Alternate organisation...deafening silence

[rick-p]

We are still alive and kicking and I can assure you we haven't given up.

 

And at this stage we don't intend to.

 

The Board audit certainly was an interesting read.

 

Also the letter written to the Board posted in the Australian Pilots Lounge was a wonderful piece of interogation.

 

CASA is the one that needs the S kicked out of its acronym and the safety left up to the aviation industry stakeholders.

 

Really what qualifications do those 800 or so bum's on seats have either individually or collectively? 

 

We had an acting manager and the Sport Pilot organization legal representative telling the Senate enquiry an absolute load of rubbish, basically it was fraudulent misrepresentation either knowing what was being said was untrue or just not caring for the veracity of their statements only hoping that the same would influence the direction of the Senate inquiry in a direction favourable to them.

 

Then we had CASA making false statements about agreements having been reached as to certain issues being discussed between it and the SAO'S.

 

The chickens will come home to roost and hopefully this will occur before the 30th June this year.

 

I can tell you now whilst my arse is still pointing to the ground we will not give because our true resolve is that Australian Aviation needs to be overhauled or we from the 95.10 guys right up the line to the heavy metal operators are all going to lose what we love to do, fly.

 

 

[Keith Page]

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

What are  you saying regarding GA component?

 

We are not thinking anything like GA. Got me thinking where or how or why GA is involved in this equation.

 

Yes, there is a weight increase just like RAAus is seeking. I can assure the weight is not the hold up, nor are the light helicopters.

 

The big question, At the moment, legally, where are the small helicopter fitting into the scheme of things?

 

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

What are  you saying regarding GA component?

We are not thinking anything like GA. Got me thinking where or how or why GA is involved in this equation.

 

Yes, there is a weight increase just like RAAus is seeking. I can assure the weight is not the hold up, nor are the light helicopters.

 

The big question, At the moment, legally, where are the small helicopter fitting into the scheme of things?

 

KP

A Cessna 152 is a GA aircraft operating under prescriptive management by CASA

 

An R22 helicopter also operates under prescriptive management by CASA

 

1. Why would someone who flies one of these pay an annual subscription to a company to self administer what CASA are already doing$

 

2. CASA has the liability for these aircraft now and manages that liability directly now, so it controls it's own risk. Why would CASA water down that control by letting someone else control that risk ( where there can be mistakes) when the legislation says they have the responsibility? I also would think very carefully before I made that decision, and wonder how a self-administering organisation could also manage to operate two different management, training, and compliance and enforcement systems at the same time without a large staff.

 

 

[M61A1]

Take the blinkers off Turbo!

 

Yes the Cessna 152 is currently GA, but it doesn't need to be, it could easily be RA, with RA licencing and maintenance requirements. The same goes for an R22. You don't  need different management, training, compliance and enforcement systems to administer recreational flying. Sure heli training is a little different from fixed wing, but it's hardly rocket science.

 

None of it needs to be as hard as it is.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Take the blinkers off Turbo!

Yes the Cessna 152 is currently GA, but it doesn't need to be, it could easily be RA, with RA licencing and maintenance requirements. The same goes for an R22. You don't  need different management, training, compliance and enforcement systems to administer recreational flying. Sure heli training is a little different from fixed wing, but it's hardly rocket science.

 

None of it needs to be as hard as it is.

Keith said he didn't know what a "GA component was"; I tried to explain it; they are free to take whatever approach they wish.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith said he didn't know what a "GA component was"; I tried to explain it; they are free to take whatever approach they wish.

Hello turbo,

 

M61A1 is on to it. I was looking from inside Part149. That is controlled by placarding.

 

With the helicopters there needs to be two seaters available for training with in the Part149 and Part 103. Turbo you are on to cost and regulations etc. etc. not the same type of relevance within Part 149 & 103.

 

It is early days as to the administration. Why has "liability"? ... Always has to pop up? Think in another sphere and there is the answer.

 

Be very very careful with this liability movement thing, because if one goes too hard at that one, there will be no aviation in Australia.

 

The only thing flying about will be the RPTs and the unregistered planes and unlicensed pilots. That will be a mess.

 

To me CASA's safety programme is to have no planes flying and that mission is gained by over regulating -- with this over regulation comes exorbitant costs and people will give up and go fishing.

 

Example in this case, "Angel Flight"

 

KP.

 

 

[rick-p]

We are still alive and kicking and I can assure you we haven't given up.

 

And at this stage we don't intend to.

 

The Board audit certainly was an interesting read.

 

Also the letter written to the Board posted in the Australian Pilots Lounge was a wonderful piece of interogation.

 

CASA is the one that needs the S kicked out of its acronym and the safety left up to the aviation industry stakeholders.

 

Really what qualifications do those 800 or so bum's on seats have either individually or collectively? 

 

We had an acting manager and the Sport Pilot organization legal representative telling the Senate enquiry an absolute load of rubbish, basically it was fraudulent misrepresentation either knowing what was being said was untrue or just not caring for the veracity of their statements only hoping that the same would influence the direction of the Senate inquiry in a direction favourable to them.

 

Then we had CASA making false statements about agreements having been reached as to certain issues being discussed between it and the SAO'S.

 

The chickens will come home to roost and hopefully this will occur before the 30th June this year.

 

I can tell you now whilst my arse is still pointing to the ground we will not give because our true resolve is that Australian Aviation needs to be overhauled or we from the 95.10 guys right up the line to the heavy metal operators are all going to lose what we love to do, fly.

 

 

[rick-p]

Now I am confused. Whats all the talk about choppers and GA?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hello turbo,

M61A1 is on to it. I was looking from inside Part149. That is controlled by placarding.

 

With the helicopters there needs to be two seaters available for training with in the Part149 and Part 103. Turbo you are on to cost and regulations etc. etc. not the same type of relevance within Part 149 & 103.

 

It is early days as to the administration. Why has "liability"? ... Always has to pop up? Think in another sphere and there is the answer.

 

Be very very careful with this liability movement thing, because if one goes too hard at that one, there will be no aviation in Australia.

 

The only thing flying about will be the RPTs and the unregistered planes and unlicensed pilots. That will be a mess.

 

To me CASA's safety programme is to have no planes flying and that mission is gained by over regulating -- with this over regulation comes exorbitant costs and people will give up and go fishing.

 

Example in this case, "Angel Flight"

 

KP.

I’ve forgotten the simple question I asked, so we won’t worry about it.

 

 

[M61A1]

1. Why would someone who flies one of these pay an annual subscription to a company to self administer what CASA are already doing

That would be a reasonable point if the current maintenance and training requirements were the same for both organisations. The who idea of recreational flying is that you could perform your own maintenance if you desire. Currently a full GA licence and medical is required to operate a heli, the licence itself is hideously expensive and could be reduced in cost significantly with the right machinery and a sensible approach to training.

 

I've already answered question 2.

 

Now I am confused. Whats all the talk about choppers and GA?

Probably irrelevant to where you're at right now, but some of us see no reason that recreational aviation couldn't be all recreational aviation. not just really lightweight fixed wing stuff.

 

 

[Yenn]

The alternate organisation seems to be still trying, but I have heard CASA say that it will not happen, even while they are saying it can happen. I wouldn't trust CASA to do anything to makr life easy for anyone, nor would I trust anything they say.

 

I have been backing the alternate organisation, but I have just about given up hope of anything happening.

 

 

[Downunder]

Also the letter written to the Board posted in the Australian Pilots Lounge was a wonderful piece of interogation.

Any chance of a copy/paste for non FB users?