raaus getting serious about acr's

[BrendAn]

anyone contemplating selling an raaus aircraft now make sure you tick all the boxes. we have had a condition report come back 3 times for additional information. i spoke to the raas office and they told me from now on every condition report gets audited and any missing info no matter how trivial will be required.  the acr is effectively now an airworthiness report and they are going to hold the l2 who signs it off responsible .  so i imagine we expect acr's to become quite expensive due to insurance cover now.  

and referring to a point skippy brought up a while back. when you transport your ac with the wings removed you have to get it signed off by an l2 once its reassembled.    

[Blueadventures]

16 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

anyone contemplating selling an raaus aircraft now make sure you tick all the boxes. we have had a condition report come back 3 times for additional information. i spoke to the raas office and they told me from now on every condition report gets audited and any missing info no matter how trivial will be required.  the acr is effectively now an airworthiness report and they are going to hold the l2 who signs it off responsible .  so i imagine we expect acr's to become quite expensive due to insurance cover now.  

and referring to a point skippy brought up a while back. when you transport your ac with the wings removed you have to get it signed off by an l2 once its reassembled.    

What were the 3 missing details; fair request from RAA I hope.  Any missing or incorrect detail has to be of benefit to the present owner; aside from any inconvenience.

[spacesailor]

If ' unregistered ' .

Is a condition report necessary. 

How to get said ' report ' for a none flying , unregistered aircraft !.

I don't believe I'll be allowed to fly in to get a condition report .

And no insurance as it would be invalid. 

spacesailor

 

[Thruster88]

Who would want to be an L2 anymore?  One can buy or sell a VH Cessna, or Experimental, regardless of condition, without a valid maintenance release in casa land. Why make it more onerous. I see more aircraft staying in the shed. RAAus registered aircraft have been in decline for some time now.

[BrendAn]

6 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

What were the 3 missing details; fair request from RAA I hope.  Any missing or incorrect detail has to be of benefit to the present owner; aside from any inconvenience.

1.   They wanted confirmation that the L2 had heard the engine running smoothly even though it was packed up on a trailer. Luckily he had flown it himself.

 

2.  They wanted the placard in the panel changed to 450 kg mtow even though it has been registered for 24 years at 544 mtow.

 

3.  It had a prop change which is in the log book verified with a photo of log book page even though it has been transferred with that prop change before. It is 19 reg prop changes are allowed .

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I don't know the background to this debate however from the proceeding comments (particularly from Thruster 88, "One can buy or sell a VH Cessna, or Experimental, regardless of condition, without a valid maintenance release in casa land" ) I can't for the life of me understand why RAA would involve themselves in aircraft selling/purchase condition reports. To do so invites legal claims, adds to the general cost of operation, ultimately passed on to the members and provides no discernible benefit. Selling/ purchasing an asset (aircraft) is nobody's business outside the parties involved. 

[440032]

The RAAus aircraft condition report has several important things that I think PROTECT the L2:

I just looked up the form on their website - I'm not an RAAus member.

 

The Level 2 / 4 inspector (or LAME) does not assume responsibility for the airworthiness or otherwise of
this aircraft. Airworthiness of the aircraft rests solely with the owner.

It's not the L2's airplane - indeed they may have never seen it before, or will ever again.

 

In the checklist there are PASS or FAIL columns. And then a sign-off:

This certification does not infer that I consider the aircraft to be airworthy or otherwise.

It is a condition report, not a "this aircraft is 100% airworthy and will remain so forever" report. Nor is it any sort of repairs required order. It's a report by an independent experienced person that RAAus has appointed, describing what they see. Once their inspection is complete - their job for this task is done. What happens after that - not their responsibility, it's still not their airplane! A wise buyer or seller will evaluate any fails noted and hopefully address them.

 

It seems to me to be a good program to require this independent condition report at time of sale and it's a good way for RAAus to track over time, changes made to the aircraft.

 

[Blueadventures]

4 hours ago, BrendAn said:

1.   They wanted confirmation that the L2 had heard the engine running smoothly even though it was packed up on a trailer. Luckily he had flown it himself.

 

2.  They wanted the placard in the panel changed to 450 kg mtow even though it has been registered for 24 years at 544 mtow.

 

3.  It had a prop change which is in the log book verified with a photo of log book page even though it has been transferred with that prop change before. It is 19 reg prop changes are allowed .

 

 

 

Regarding #3; When I emailed RAA about a change of prop (DUC replaced with E-Props) so my registration details could be correct I got a call from Jarrod at tech and was told would need an engineering report etc, I was shocked and as the conversation continued he became aware that my aircraft was 19 reg, I was the builder and the actual weight of the DUC and the fitted E-Props had the change in weight well under the allowable percentage that would trigger a further w&b all was now satisfactory to allow the update of details without the additional paperwork being required.  I had in fact conducted a weigh of the aircraft and just have a record of that data.

 

Re #1; My take is any aircraft that cannot run its engine is noted on the report as not run and the reason and note that the engine is to be maintained IAW Rotax before its next flight, including when last run or flown if known and such would be acceptable to RAA.  Sounds like the report needed more comment detail.

