dollars invested in aircraft against the wall.

Remember it is the GFA model that this whole show is based upon.

 

No one has ever really put alternative methods of management to real examination - look at the SCC committee minutes of the day.

 

CASA is compromised from within by employees who are closely associated with GFA

 

 

[turboplanner]

Natural justice is a concept that many have not experienced in GFA - people just give up and go away - often pissing up tens of thousands of dollars invested in aircraft against the wall.

We've discussed GFA on this site previously, and I looked at the GFA Constitution; that's where the road block to a better life lies. Just needs three or four people with Association experience to fix - but not publicly.

 

Remember it is the GFA model that this whole show is based upon.

That might be your memory, and in the very early AUF days may have been true, but the RAA, Inc Constitution reflects a totally different Association to GFA, and now it s a different animal again with Limited Company status.

 

No one has ever really put alternative methods of management to real examination - look at the SCC committee minutes of the day.CASA is compromised from within by employees who are closely associated with GFA

Apathy is the mother of contention.

 

 

[Hargraves]

If any recreational pilots require evidence of the intent and self interest that the so called RAA board has in its direction, you only need to look at the recent cancelation of our pilots certificate in place of a plastic club membership card. These people have an agender which is the opposite of recreational ultralight flying, they have percieved an opertunity regarding GA dysfunction and are deliberatly working towards completly changing and downsizing ultralight flying to incorperate GA pilots instead to build their boys club empire. Wake up people the removal of your pilots certificate is not a small part of their planning, and as a by the way what cost benifit is it to cancel a plastic pilots certificate and issue a plastic club membership card instead. We need to replace these (club boys) ASAP. cheers hargraves

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

That might be your memory, and in the very early AUF days may have been true, but the RAA, Inc Constitution reflects a totally different Association to GFA, and now it s a different animal again with Limited Company status.

I meant the self administration model not the method of incorporation

 

Apathy is the mother of contention.

The only people at the table were CASA and some of the self administering bodies - and some of the CASA folk were GFA sycophants.

 

 

[Super Cub]

Getting back to the subject in hand on RA Aus, There is a document going around for a call for a special general meeting. Ben Morgan can pass on the details of the person sponsoring it. (David Jardine). As the Board elections are on I suggest that those wanting to take some action pass on their proxy to David Jardine and Ben has his details. He is seeking a couple of resolutions and success with this would start a process that might bring about change.

Anyone have an email address for David Jardine (as above). Can PM me if required.

 

 

[Love to fly]

Anyone have an email address for David Jardine (as above). Can PM me if required.

[email protected]

Details at Help needed - Lets hold RAAus to account

 

 

[turboplanner]

I meant the self administration model not the method of incorporation. The only people at the table were CASA and some of the self administering bodies - and some of the CASA folk were GFA sycophants.

Unfortunately the government probably didn't say "If we manage he high risk operations and take the liability it's going to cost us a bundle, so we're going go hand that over to you and you can take the liability" otherwise people would have pricked up their ears.

I woke up to it on the way home from my meeting.

 

However, understanding what was done then isn't going to change the fact that we are going forward in a new era, and the organisations involved need to set up systems to adapt to it.

 

 

[Super Cub]

[email protected]Details at Help needed - Lets hold RAAus to account

Thanks for the link.

 

I note that link is about the AOPA / RAAus Slogan issue.

 

I'm interested to find out more on this RAAus voting against RPL / PPL adopting Drivers Licence Medical (As RAAus has).

 

Anyone have a link in regard to David Jardine's position, or anyone else who disagrees with RAAus Vote against this.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[MartyG]

How does Ra-Aus get to have a vote regarding the regs of another division of aviation, Smells like a conflict of interest to me. I understand Ra-Aus not wanting GA to have lower medical standards as it may lower possible future Ra-Aus memberships but nothing good can come of sticking our noses in other people's business. We need to be promoting Aviation across the board, not making selfish desicions to feather our own nest. My opinion only.

 

 

[frank marriott]

How does Ra-Aus get to have a vote regarding the regs of another division of aviation, Smells like a conflict of interest to me. I understand Ra-Aus not wanting GA to have lower medical standards as it may lower possible future Ra-Aus memberships but nothing good can come of sticking our noses in other people's business. We need to be promoting Aviation across the board, not making selfish desicions to feather our own nest. My opinion only.

Have a look on the AOPA site for more details. Information obtained via a FOI application.

 

One would suspect the voting was expected to be kept secret.

 

Perhaps email Monk direct to find his opinion/justification.

 

I suspect an oversight of the number of RPC holders who also hold RPL & PPL qualifications.