Alternate organisation...deafening silence

[frank marriott]

Just wait for the new admentents to the ops manual in process now, being forced through by the dictatorship of the current mini board (i.e 3 plus 1).

 

It would be alleged as a favour to “mates” at a particular flying school!

 

Sad reflection on what we have left of RAA, but expected.  I haven’t seen ANYTHING from administration to members about this.

 

If members accept this then I am left speechless.

 

 

[NotSoSuperSonic]

Just wait for the new admentents to the ops manual in process now, being forced through by the dictatorship of the current mini board (i.e 3 plus 1).

It would be alleged as a favour to “mates” at a particular flying school!

 

Sad reflection on what we have left of RAA, but expected.  I haven’t seen ANYTHING from administration to members about this.

 

If members accept this then I am left speechless.

Does RAAus receive money from the government in its deal with CASA to administer RAAus pilots and aircraft operations?

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Yes. Under the Deed of Agreement with CASA, RAAus receives in excess of $100,000 from CASA. The link on the website to this agreement seems to be broken. It is uncertain if RAAus will receive any funds from CASA under the Part 149 arrangements due to the operation of Sec 97AB of the Act which CASA has been ignoring for years.

 

 

[turboplanner]

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.

No, a corporate structure is not the way to go when you primarily want the low cost available from many volunteers carrying the load. In RAA there were two people in particular who exhaustively sold the fallacy of RAA having outgrown a "cricket club" style. They disappeared as soon as the company was formed

 

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.

Governments do carry public liability in many areas. However, the areas which concern RAA members are where governments have off-loaded public liability through self-regulation, thus allowing things like sporting activities to continue. This extends down to sausage sizzles and fund raising events.

 

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!

The current SAO system is a great way to allow RAA members to operate at the grass roots level at minimal cost. It just has to manage its safety levels to the point where government taxpayers don't have the burden when things go wrong. So far the insurance has been able to cover the accidents and with a few exceptions the aircraft have operated away from heavy traffic and large urban areas. As far as can see the same simple self-administration model would allow SAAA to practically operate.

 

There's no reason for RAA aircraft to become experimental aircraft, unless the SAO system collapses, and that's unlikely to happen while the taxpayer isn't exposed to accident costs.

 

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.

Where a government cuts you adrift, and no longer prescribes what you do, you're on your own; you're FREE! There's no point in continuing on as if nothing has changed, no point in going to the government wanting it to intervene, no point wanting it to "fix" something, no point in waiting for it to spend taxpayer money on your sport; the old days are over. The downside we have is that we have to pay for our accidents, so we have to minimise the accidents, which, as an example, is why the ladies on the sausage sizzle and cake stall need to go and do a course on food handling and take out insurance. What makes the principle hard to understand in flying is that there are several bodies, like CASA and Airservices involved which require a certain level of performance to ensure safety, and we have a mix of self administration and prescription. GetUp works to produce electoral outcomes, Greenpeace works to produce environmental outcomes. What we've just seen is AOPA working to get the same medical standard as RAA, even though they operate in CTA; CASA has re-assumed public liability in quite a few areas. What would normally happen is that a government would not get involved in the medical standard specification of a self administering body; that would be the decision of the body which is paying for its own accident liabilities. For example, when Department of Labour and Industry, the department which used to have hundreds of inspectors visiting factories, testing safety equipment and signing tickets and thus taking legal liability for the equipment failures, was closed down, the regulations applying to speedway track safety fences, crowd separation etc were cancelled, and we had to establish our own - which were much easier to understand and much more effective btw. If the government had come back in and laid down some new specifications, it would have re-incurred public liability for its actions. CASA has not made a clean break, so in all sorts of messy areas it still wants a say, but it will be there beside you in the court room as a defendant. So I'll admit the situation is complex, but there's no point in harking back to the good old prescriptive days when the taxpayer paid for any negligence; it's not coming back.

 

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.

Public liability is not limited to dropping out of the sky and hitting someone on the ground. I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but as soon as you start going your pre-flight you're in the PL envelope. If you get distracted and leave the oil filler cap sitting on top of the engine, if you didn't notice your aileron hinge rod was hanging out, and they fall on the ground as evidence and you take off and crash, injuring or killing someone, you'll most likely pay. If an aircraft is on short final in plain sight and you enter the runway, if you fail to make the take off and hit a shipping container or a restaurant next to the Airfield, that will usually be on you. If you forgot to check the fuel, or the engine stops and you fail to make a successful forced landing, for which you have been trained, If you decide you'll ignore the regulations and do oval circuits and hit someone, if you are flying along and decide to fly down below 500 feet and hit a power line, the beach, a radio mast, a building, if you decide to do some aerobatics and snap a wing off the Skyfox, or you come in to land and have an excursion, or if you mess up your shut down checks, or if you leave the aircraft in an unsafe place; these are just a few of the examples where if someone is injured or killed, lawyers may be able to sue you or your estate and prove negligence. Insurance take the pain away from being caught out in one of a million innocent mistakes.

