raaus getting serious about acr's

[Blueadventures]

10 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I agree with (1) holding inspectors of any kind/level accountable for their report(s) - (2)what I don't agree with is (2) RAA somehow being responsible for the condition of an aircraft, at any stage of its operational life including being sold/purchased.

 

My opinions above, may sound the same/similar BUT (1) is holding an authorised person to account  (2) is making RAA accountable/liable needing more staff/insurance for very little if any gain. Why? - If this is to be an effective authority, it will require enforcement, an inspectorate/police, punishment, sufficient funds to fight the inevitable court battle(s) brought by aggrieved members and authorised persons. This will all need funding - do I need to spell out to the RAA membership where the $$$$$ will come from? 

The fault lies at the feet of the owner / maintainer who does the annual, 100 hourly other maintenance repairs etc in the first place.

Edited March 1 by Blueadventures

[jackc]

When I complained about my ‘historical’ condition report and detailed some of the deficiencies, no one cared at RAA. 
I think the whole system needs an overhaul and a regulations rewrite.

To make it clear, simple and unambiguous. 
Next, can RAA demand to see a copy of an aircraft log book?  Under what documented regulation.? 
 

[BrendAn]

55 minutes ago, jackc said:

When I complained about my ‘historical’ condition report and detailed some of the deficiencies, no one cared at RAA. 
I think the whole system needs an overhaul and a regulations rewrite.

To make it clear, simple and unambiguous. 
Next, can RAA demand to see a copy of an aircraft log book?  Under what documented regulation.? 
 

I guess there have been enough complaints like yours to get them doing something. 

[jackc]

14 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

I guess there have been enough complaints like yours to get them doing something. 

Well, I think the system is broken but over regulation is not really needed,  there are some good people at RAA, but there are some with a fixation on making a big deal about certain things……we are approaching GA CASA type regulation. 
Training  L2  people would be a start, because there will be a major shortage soon, that is already the case in some ways, so RAA needs to up their game in several ways. 
 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

I agree with (1) holding inspectors of any kind/level accountable for their report(s) - (2)what I don't agree with is (2) RAA somehow being responsible for the condition of an aircraft, at any stage of its operational life including being sold/purchased.

 

My opinions above, may sound the same/similar BUT (1) is holding an authorised person to account  (2) is making RAA accountable/liable needing more staff/insurance for very little if any gain. Why? - If this is to be an effective authority, it will require enforcement, an inspectorate/police, punishment, sufficient funds to fight the inevitable court battle(s) brought by aggrieved members and authorised persons. This will all need funding - do I need to spell out to the RAA membership where the $$$$$ will come from? 

RAA Ltd whether you agree or not or like it or not is permitted to conduct recreational flying by CASA on a self administration basis. No independent administration? RA flying ends.

 

Under self administration RAA Ltd has some obligations to maintain safety. Whether you agree or disagree with how they are going about it, it is what it is. There a ways a substantial bloc of members can get together and do things a better way if there is a better way, but the its clear and unmistakeable that the majority are quite happy to go along with it, and you've got two good examples in the posts above.

[facthunter]

If there's widespread disregard for keeping aircraft log books what action if any do you think RAAus should take? It's necessary for good maintenance and is a requirement that certain entries be made in certain circumstances. In the event of an incident or accident you would have to produce it by people like the coroner and intending purchasers would expect you to have kept these records as a matter of course.  Nev

[Blueadventures]

8 minutes ago, facthunter said:

If there's widespread disregard for keeping aircraft log books what action if any do you think RAAus should take? It's necessary for good maintenance and is a requirement that certain entries be made in certain circumstances. In the event of an incident or accident you would have to produce it by people like the coroner and intending purchasers would expect you to have kept these records as a matter of course.  Nev

Maybe 7 years ago they said they did a check of one months renewals; an audit type check of 300 rego renewals and found 30 non-compliant, that's 10%.  This would be a good guess at what they are wanting to fix. 

[jackc]

13 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Maybe 7 years ago they said they did a check of one months renewals; an audit type check of 300 rego renewals and found 30 non-compliant, that's 10%.  This would be a good guess at what they are wanting to fix. 

Well, then give us an overview of the 30 non compliant issues, so that they are identified to ensure that people are aware of important requirements. 
Infact, ALL non compliant findings should be reported after any audit or investigation regime.

IF all this is not out in the open, then it’s being run as a secret squirrel operation. 
If RAA wants respect as a peak body, it has to show respect or people’s attitude to compliance etc will go backwards. 

[skippydiesel]

55 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

RAA Ltd whether you agree or not or like it or not is permitted to conduct recreational flying by CASA on a self administration basis. No independent administration? RA flying ends.

I have no wish to undermine or see RAA disappear and doubt very much that, in the unlikly event of it doing so, "RA flying ends."  - this is hyperbole. Should RAA resign/be closed down, the flying members & their aircraft, would be accommodated under GA.

