RAAus cease issuing aircraft registration cards?

[Jim McDowall]

14 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

You're still, after all this time looking at this from the inside of the tennis ball.

NO! I'm reading the regulation:

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 201.003

Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases

             (1)  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.

             (2)  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, CASA exercising powers to conduct tests under regulation 139.135, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to those powers.

15 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

You can't deny liability for something you administer

It seems as though they have so long as the act or omission of CASA IS done or made in good faith. (IS added)

Also in a number cases concerning the operation of ASAO aircraft, CASA has been found to have no liability for negligence.

If the Government was at all concerned about liability in these matters it would not allow VH registered gliders, maintained by unlicenced people to be flown by un-licenced pilots.

As a corollary, isn't it true that motor vehicles today are manufactured by firms to a standard, independently(?) certified by engineers not required to be members of any organisation? Thousands of people are killed and maimed on Australian roads each year and yet no one attaches any liability to the government for its administration of the ADR's.

[turboplanner]

If RAA was an Incorporated Association, your could have these discussions, write to the Committee of Management and suggest them, and get a decision back, possibly in favour of the proposals.

 

However, if everyone recalls, the majority of members didn't want to get involved in managing their own affairs, in fact got on these forums and trew spanners in the works for just about every discussion; even complained about the discussions themselves.

 

Then after a constant barrage of posts from about half a dozen people, using the false analagy that RAA had "outgrown the cricket club type organisation" a Limited Company was set up, whereupon the half dozen or so departed this site never to be heard from again.

 

The members got what the majority said they wanted, which was just to fly; pay a fee each year and fly.

 

Now we have the situation where the Limited Company, without any reference to its shareholders, which is quite normal in the big corporate world RAA mixes with today has decided not to issue labels.

 

They can do it.

 

What is the point of discussing registration numbers, incorporation into CASA whether CASA wants that or not, when the Directors of a Limited Company have been able to keep it profitable, thanks to your money, and are able to set their own destiny without being bothered by you.

 

There's nothing to stop anyone talking about improvements but the organisation structure stops at the front door of the company.

 

To be able to have meaningful disussions you have to take back the company and reform the organisation.

 

Personally, if I owned a Drifter or Thruster or other low performance aircraft I would be getting alarmed at some of the more recent discussions which seem to be aimed at supporting heavier, faster aircraft or somehow movingg into CASA.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

13 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Personally, if I owned a Drifter or Thruster or other low performance aircraft I would be getting alarmed at some of the more recent discussions which seem to be aimed at supporting heavier, faster aircraft or somehow movingg into CASA.

Actually I built and still own a 95.10 aircraft and would have no problem with CASA doing the work parliament gave it the powers and resources to do, and removing the un-necessary intermediary. CASA can do everything that RAAus does within its existing systems (delegations and authorisations) whilst maintaining the informality of the sector. Isn't that what ELAAA were trying to achieve?

 

[turboplanner]

8 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

NO! I'm reading the regulation:

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 201.003

Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases

             (1)  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.

             (2)  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, CASA exercising powers to conduct tests under regulation 139.135, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to those powers.

It seems as though they have so long as the act or omission of CASA IS done or made in good faith. 

Also in a number cases concerning the operation of ASAO aircraft, CASA has been found to have no liability for negligence.

If the Government was at all concerned about liability in these matters it would not allow VH registered gliders, maintained by unlicenced people to be flown by un-licenced pilots.

As a corollary, isn't it true that motor vehicles today are manufactured by firms to a standard, independently(?) certified by engineers not required to be members of any organisation? Thousands of people are killed and maimed on Australian roads each year and yet no one attaches any liability to the government for its administration of the ADR's.

1. CASR 201.003 is a statement of fact.  

   When aircraft are administered by a SAO, the SAO has the liability, so the government can make such a statement if it wishes. 

   Sometimes, like this, they do, sometimes like one Road Authority they don't. In that case I pointed out to the Authority that in not making it clear that certain performance standards             that they had handed over to private industry had never been announced, and so operators could be sued without being aware they had resonsibility. The Authority came back and said the potential number of vehicles involved was huge and they didn't know what to do. Announcing the changes now was likely to encourage lawsuits. I recommended simply posting the updated changes to the website. That way it didn't encourage false claims, but put an end to anyone claiming they didn't know after the post date. That's whet they did and CASR 201.003 is simply pointing out the obvious in relation to aircraft administered by an SAO.  

