RAA…..is it me?

[Thruster88]

21 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

You'll hear about that when someone causes a death or serious injury. It'll be a complaining thread too; not enough insurance to cover the legal bills and the claim awarded to the injured.

I think there have been plenty of potential test cases,  accidents,  since the RAAus "insurance" began. Start date anyone?   

[turboplanner]

33 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

I think there have been plenty of potential test cases,  accidents,  since the RAAus "insurance" began. Start date anyone?   

Not plenty, the owner, maintainer, pilot etc needs to have breached his/her duty of care before anyone gets interested. I've counted about three in RA the last 16 that in my opinion would have been successful claims, but in each case the plaintiff didn't hire a specialist PL lawyer and lost the cases because they sued on the wrong basis/subject. You might get a $40,000 claim if someone cuts a finger off where you left flashing untrimmed, but its where someone is permanently injured of killed that the multi-million dollar claims start. At one point in RAA Inc. days a Board Member said "One more claim will put us out of business" but he never explained that as far as I can remember.

[BrendAn]

So if someone has an accident how will anyone know if the aircraft has any non approved parts or mods.

Raaus made it clear they will Not investigate accidents any more and casa won't do it because it's  raaus  responsibility.

Edited June 30, 2023 by BrendAn

[Area-51]

Just peel label off old prop and stick it on new prop 🤷🏼‍♂️

[clouddancer]

First question. Is a Bolly prop legal on a Gazelle?

Because Gazelle’s are Type Certified, not originally. Allsize were the original certified prop.

But yes, if the MARAP process has been followed you can put a Bolly prop on a Gazelle.
MARAP is exactly like a STC for RAAus Type Certified aircraft.

So did the original owner pay for a MARAP for a Bolly prop? 
seems like the answer is no.

is this fair on a subsequent owner? No, but buyer beware.

Do research before you buy an aircraft, confirm what is original.

[jackc]

Just fit what other owners have and what works.  Fly happy 😃 In this case, screw the MARAP system, your aircraft wont care 🙂 

[RFguy]

I think it is fine to say  'screw the MARAP system ' as long as you can demonstrate AND  document that you did your homework (specification suitability) AND followed best practice. 

 

The insurance issues are something else. I'd be assuming your airframe insurance wont be covered / valid so forget that.  I suggest to people if they have or want a factory aircraft , get one that doesn't need mods, not too old,  and insure it fully, or go the other side which is fly an 19- aircraft, forget insurance (would it really payout)  that screams experimental on the instrument panel and fly it with care and not over built up areas without able to glide.   If you are going to crash big time, well you'll probably be dead anyway so don't worry.  Its a reason I'm selling my 24- Jab230 and will look for a 19- aircraft . 

 

[kgwilson]

Absolutely the best and least expensive way to fly is to build your own aircraft especially an approved design. You can modify it and maintain it yourself and you have the satisfaction of knowing that you are not trusting the strength and integrity of the build to anyone else but you. I am talking about a full build of every nut, bolt, rivet and fibreglass/resin part here not a quick build kit which is more like an assembly and paint job.

 

Not flying over built up areas and in controlled airspace are just stupid rules that mean nothing as far as I am concerned. The only thing is that my aircraft has 19 & not VH in the rego. If I was across the ditch there is no difference.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Absolutely the best and least expensive way to fly is to build your own aircraft especially an approved design.

That, of course, would be true for those who could do it, but remember there are more pilot's licences and/or certificates than there are aircraft in the country. The majority of those wishing to be the PIC have to beg, borrow or rent. 

 

I doubt that anyone here would accept that the aircraft we use should be safe to use, and the others who share the air with us are competent to be there. This topic isn't really about those things. It is not even about the system that is in place to ensure both those things. It is about the pricing of services that seem to be set more under the influence of the ideas of commercial concerns for profit than simply meeting what really are acceptable standards. Standards that the users themselves see as the ways and means to meet the goal of safe participation in an activity.