55 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

 

Under self administration RAA Ltd has some obligations to maintain safety. I would say safety standards, which do not require RAA to become a resource for people selling/purchasing aircraft Whether you agree or disagree with how they are going about it, it is what it is. There a ways a substantial bloc of members can get together and do things a better way if there is a better way, but the its clear and unmistakeable that the majority are quite happy to go along with it, Are you sure about that ? - People go along with many things, that is until it affects them personally, in this case it would likely be a sharp increase in membership and other fees, resulting in acute pain in the wallet and you've got two good examples in the posts above.

Further to the last point in blue - cost of flying is already a disputed point between RAA & GA. At the moment I think, when all is taken into account, RAA is the cheaper (but comes at the cost of the Certified pilots entry to controlled airspace and limited to two seats.) A hike in fees may tip the balance in favour of GA.

Edited March 1 by skippydiesel

[Blueadventures]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

Well, then give us an overview of the 30 non compliant issues, so that they are identified to ensure that people are aware of important requirements. 
Infact, ALL non compliant findings should be reported after any audit or investigation regime.

IF all this is not out in the open, then it’s being run as a secret squirrel operation. 
If RAA wants respect as a peak body, it has to show respect or people’s attitude to compliance etc will go backwards. 

They seem to style the tech reports in the Sport Pilot magazine from these findings.  I have a copy of the maintenance authorities and what L1, L2 and L4's can do on my hangar wall (it was in a past Sport Pilot) so any opinions people have can be sorted.  Saves any incorrect info getting shared around.

Edited March 1 by Blueadventures

[Flightrite]

As soon as Part 43 comes to fruition I’ll be dumping RA on all my planes like a hot potatoes! It’s a millionaire’s club now!🤮

[jackc]

I don’t see this enforcement is a real possibility, so someone dumps on an L2, is RAA going to inspect said aircraft and audit logbooks?  IF someone reveals a dodgy job, will that person be prepared to give evidence in court of law and provide evidence to the prosecution?  What will RAA do?

This could turn into a minefield in more ways than one.  If an owner does work, under the table…..they simply deny it and it’s  up to someone in authority to prove  they actually are guilty.  RAA is a company,  what authority do they have in this instance? 
Does CASA become involved?

This whole thing is a giant mess, perpetrated by a slow loss of L2 and L4 from Aviation.

NO organisation wants to train any, so the shortage will make problems worse over time.

So, the peak bodies need to get off their a……and work out a training regime.

otherwise the availability of qualified people will simply dry up, those remaining……will give the game away, from too much stress. 
And, more people will undertake work on their own aircraft, some at great risk…….

 

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

I don’t see this enforcement is a real possibility, so someone dumps on an L2, is RAA going to inspect said aircraft and audit logbooks?  IF someone reveals a dodgy job, will that person be prepared to give evidence in court of law and provide evidence to the prosecution?  What will RAA do?

This could turn into a minefield in more ways than one.  If an owner does work, under the table…..they simply deny it and it’s  up to someone in authority to prove  they actually are guilty.  RAA is a company,  what authority do they have in this instance? 
Does CASA become involved?

This whole thing is a giant mess, perpetrated by a slow loss of L2 and L4 from Aviation.

NO organisation wants to train any, so the shortage will make problems worse over time.

So, the peak bodies need to get off their a……and work out a training regime.

otherwise the availability of qualified people will simply dry up, those remaining……will give the game away, from too much stress. 
And, more people will undertake work on their own aircraft, some at great risk…….

 

l4s wouldn't care about raaus. plenty of ga work to do.  if the l2 is responsible for what he put on the condition report they are going to be looking pretty hard at it if the ac has an accident within the 30 day period.

[facthunter]

If they toughen up on the requirements for a "CONDITION" report, who in their right mind would do it if the SHOW doesn't back you up.. The owner/operator has the responsibility for it's continued airworthiness same as in GA or Airlines.    Nev

[jackc]

36 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

l4s wouldn't care about raaus. plenty of ga work to do.  if the l2 is responsible for what he put on the condition report they are going to be looking pretty hard at it if the ac has an accident within the 30 day period.

RAA does not want to investigate accidents now.  IF Pilot dies, RAA wont bother either.

It will just get all too hard for them, a payout on their insurance might stir some action, but I doubt it.

[Blueadventures]

21 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

l4s wouldn't care about raaus. plenty of ga work to do.  if the l2 is responsible for what he put on the condition report they are going to be looking pretty hard at it if the ac has an accident within the 30 day period.

I don't think so as its who did the annual maintenance IAW manufacturer, and the engine service IAW manufacturer, and propellor IAW manufacturer, etc. It's a condition report as presented that includes an engine run etc and flight details by the PIC.  Some things will stand out some wont.  I did an inspection (not a condition report) for a guy for a Sav VG; I listed 20 odd issues I was concerned about and advised him to show the images and report info to his instructor CFI who was also an L2.  I said his Inst / L2 will be able to further advise as some things may not be necessary to do now and others immediate and may amount to at least $6K.  He did not buy the aircraft. The seller later asked for a copy and I did not give it to him as was drafted by me for the prospective buyer.  I had told the seller of the issues as I went over the aircraft and told him to make notes so he knew. (No free lunches from me with poor aircraft and have a copy if RAA ever needed it) In short his L2 may say some of my comments are a bit harsh; although my standard. I'm an L2 so need to always protect my reputation.  I've been asked to overlook stuff or tick sighted for documents or log entries; my reply is always 'Nope' I don't want my name tarnished or highlighted at RAA or elsewhere.  I call it as I see it presented. Cheers.