 

If the SAO breaches its duty of care, it gets sued.

 

2. "Also in a number cases concerning the operation of ASAO airccraft, CASA has been found to have no liability for negligence"

    

    That's the whole purpose of an SAO. Anyone can sue CASA, and CASA THEN can deny liability on the grounds that they had no duty of care; that the duty of care was with the SAO, and it would be unsurprising if a Court found they had no liability.

 

3. "If the Government was at all concerned about liability in these matters it would not allow VH registered gliders, maintained by unlicenced people to be flown by un-licenced pilots."

  

     The Gliding Federation of Australia is an SAO which carries the duty of care for its operations. VH Registration is just a number.

 

4.  As a corollary, isn't it true that motor vehicles today are manufactured by firms to a standard, independently(?) certified by engineers not required to be members of any organisation?

 

    Yes, there is low volume certification which allows you to build things like hot rods, and even, if you were patient and skilled your own car design. In the transport industry you can extend a wheelbase, and generally modify a truck specification in accordance with a National Code of Practice, signed off by a "Signatory" (Engineer approved by a State Road Authority). That process appears to be going through a change at the present time with ALL Engineers soon requiring registration. I haven't kept up with the relevence to motor vehicles lately, but just about any Engineer can gove you a couple of hours on why it shouldn't be happening.

     

5.  Thousands of people are killed and maimed on Australian roads each year and yet no one attaches any liability to the government for its administration of the ADR's

 

      They could if there's a mistake was made.

       The Federal Government has been very careful in the development of Australian Design Rules, working with the Manufacturers who usually point out faults quickly, and the  Government has also been very responsible in slowly building on Rules which have been proven to increase safety. However, they have made a few classics. One was in Trailer Braking, from memory ADR 35A which became ADR 38. There had been parked semi trailer runaways, and the new legislation introduced a requirement for all trailers to be fitted with parking brakes capable of holding the truck and trailer on a 20% slope for a period of time. They'd been thinking of tri axle semi trailers holding 8 tonne Prime Movers; what they hadn't thought of was the many cases where a small trailer was towed by a heavy truck. I gave 20 or so examples, the main on being a touring coach weighingover 20 tonnes being held on a hill by its little barbecue trailer. I supplied a rewritten clause and that was put straight into the ADR.

 

 

[turboplanner]

24 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

Actually I built and still own a 95.10 aircraft and would have no problem with CASA doing the work parliament gave it the powers and resources to do, and removing the un-necessary intermediary. CASA can do everything that RAAus does within its existing systems (delegations and authorisations) whilst maintaining the informality of the sector. Isn't that what ELAAA were trying to achieve?

 

You're persistently refusing to accept that in Australia, governments, not us, changed whatever system structures they could to avoid managing operations, thereby removing themselves as soft targets.  I did mention that it was a kindergarten fatality that started it all in South Australia in the 1980s which started it all. Without understanding that I accept that its' all hard to work out, but we've moved on and we aren't going back.

[Jim McDowall]

27 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

VH Registration is just a number.

My point exactly which is why ALL aircraft should be on the one, central register.

[Jim McDowall]

24 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

thereby removing themselves as soft targets

No, the reason they got into de-regulation was to minimise the growth of the public service, and their ever growing unfunded superannuation commitment. The world has moved on since the Hillmer report and many of its promised benefits has un-intended consequences that we are all living with today.

[Jim McDowall]

32 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

They could if there's a mistake was made.

There needs to be negligence, not merely a "mistake".

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

My point exactly which is why ALL aircraft should be on the one, central register.

If Transponders, or other identifiers are fitted to all aircraft I would agree,

However, at the present time, if an incident is noticed the first responder clearly knows it's a Recreational Aircraft or GA Aircraft for contact purposes.

[turboplanner]

Just now, Jim McDowall said:

There needs to be negligence, not merely a "mistake".

They could be if they were negligent then

[Jim McDowall]

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

If Transponders, or other identifiers are fitted to all aircraft I would agree,

However, at the present time, if an incident is noticed the first responder clearly knows it's a Recreational Aircraft or GA Aircraft for contact purposes.

None of that has anything to do with registration. It makes not a bit difference to a "first responder"  on whose register the aircraft is noted.