 

We don't run a modern organisation with Bob Cratchit's workstation  or typing pools  and store data in a compactus 

 

Why then must an organisation charge such great amounts when all these things have been replaced by a workstation with a computer accessing a data storage device?

[jackc]

Australian Aviation will always have a problem with 800+ CASA employees of which few have a Pilots licence of some sort, administering about 9000 aircraft.

Then you have the FAA in the U.S. with 49 employees administering some 30,000 aircraft.

You can see CASA is way over MTOW 🙂 

[kgwilson]

49?? According to US government Accountability office there are nearly 45,000 FAA employees.

 

FAA Workforce: Better Assessing Employees' Skill Gaps Could Help FAA Prepare for Changes in Technology

WWW.GAO.GOV

---

The Federal Aviation Administration relies on a workforce of nearly 45,000 to operate the national airspace system. Changes in the aviation industry...

 

[jackc]

I was sure I picked that up from the AOPA broadcast Thursday night……

[facthunter]

I suppose using the term "BUMS in Seats" would be out of the question?  The "LAW of GRAVITY" is the main law that has to be obeyed. Lawyers are always a cost impost on any process and Pilot's etc know what is really going on. not lawyers in Offices.  Nev

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, jackc said:

Australian Aviation will always have a problem with 800+ CASA employees of which few have a Pilots licence of some sort, administering about 9000 aircraft.

Then you have the FAA in the U.S. with 49 employees administering some 30,000 aircraft.

You can see CASA is way over MTOW 🙂 

That might be a slight error Brent.

[facthunter]

Are Air Traffic Controllers here, employees of the CASA? Nev. 

[Garfly]

On 30/06/2023 at 6:53 AM, pmccarthy said:

 And all that traffic over cities where you would be looking for a golf course

 

 

Speaking of which ... I just asked old mate "Student Pilot", who is currently in Turkey

doing fire work in an AT8, to send some pics. In this one he's keeping an eye out

for golf courses in the city of Adana.  (But then, he is behind a turbine.   ;- )

 

 

[kgwilson]

Air Traffic Controllers are employed by Air Services Australia. If you add their 3600 to CASA's 900 gives a better comparison of 4,500 to the FAAs 45,000

[facthunter]

There's others as well like those that repair systems and structures. In the US it's probably all included under FAA cost  Nev

[440032]

There are not 3600 ATC controllers in Australia. Somewhere around 900. Plus about 800 or so other staff.

 

[kgwilson]

52 minutes ago, 440032 said:

There are not 3600 ATC controllers in Australia. Somewhere around 900. Plus about 800 or so other staff.

 

No 3600 is the total of all ATC employees

[440032]

Ah - OK, I found some other site which said about 1700. Airservices site does say 3400. (Lots of Chiefs, not many Indians.)

I never saw 3400 when I was there!

[BrendAn]

On 30/06/2023 at 3:49 PM, Thruster88 said:

I am guessing there would be a significant number of RAAus aircraft that may need a MARAP or three to be compliant with RAAus regulations. Would such aircraft be disqualified from the "insurance" that is often touted as a member benefit when fees are raised? 

 

Has anyone ever received benefit from the "insurance" or know of anyone receiving benefit? 

yes. remember the jabiru on the news a while back that hit the hangar at goolwa. i think it was goolwa anyway.   well the raaus liability policy paid for all damage promptly and without any fuss. which is good to know. 

[BrendAn]

Just now, BrendAn said:

yes. remember the jabiru on the news a while back that hit the hangar at goolwa. i think it was goolwa anyway.   well the raaus liability policy paid for all damage promptly and without any fuss. which is good to know. 

[440032]

Well, someone did say "park it in the back of the hangar"

[BrendAn]

7 hours ago, 440032 said:

Well, someone did say "park it in the back of the hangar"

its sort of looks like modern art.