 

Re #2; MTOW can be an issue and needs to be supported.  A mate up here has a factory built Sav S and it has had the 600kg upgrade done and in the log book but RAA shows it at its original MTOW; he is going to contact RAA to get 600kg on its file; I ask him on Sunday where he is at with that.

 

Overall I reckon the reports are an opportunity for RAA and the Owner to get an independent appraisal of the aircrafts condition.  We hear of owner's shortcutting the maintenance privilege we have that leads to accidents and incidents, so these reports are a good thing in my view.   We also hear of examples about poor quality inspection reports and this is another thing for RAA to address and same occurs in GA with certain LAME's and both are unfortunate situations.

Edited February 26 by Blueadventures
spelling

[BrendAn]

3 hours ago, 440032 said:

The RAAus aircraft condition report has several important things that I think PROTECT the L2:

I just looked up the form on their website - I'm not an RAAus member.

 

The Level 2 / 4 inspector (or LAME) does not assume responsibility for the airworthiness or otherwise of
this aircraft. Airworthiness of the aircraft rests solely with the owner.

It's not the L2's airplane - indeed they may have never seen it before, or will ever again.

 

In the checklist there are PASS or FAIL columns. And then a sign-off:

This certification does not infer that I consider the aircraft to be airworthy or otherwise.

It is a condition report, not a "this aircraft is 100% airworthy and will remain so forever" report. Nor is it any sort of repairs required order. It's a report by an independent experienced person that RAAus has appointed, describing what they see. Once their inspection is complete - their job for this task is done. What happens after that - not their responsibility, it's still not their airplane! A wise buyer or seller will evaluate any fails noted and hopefully address them.

 

It seems to me to be a good program to require this independent condition report at time of sale and it's a good way for RAAus to track over time, changes made to the aircraft.

 

and thats what they are changing. they want to make it an airworthiness report and hold l2 responsible . and if they do this acr and transfer fees and rego will all have to increase to cover the extra workload of raas staff.  

Edited February 27 by BrendAn

[spacesailor]

But a " none flyer " is still " a none flyer " .

And should not require any bureaucratic law . To sell it .

( buyer beware).

spacesailor

[facthunter]

If you rebuilt a DH 60 you'd only need the engine and the data plate. RAAus want an L2 to offer his/her services to all comers. In what other situation do you not have the right to deal  only with people you choose to. Some people involved with Planes are too much of a liability to put your name to..  Nev

[jackc]

Do all your own work on your own plane and accept all liability that goes with it.  There are some qualified people I would not trust to make a paper plane fly across a lounge room and there are some I would trust with my life to get the right advice from. 
RAAus?   Sorry but I have lost my faith in most of that place. It’s losing its way with regulatory direction. 

[skippydiesel]

This is all bovine excrement - When I recently purchased an aircraft, I chose to employ an engineer and asked a  number of experienced pilots, to check it out for me. Only after their good reports, did I do my own investigation and then commit to purchase.

RAA had nothing to do with it and neither should they.

Having some sort of assurance from RAA, no matter how minour/full of escape clauses, is just ridiculous - this is not a service/requirement that RAA should be involved with.

People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions/decision - employ/ask experienced/qualified people for help, even if you think you have all the experince you need - independent assessment is always beneficial but should not be provided/required by RAA.

[facthunter]

People expert with the type preferably. Not the bloke who has been maintaining it. Nev

[turboplanner]

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions/decision 

Not these days. RAA have to address forseeable risk with the things they authorise. It sounds to me like they're on the mark. Guys employed out on the mines or in risk positions aren't left to find a friend or hire someone to cehck their equipment.

Edited February 27 by turboplanner

[BrendAn]

27 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Not these days. RAA have to address forseeable risk with the things they authorise. It sounds to me like they're on the mark. Guys employed out on the mines or in risk positions aren't left to find a friend or hire someone to cehck their equipment.

The aircraft condition report was exactly that . The condition of the AC recorded at change of ownership, the onis was on the new owner to ensure airworthiness.  Now it seems raaus is taking this into their hands. 

[turboplanner]

49 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

The aircraft condition report was exactly that . The condition of the AC recorded at change of ownership, the onis was on the new owner to ensure airworthiness.  Now it seems raaus is taking this into their hands. 

What you are talking about is the old Caviat Emptor; “Let the buyer beware” For safety items things are different these days.

[Blueadventures]

57 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

The aircraft condition report was exactly that . The condition of the AC recorded at change of ownership, the onis was on the new owner to ensure airworthiness.  Now it seems raaus is taking this into their hands. 

Also for an aircraft presented in flying condition at time of sale otherwise a Form 28 would be the change of ownership and do the form 13 before flight is undertaken.  Might be a good article for the Sport Pilot so we all know the procedure.  

[jackc]

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

This is all bovine excrement - When I recently purchased an aircraft, I chose to employ an engineer and asked a  number of experienced pilots, to check it out for me. Only after their good reports, did I do my own investigation and then commit to purchase.

RAA had nothing to do with it and neither should they.