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

No, the reason they got into de-regulation was to minimise the growth of the public service, and their ever growing unfunded superannuation commitment. The world has moved on since the Hillmer report and many of its promised benefits has un-intended consequences that we are all living with today.

That could have also been a reason, but in what I posted, I was directly involved, our Federal Administrator was based in Adelaide, and I was speaking directly to the Victorian minister for Sport, and he was the one who had just returned from a national conference, I think in Perth, and he was the one who told me about the kindergarten and how he was offloading risk in his Department, and the the Victorian Department of Labour and Industry was about to be shut down and replaced by self administration.

 

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

None of that has anything to do with registration. It makes not a bit difference to a "first responder"  on whose register the aircraft is noted.

other than the difference between phoning RAA or ATSB

[Jim McDowall]

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

They could be if they were negligent then

Negligence in an administrative act is hard to prove and very costly to litigate. Govenments are very adept at losing critical pieces of evidence, delaying procedures and generally frustrating litigants.

[Jim McDowall]

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

other than the difference between phoning RAA or ATSB

They phone the ATSB who calls in the RAA which is well down the line from "first response" which is to assist victims the secure the site.

 

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

That could have also been a reason, but in what I posted, I was directly involved, our Federal Administrator was based in Adelaide, and I was speaking directly to the Victorian minister for Sport, and he was the one who had just returned from a national conference, I think in Perth, and he was the one who told me about the kindergarten and how he was offloading risk in his Department, and the the Victorian Department of Labour and Industry was about to be shut down and replaced by self administration.

 

Ministers in my experience are more keenly tuned to political risk than, financial or long run legal risk. 

[turboplanner]

48 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

Ministers in my experience are more keenly tuned to political risk than, financial or long run legal risk. 

That may be so, but I was giving you a specific example of Australian history.

[kasper]

4 hours ago, turboplanner said:

If RAA was an Incorporated Association, your could have these discussions, write to the Committee of Management and suggest them, and get a decision back, possibly in favour of the proposals.

 

However, if everyone recalls, the majority of members didn't want to get involved in managing their own affairs, in fact got on these forums and trew spanners in the works for just about every discussion; even complained about the discussions themselves.

 

Then after a constant barrage of posts from about half a dozen people, using the false analagy that RAA had "outgrown the cricket club type organisation" a Limited Company was set up, whereupon the half dozen or so departed this site never to be heard from again.

 

The members got what the majority said they wanted, which was just to fly; pay a fee each year and fly.

 

Now we have the situation where the Limited Company, without any reference to its shareholders, which is quite normal in the big corporate world RAA mixes with today has decided not to issue labels.

 

They can do it.

 

What is the point of discussing registration numbers, incorporation into CASA whether CASA wants that or not, when the Directors of a Limited Company have been able to keep it profitable, thanks to your money, and are able to set their own destiny without being bothered by you.

 

There's nothing to stop anyone talking about improvements but the organisation structure stops at the front door of the company.

 

To be able to have meaningful disussions you have to take back the company and reform the organisation.

 

Personally, if I owned a Drifter or Thruster or other low performance aircraft I would be getting alarmed at some of the more recent discussions which seem to be aimed at supporting heavier, faster aircraft or somehow movingg into CASA.

 

 

 

 

 

Yep,

 

As one of the people who saw the company structure change as poor and the documents to create it even poorer and who owns 4 self designed and built airframes I am spitting chips over the changes within RAAus and in particular the changes in the recent 95.10 changes ... look out all you 95.55 experimental home built  ... when CASA get to redrafting that one it will be impacting a whole lot more people than just us old farts still tinkering and building within 95.10 limits.

Edited November 5, 2020 by kasper

[Yenn]

I would like to see someone come up with a way to control aircraft, including register them. Also a way to work out the legislation to enable a person who gives money to RAAus can fly an aircraft that is not GA rego. Also a way to enable  GA pilot to fly an aircraft controlled by RAAus. So far people are calling for a means to tly RAAus reg aircraft without them being RAAus rego and also a way to fly cheaply.

Lets ahve a look at what sort of legislation would accomplish their desires.

Personally I would like to be able to fly any aircraft on my PPL. Plus have my RAAus reg plane on the GA register.