 

Going back to your original question, I can't remember, but the RAA records will almost certainly include some injuries. One advantage RAA pilots have had is operating at outlying and country airfields remote from lots of spectators and urban structures. What does come to mind though is the Dove crash at Essendon which killed Sam Gulle's family, the King Air which hit the Essendon DFO,  a C152 which  drilled a shed in the Moorabbin circuit, a forced landing in, from memory Aspendale, where a pilot missed the South East Green Wedge right beside him and demolished part of a street., and for public opinion which resulted in transponders being fitted in CTA, the Cerritos crash in 1986 where 82 were killed including 15 on the ground after a Piper Archer hit a DC9, and one last week in the US where a light aircraft tried to land on a freeway killing two on board and two or three on the ground. While RAA stays as it is now.

 

OR, if your question was related to the last line, that's certainly not the sole area where you'll be exposed to lawsuits for negligence.

 

I get the impression you're from the gliding world, and if so you've missed about ten years of discussions, which are still on this site in relation to liability.

 

Some others came to the same conclusion as you on those cases, and there's material on the site which goes into the cases in detail and explains the critical parts of what the courts said, in one case very specifically that the pilot was not negligent,(and not that he had a sign on the dash which protected him). We also discussed a case I was involved in, which we lost, where we have to protect ourselves by adding the statement "Motor Racing is Dangerous and you enter at your own risk", then losing another case and having to add the words, "but you have the right to sue if the promoter has been negligent".

 

 

[NotSoSuperSonic]

Yes. Under the Deed of Agreement with CASA, RAAus receives in excess of $100,000 from CASA. The link on the website to this agreement seems to be broken. It is uncertain if RAAus will receive any funds from CASA under the Part 149 arrangements due to the operation of Sec 97AB of the Act which CASA has been ignoring for years.

It'd be good to have a read of the Deed of Agreement.  Might be best to check its last amendment date beforehand.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It'd be good to have a read of the Deed of Agreement.  Might be best to check its last amendment date beforehand.

It's an annual agreement; the deeds are updated each year and there should be a few on this site that you could search for.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Jim, the South African situation has always appeared to me as wonderful. For example, the twin Jabiru was done there while it would have been killed here.

 

And the Jonkers brothers made their JS gliders, beating the world from nothing except freedom from deadening bureaucracy.

 

I hope this is not coming to an end.

 

 

[tillmanr]

I saw a twin Jabiru under development at Bundaberg a couple of years ago. I don’t know what this progressed to.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I saw a twin Jabiru under development at Bundaberg a couple of years ago. I don’t know what this progressed to.

Been flying for a couple of years now. Jamie’s  J430.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

There is nothing to prevent multi - engine Amateur built Experimental in Australia.

 

 

[Keith Page]

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?

Hello robinsm,

 

I only wish work behind the scenes made a noise, however these behind the scenes activities are silent and invisible.

 

Notice how the politicians get on radio and TV well that is being seen and heard. 

 

I must inform you we are working with CASA and endeavouring to get help from the politicians.

 

Hence we have been visiting a lot of pigeon holes and hurdles.

 

KP.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hello robinsm,

I only wish work behind the scenes made a noise, however these behind the scenes activities are silent and invisible.

 

Notice how the politicians get on radio and TV well that is being seen and heard. 

 

I must inform you we are working with CASA and endeavouring to get help from the politicians.

 

Hence we have been visiting a lot of pigeon holes and hurdles.

 

KP.

What about dumping the GA component and just becoming a self administering RA body?

 

 

[facthunter]

You would then be in a position to do some justice to that section of aviation. You will never be big or powerful, though. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

And if you’d cover all of the ground RAAus do you’d also be a bit more attractive.  Flexwing  and ppc are not so very different from 3axis in training terms and other than rigging on POV not a jot different on airframe maintenance 

 

 

[Keith Page]

What about dumping the GA component and just becoming a self administering RA body?

Turbo you have me stuck. GA Component?

 

We do not have a GA component, however can you show me where you are thinking we have a GA component then I can address it.

 

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo you have me stuck. GA Component?

We do not have a GA component, however can you show me where you are thinking we have a GA component then I can address it.

 

KP

Unless things have changed, the GA component covers the heavier aircraft above the RAA limit, and helicopters.

 

 

[robinsm]

What about dumping the GA component and just becoming a self administering RA body?

sounds like s fine idea but practical???

 

 

[facthunter]

 Yes , Don't set yourself up as "the NEW GA". WE deliberately distanced ourselves from that years ago and for a good reason.. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

Yep. As I recall the scope outlined by the alternate was heavier than RAAus on fixed wi g 3axis plus helicopter. 

 

So more than RAAus on some areas but less in others as flexwing and ppc were excluded.  

