Alternate organisation...deafening silence

[robinsm]

There has been a much spruiked about alternate organisation that was trying to get off the ground.   Lately there has been a deafening silence about progress.   Given the current dissatisfaction by some members with RAA Aus and their privacy, finance, abd other changes, one would think the push would be on for the alternate to become a reality...any info?

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

If you are referring to ELAAA Pty Ltd - Keith Page is a Director, and other Directors are on this forum who may be able to tell you about progress.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

From the outside, I get the impression that CASA are just not doing their job and this is why nothing is happening. It is all too easy for CASA to just delay and delay...   what sanctions can be brought to bear if they do this? You would need some strong political will which is just not there.

 

I hope I'm wrong.

 

 

[Admin]

I was actually talking to one of the directors a couple of days ago on this and yes, CASA is the culprit, one day they wanted things this way and then the next it was that way, one day day it was to 149 then it was 95 then it was back to 149 but then their 149 was changing each day and now it may not even be 149. To my knowledge ELAAA has been trying their hardest

 

 

[turboplanner]

If ELAAA had applied to set up an SAO for recreational aircraft, they'd probably have been in operation a year or tow ago.

 

But they didn't, they applied for something partly suitable for self-administration, but also partly for operations still under prescriptive control.

 

I don't know what CASA have considered, but any arms length government body would have great difficulty balancing the risk factors and possibile ramifications of that.

 

From the Federal Government's prespective, through its Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, which includes air, sea and land transport, there are existing protocols.

 

For example, practically the manufacture and operation of motor vehicles is still prescriptive, as is General Aviation.

 

However you could design and build your own car from scratch, provided you carried out the design and testing required, under the signatory system, where the public liability for that design rests with the signatory, not the Government.

 

I don't know whether CASA have been referring this matter to DIRDC, but I would, and there would need to be a lot of discussions, and a new policy, and you could ask yourself why, when a specific exemptions had been given to allow self administering recreational aircraft, anyone would decide to draw a different boundary.

 

 

[Admin]

Turbs, when they started I believe the CASA advised them NOT to try under 95 which would have all been sorted by now but to only apply under 149 which was supposedly coming soon at the time and allows for extra SAOs but 95 doesn't without great amounts of pressure so they did what they were told and given the extra time and the then supposedly 149 allowances they were able to add extra things in the mix...they were led along a long and winding road with RAAus given them the mud map that says turn left at every intersection...think about where you would turn up if you turned left at every intersection

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Plain fact of the matter is that they (CASA) do not want more than one SAO for each rec aviation sector  - see discussion docs as part of Part 149 NPRM. This has been policy since about 2004. Watch the video of CASA at the RRaT hearing a few weeks ago and see how they proposed to suck AOPA into this vortex of doom.

 

 

[old man emu]

If  ELAAA Pty Ltd is a private company which wants to be a SAO, how would it differ from RAAus in its financial operations? ELAAA Pty Ltd would still charge for its services.

 

I think that it is time for the proletariat to revolt. Overthrow the Empire of CASA and re-establish the Department of Civil Aviation physically connected to Parliament. Having the control of aviation by an Authority that is at arm's length from parliamentary control has flown us into the Cumulogranitis.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, when they started I believe the CASA advised them NOT to try under 95 which would have all been sorted by now but to only apply under 149 which was supposedly coming soon at the time and allows for extra SAOs but 95 doesn't without great amounts of pressure so they did what they were told and given the extra time and the then supposedly 149 allowances they were able to add extra things in the mix...they were led along a long and winding road with RAAus given them the mud map that says turn left at every intersection...think about where you would turn up if you turned left at every intersection

That fits into what I was saying.

 

As a Controlling Body, part of what you have to consider are the consequences of giving people self-control. Sure the public liability of what they do passes over to them, but what do you do if they (and I'm not at all implying this about ELAAA) decide that sh!t happens and they'll wait until they have a problem with an accident. Part 149 is a lot cleaner, but I still think the issue ELAAA has compounded the problem by having a leg in each camp, which then has to be catered for.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Plain fact of the matter is that they (CASA) do not want more than one SAO for each rec aviation sector  - see discussion docs as part of Part 149 NPRM. This has been policy since about 2004. Watch the video of CASA at the RRaT hearing a few weeks ago and see how they proposed to suck AOPA into this vortex of doom.

HGFA and RAA are both handling some aircraft classes, so there would be no precedent there.

 

AOPA's actions could trigger some serious thought about where the borderline should be on medical and operations in controlled airspace and cross-country flights and number of passengers.

 

Pandora's box is now partly open thanks to AOPA, and there are pilots with opposing, and logical views on both side of each of those subjects

 

 

[turboplanner]

II think that it is time for the proletariat to revolt. Overthrow the Empire of CASA and re-establish the Department of Civil Aviation physically connected to Parliament. Having the control of aviation by an Authority that is at arm's length from parliamentary control has flown us into the Cumulogranitis.