Having some sort of assurance from RAA, no matter how minour/full of escape clauses, is just ridiculous - this is not a service/requirement that RAA should be involved with.

People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions/decision - employ/ask experienced/qualified people for help, even if you think you have all the experince you need - independent assessment is always beneficial but should not be provided/required by RAA.

Well, I made a purchase decision being a green horn, I asked for work to be done and it wasn’t, modifications not in log book, 5 year Rotax rubber replacement using date stamped hoses 6 years old……..I could go on, but won’t.  Complained to RAA about how useless a condition report was anyway, as aircraft ended up a death trap…….yeah, I have raved on about all this before. My previous Flying School would not hand over my log books, complained to RAA, care factor zero.  
RAA are too busy dreaming about how much money they can score out of members for an MARAP…….and the b/s you need to go through for simple stuff. Rant over 🤩

[KRviator]

9 hours ago, jackc said:

My previous Flying School would not hand over my log books, complained to RAA, care factor zero.  

Not that new students are aware of this, but if enough of us keep saying it, maybe the word'll go out. 

 

DO NOT keep your logbooks at your school. They are your personal property. 

If the school collapses, you'll have to deal with an Administrator to try to get them back and good luck with that. Keep them in your flight bag and nowhere else - if your instructor says "You need to store it here!", politely decline and say "While I'm sure it won't happen here, I've heard enough horror stories of school's going under and student's losing access to their logbooks, and that would severely disrupt my training. So I'd prefer to keep it at home in in my flight bag, and bring it to each lesson same as my headset".

[skippydiesel]

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

What you are talking about is the old Caviat Emptor; “Let the buyer beware” For safety items things are different these days.

So what third party is assessing the safety of the next vehicle you purchase?????? or for your currency as a driver???? in other words  there is nothing diffrent these days.

 

RAA should confine its activities to promoting recreational aircraft/activities, registering the same, lobbying on members behalf and overseeing pilot competence. Anything more will be overreach that will cost you and I for no discernible benefit.

[facthunter]

A LOG BOOK is YOUR's. a school can't keep it.   Nev

[turboplanner]

39 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

So what third party is assessing the safety of the next vehicle you purchase?????? or for your currency as a driver???? in other words  there is nothing diffrent these days.

 

RAA should confine its activities to promoting recreational aircraft/activities, registering the same, lobbying on members behalf and overseeing pilot competence. Anything more will be overreach that will cost you and I for no discernible benefit.

[The last post should have read Caveat] 

Well, I  pull the aircraft out of the shed and bolt its wings on by hand, get a phone call before I find a spanner, go out in the ute and help a friend then the next day come back to the aircraft and think "where was I, I know, fit the new hoses.

 

The buyer goes around, everything feels fine hands over his money and takes off for home whereupon the wings clap and he and his passenger suffer serious injuries.

 

Who do you think's going to pay for the injuries when they find the nuts aren't torqued?

 

 

[skippydiesel]

36 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

[The last post should have read Caveat] 

Well, I  pull the aircraft out of the shed and bolt its wings on by hand, get a phone call before I find a spanner, go out in the ute and help a friend then the next day come back to the aircraft and think "where was I, I know, fit the new hoses.

 

The buyer goes around, everything feels fine hands over his money and takes off for home whereupon the wings clap and he and his passenger suffer serious injuries.

 

Who do you think's going to pay for the injuries when they find the nuts aren't torqued?

 

 

Maaaate! RAA (with annual rego renewal )covers my aircraft hull. Comprehensive addresses most other eventualities - about as well covered as I can be.

 

You seem to think I am advocating for unsafe aircraft - I AM NOT! I just dont think RAA should be acting as big brother in aircraft sale/purchase transaction - this is an added administrative cost and likely insurance cover for RAA, that we, the members,  ill have the wear and what practical benefit will you and I get???? .

 

Anyone, with two brain cells to rub together, can access professional aircraft inspection/engineering report, ask for fellow experienced pilots (preferably in type) to help. IF the purchaser  chooses not to seek third party advice/opinions, the responsibility for the purchase lies with them alone, as it should do.

 

In your scenario above - the injured or relatives, of the pilot/passenger have the option to have the cause of the aircraft crash  investigated - if the vendor has been negligent (as you describe) there may be grounds for a compensation claim against his/her estate and even the possibility criminal proceedings - this is surely enough, without RAA getting involved in token QA of an aircraft to be sold/purchased.

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

[The last post should have read Caveat] 

Well, I  pull the aircraft out of the shed and bolt its wings on by hand, get a phone call before I find a spanner, go out in the ute and help a friend then the next day come back to the aircraft and think "where was I, I know, fit the new hoses.

 

The buyer goes around, everything feels fine hands over his money and takes off for home whereupon the wings clap and he and his passenger suffer serious injuries.

 

Who do you think's going to pay for the injuries when they find the nuts aren't torqued?

 

 

Well if the buyer has half an idea about aircraft he would double check everything like most of us do before every flight.  And the fact that the wing bolts would be missing safety clips is  a give away that it's not finished.