[turboplanner]

31 minutes ago, Yenn said:

I would like to see someone come up with a way to control aircraft, including register them. Also a way to work out the legislation to enable a person who gives money to RAAus can fly an aircraft that is not GA rego. Also a way to enable  GA pilot to fly an aircraft controlled by RAAus. So far people are calling for a means to tly RAAus reg aircraft without them being RAAus rego and also a way to fly cheaply.

Lets ahve a look at what sort of legislation would accomplish their desires.

Personally I would like to be able to fly any aircraft on my PPL. Plus have my RAAus reg plane on the GA register.

You probably have received all those things you asked for over the years from RAA Inc (not RAA Ltd.) You might not have recognised them in the format they were given, however you should be able to search for the Annual Agreements on the CASA site. Last time I checked which was about a month ago the 2010 Agreement with all our obligations (which have never ceased btw) was still there.

 

Even the more complex pilot requirements like yours have been addressed. I can understand how even airline pilots would like to take up a Drifter now ad again.

[440032]

11 hours ago, turboplanner said:

...........however, CASA does not have to deny liability because these aircraft are administered by SAAA, a Self Administering Organisation.

 

Incorrect Turbo.

SAAA is not a self administering organisation (like RAAus, GFA, ASRA and others etc are), though we are often referred to as such.

SAAA does not administer/run/control/register Experimental aircraft - CASA does. Yes, SAAA plays in the Experimental sandpit, the major player absolutely, but SAAA does not own it or run it.

You can be involved in Experimental aircraft and have no involvement whatsoever with SAAA if you choose.

Experimental aircraft operate to all CASA's rules, not a whole string of exemptions. Plus, SAAA has a few approvals for a few things, all via CASA regulation or other approvals.

 

 

[jackc]

On 04/11/2020 at 7:16 AM, Jim McDowall said:

It beggars belief that ALL Australian aircraft are not recorded on the Australian Aircraft Register operated by CASA. Registration is not an airworthiness indicator. The CAO requires that RAA aircraft are recorded on a register. This happens once and is only changed when ownership changes or is removed from the register (does this happen?). A few keystrokes by a low paid employee.

This annual registration scam is a hangover from the model created by/for GFA and only illustrates in a small way why CASA should be instructed by parliament to treat ALL aircraft in the same way and to stop subcontracting THEIR aviation administration to private, volunteer bodies that pass on the costs to their members who are forced by law to be members in order to conduct aviation activities within the law.

It is time that CASA realised that the population at large is better educated than they were in WW2, and will act responsibly (as the majority of VH people do) if allowed to; they do not need to be "managed" by well meaning amateurs. The "ultralight/microlight" movement has evolved since the days of the Wheeler Scout and Thruster. The majority of our aircraft are as capable as the smaller Cessna or Pipers and built to known standards.

After all about 10% of the VH register were not built to type certificates - the experimental "homebuilts". 

There is no good reason that RAAus aircraft should not be on the CASA register on the same terms as VH aircraft as they are in most of the civilised world.

RAA should be allowed to fly in controlled airspace with required instrumentation, too.

[jackc]

23 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Removing the rego card from RA aircraft won't change anything. Who ever looked at them anyway. I've never seen any RA or CASA people walking around at any flyin checking rego cards. There are aircraft around especially in remote areas or on farm strips that have never been registered & having a card or not won't alter this. You will still have to produce your current rego certificate if requested though.

In that case.....why even bother with a licence,  the way things are today.......IF I studied enough You Tube videos I could just jump in and fly, from a bush airstrip!!

[jackc]

 Jeez....all this, all I wanted was a rego card for my plane 🙂. 

[turboplanner]

3 hours ago, 440032 said:

Incorrect Turbo.

SAAA is not a self administering organisation (like RAAus, GFA, ASRA and others etc are), though we are often referred to as such.

SAAA does not administer/run/control/register Experimental aircraft - CASA does. Yes, SAAA plays in the Experimental sandpit, the major player absolutely, but SAAA does not own it or run it.

You can be involved in Experimental aircraft and have no involvement whatsoever with SAAA if you choose.

Experimental aircraft operate to all CASA's rules, not a whole string of exemptions. Plus, SAAA has a few approvals for a few things, all via CASA regulation or other approvals.

 

Well you better tell CASA they made a mistake then because CASA specifically list Sport Aircraft Association of Australia as a Self Administering Organisation.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but it does indicate you might be exposed to liability you're not aware of.

 

[440032]

CASA made a mistake? Surely not!😶