 

It might be easier with CASA - they already have a body with that coverage and it’s all within a few CAO’s and already delineated pats of the CARs and Act.

 

by having part of the VH register involved it’s a very different beast to regulate and control as they currently have no equivalent organisation to work from in terms of setting a baseline for delegates operations.  

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

having part of the VH register involved it’s a very different beast to regulate

Why? gliders are on the VH register. The problem really is that CASA has convinced themselves that the existing silos need to be protected from competition. Delegations are already handled by a variety of different organisations from Qantas to individuals and are overseen by the internal CASA Office of Delegate Oversight (Management?)

 

 

[kasper]

Why? gliders are on the VH register. The problem really is that CASA has convinced themselves that the existing silos need to be protected from competition. Delegations are already handled by a variety of different organisations from Qantas to individuals and are overseen by the internal CASA Office of Delegate Oversight (Management?)

Why?

 

1. You are mixing training between GA and Ultralight aircraft for the first time within a single organisation.  All existing delegations are for single type. Your documentation and processes need to cover everything and if your aim is to stay at lowest level of CASA touch yet retain low cost delivery you have created a tension where you want lowest and CASA find it easiest to level up.  

 

2. Low end GA have never been delegated before - comparing to delegations to Qantas is fanciful - Uktralights and low end GA are going this way to lower cost and compliance time that is considered unnecessary... new delegation needs time to carve out and set up delegation and oversight.  

 

3. There is absolutely no political will to focus CASA resources on GA low end or ultralights - no political will equals lowest priority. Given tire are no actual aircraft or pilots affected as it’s a new org it has even less hope of getting attention than when RAAus has admin stuff ups years ago. 

 

Ill not not bother going on because these three should be enough to see support my comment.  

 

Cheers 

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

1. You are mixing training between GA and Ultralight aircraft for the first time within a single organisation.  All existing delegations are for single type. Your documentation and processes need to cover everything and if your aim is to stay at lowest level of CASA touch yet retain low cost delivery you have created a tension where you want lowest and CASA find it easiest to level up.  

Gliders are VH registered, upto 850kg MTOW and can be self launching (actually if motorised, under ICAO definition they are regarded as aeroplanes). GFA nominates people who hold delegations for a number of activities and types. As the GFA is the oldest of these organisations CASA is obviously capable of, and comfortable with, organisation with mixed aircraft categories. And technically (again ICAO defined) GA and ultralights are all GA.

 

2. Low end GA have never been delegated before - comparing to delegations to Qantas is fanciful - Uktralights and low end GA are going this way to lower cost and compliance time that is considered unnecessary... new delegation needs time to carve out and set up delegation and oversight.

Just because CASA has not done something before doesn't mean that they cant do it. Afterall drones have not really stopped flying because CASA couldn't get their head around it , CASA just fell into line with marketplace pressure. The proposed Part 43 arrangements may go some way to lowering maintenance costs but if an EAB can be maintained by the builder CASA is clearly some way down the path. Further CASA has approved RAAus's manuals which could easily be expanded to accommodate Schedule B aircraft maintenance in accordance with the manufacturers manual as is currently done with LSA administered by RAA. It doesnt really matter if the organisation RAA or any other body if CASA approves the manuals etc.

 

3. There is absolutely no political will to focus CASA resources on GA low end or ultralights - no political will equals lowest priority. Given tire are no actual aircraft or pilots affected as it’s a new org it has even less hope of getting attention than when RAAus has admin stuff ups years ago. 

Agreed that there is little political will. However, the existing tensions within the Board may have unforseen outcomes. Afterall in 2015 who would have thought that Donald Trump would be POTUS (a commonly used acronym).

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Just a thought - how will CASA cope with vehicles like the Blackfly eVTOL on a mass scale?

 

 

[Downunder]

Taking on low end GA, Recreational and heli's straight off the bat is a big bite of the apple. Too big in my opinion.

 

An organisation with no history and no reputation, it's going to be a long shot. CASA's massively risk adverse nature will simply stall on it until it dissappears.

 

Better to start small, show competent management and gain some rapport within the industry.  Build membership and expand from there.

 

If the founders want all three types because that is what they fly, then I'm not sure what can be done.....

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Taking on low end GA, Recreational and heli's straight off the bat is a big bite of the apple

Not if the skill base and systems are in place

 

An organisation with no history and no reputation, it's going to be a long shot

They do this with startup airlines so should not be a problem

 

Better to start small, show competent management and gain some rapport within the industry.  Build membership and expand from there.

And perhaps wither on the vine. Aircraft all operate under the same basic rules (eg Day VFR or Part 91). Maintenance obligations are easily defined, flight training regimes are known and delegations managed by CASA to ensure quality standards are maintained. No a practical problem just a re-adjustment of attitude, after all "low end GA" and recreational aircraft are technically all GA.