You can't put the genie back into the bottle; about the same small rump of pilots hated DCA too. The original Flying Doctor, Clyde Fenton was in continuous trouble with DCA.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Actually the Government can put a genie back in the bottle - remember ATSIC?

 

 

[turboplanner]

No, but good luck trying.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

No, but good luck trying.

Have a look at

 

 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission - Wikipedia

 

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

and jog your memory

 

AND the biggy - the infamous Defence Materiel Organisation that presided over the waste of billions of taxpayer dollars

 

 

[turboplanner]

Exciting as the prospect of another pointless hair splitting exercise is, I'd point out were were specifically talking about CASA being closed down and re-establishing the Department of Civil Aviation.

 

It isn't going to happen, primarily for public liability reasons.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

The liability argument is an absolute furphy! CASA is not at arms length from government in legal liability terms. Any decent legal attack on CASA would prove that once and for all.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The liability argument is an absolute furphy! CASA is not at arms length from government in legal liability terms. Any decent legal attack on CASA would prove that once and for all.

CASA is a complex body; it retains legal liability for the things it prescribes or proscribes, it has some joint liability where it is doing that in the SAOs

 

 

[facthunter]

  CASA is probably the only body in the game who /which has the resources to carry the liability at the level it could reach. It also has the deep pockets to make them immune from the ordinary individual fighting them in court, and having a chance of winning.. The Absolute/ strict Liability  that is imposed on the activity. is onerous and scary. (Look it up  it doesn't take long). Spend a few minutes at looking at what it is. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

This from the Australian Law Reform Commission.

 

https://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/ip46_ch_12._strict_or_absolute_liability.pdf

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Maybe ELAAA, SAAA and AOPA could form a partnership of some sort? That’d sort out the level playing field issues AOPA have with RAA. 

 

What could possibly go wrong...

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

The problem with the whole Part 149 thing is that at no stage has the legal capacity of the SAO's to play the role that CASA and some of the SAO's want to play ever been properly examined, particularly in respect of modification of members rights, either individually or as a group by the organisation concerned.

 

BTW from April 1 next year the South African CAA will have absorbed the South African equivalent of RAAus back into its structure and within its absolute control.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The problem with the whole Part 149 thing is that at no stage has the legal capacity of the SAO's to play the role that CASA and some of the SAO's want to play ever been properly examined, particularly in respect of modification of members rights, either individually or as a group by the organisation concerned.

BTW from April 1 next year the South African CAA will have absorbed the South African equivalent of RAAus back into its structure and within its absolute control.

Jim to get any traction at all, you need to address the implications of government exposure to public liability claims, and the general public's political attitude to paying part of their income tax to prop up sports. That's the starting point. Then you have to understand what triggered the decision by Federal and State Ministers to adopt "user pays" wherever possible, then the initiatives by sporting, volunteer and certain industries to control their own destinies by self administering and self insuring, then how those groups adopted policies such as audit policies to ensure that the members enjoying the benefit also took the liability. That's a minute explanation of what's been happening, and it had generally been a great success, the flow of taxpayer funds down compared to where they would have been.

 

When you then take that system as a base, and have an RA aircraft built under the supervision of RAA sitting in a paddock, you would have the same happy situation.

 

When that aircraft then rolls down the paddock, then at the time there was provable intent to take off, it starts to enter the prescriptive world, so things like external regulations and strict liability kick in, and as it rises and travels over the countryside it is travelling in the GA prescriptive world, where, it would appear quite often the pilot has not been trained for. When it approaches a GA operating airfield there can be another mix of self-administration and strict liability, and so on. Way too much to discuss with one liners on a forum.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

As usual Turbs you missed the point

 

 

[turboplanner]

As usual Turbs you missed the point

I don't doubt that there's a point there that would have been a game changer in 1980, but there's no point discussing the finer points of draught horses once tractors take over.

 

One way or another you have to come to grips with the changes which have occurred to understand what is happening now.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

My point is this - RAAus is a company - when does variation of the rights of an individual member become a fraud on a minority? Similarly, the GFA's policies do not meet the requirements of the Victorian Association law - nor do the respective policies mirror the CASA MOS for enforcement.

 

These corporate structures were not designed for this purpose.

 

Governments of all types deals with public liability in the ordinary course of business. For example, your local council does not stop people playing football on a council oval just because someone may be hurt.

 

The CASR's specifically take CASA of the hook in respect of experimental aircraft (CASR 201.003) -

 

Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things.

 

Solution is make every RAAus aircraft an experimental aircraft!

 

Telling me to come to grips with an administrative position is not how democracy works - just watch how GetUp and Greenpeace work and the public/politician response.

 

Turbs, I know your are hung up on liability but when was the last incident involving a member of the public who was not in the RAAus aircraft? As you will know courts have determined that if you get into a glider or RAAus aircraft you know that you are undertaking a potentially dangerous activity and no one else is to blame but you if it all goes pear shaped.