[BrendAn]

As I mentioned the other day. Those head tracking RC models are looking pretty good. Get the view and the sensation of flying without leaving the ground. A large lake buccaneer model I could fly while sitting on my boat .😁

[facthunter]

RAAus could never afford to investigate their accidents. Frequently in remote areas and they don't have the staff with qualifications. The Prime responsibility rests with the relevant STATE POLICE. Nev

[BrendAn]

9 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

I don't think so as its who did the annual maintenance IAW manufacturer, and the engine service IAW manufacturer, and propellor IAW manufacturer, etc. It's a condition report as presented that includes an engine run etc and flight details by the PIC.  Some things will stand out some wont.  I did an inspection (not a condition report) for a guy for a Sav VG; I listed 20 odd issues I was concerned about and advised him to show the images and report info to his instructor CFI who was also an L2.  I said his Inst / L2 will be able to further advise as some things may not be necessary to do now and others immediate and may amount to at least $6K.  He did not buy the aircraft. The seller later asked for a copy and I did not give it to him as was drafted by me for the prospective buyer.  I had told the seller of the issues as I went over the aircraft and told him to make notes so he knew. (No free lunches from me with poor aircraft and have a copy if RAA ever needed it) In short his L2 may say some of my comments are a bit harsh; although my standard. I'm an L2 so need to always protect my reputation.  I've been asked to overlook stuff or tick sighted for documents or log entries; my reply is always 'Nope' I don't want my name tarnished or highlighted at RAA or elsewhere.  I call it as I see it presented. Cheers.

So if  you do an acr  and ignore a wing bolt missing a nut for an extreme example as turbs mentioned. And wing falls off two days later who's fault is it . The owner is dead and that leaves you to face the music.

The whole point is to get rid of dodgy acrs. I know of l2s who do them by email without even sighting the aircraft.

Edited March 5 by BrendAn

[turboplanner]

42 minutes ago, facthunter said:

If they toughen up on the requirements for a "CONDITION" report, who in their right mind would do it if the SHOW doesn't back you up.. The owner/operator has the responsibility for it's continued airworthiness same as in GA or Airlines.    Nev

Depends on how the process is written.

[facthunter]

Just what a "Condition Report" was  wayback I'm now NOT sure but it was explained it wasn't an airworthiness certificate. Unless you examine the plane at various stages of the build you wouldn't have a hope of knowing how well it was built or if the  design is adequate and the materials in spec. SAAA do inspections as I've just said.. I've seen planes I just would not have anything to do with and owners you can't trust because of their lackadaisical attitude to safety.   Nev

[jackc]

The whole thing as it stands, could turn into a legal minefield……. No one wants to go there but, if there is a dispute for whatever reason……it will cost someone time and money.

Really, As has been said it’s  right being the aircraft sellers or buyers responsibility to  get their aircraft checked before sale/purchase. Just like it’s the PICs responsibility for all check lists to be run before and during and after flight.
In my case I detailed a work list to the dealer I bought from. It was allegedly done and signed off, in reality it did not happen.  I did my own inspection later and grounded the aircraft.

So I accepted the fact it was up to me to make it airworth and get it signed off.

We could probably argue all this for weeks and get nowhere, but I suspect angst from people against  some RAA decisions.

Now back to my question asked a few days back…..can RAA request your logbook, for their inspection? 

 

[turboplanner]

34 minutes ago, jackc said:

The whole thing as it stands, could turn into a legal minefield……. No one wants to go there but, if there is a dispute for whatever reason……it will cost someone time and money.

Really, As has been said it’s  right being the aircraft sellers or buyers responsibility to  get their aircraft checked before sale/purchase. Just like it’s the PICs responsibility for all check lists to be run before and during and after flight.
In my case I detailed a work list to the dealer I bought from. It was allegedly done and signed off, in reality it did not happen.  I did my own inspection later and grounded the aircraft.

So I accepted the fact it was up to me to make it airworth and get it signed off.

We could probably argue all this for weeks and get nowhere, but I suspect angst from people against  some RAA decisions.

Now back to my question asked a few days back…..can RAA request your logbook, for their inspection? 

 

None of that sounds like a normal process, maybe just someone’s talk. The documents should make it clearer.

[jackc]

11 hours ago, turboplanner said:

None of that sounds like a normal process, maybe just someone’s talk. The documents should make it clearer.

I make many assumptions in my life to spawn criticism and comment,  it’s done in an effort for more authoritive  people to clear the air or stimulate debate on an issue that has problems.

We have people state problems with ACRs and possible enforcement of their credibility.

So where to now?  Knowing human beings, I suspect not much…….

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, jackc said:

I make many assumptions in my life to spawn criticism and comment,  it’s done in an effort for more authoritive  people to clear the air or stimulate debate on an issue that has problems.

We have people state problems with ACRs and possible enforcement of their credibility.

So where to now?  Knowing human beings, I suspect not much…….

The documents.....................