raaus getting serious about acr's

[Flightrite]

Tech form 013 is the condition report form/s, all forms are available the RA tech manual

Edited March 8 by Flightrite

[FlyingVizsla]

The alternative For-Profit organisation to AUF/RAAus - the Experimental Light Aircraft Association of Australia (ELAAA) had a Maintainer's course run by Myles.  ELAAA never got off the ground.

 

The problems with running a course that teaches you how to maintain aircraft to L2 standard (how to use tools, etc) is 1. getting enough people together in one place on one date.  2. Dealing with the wide variation in experience - from the guy who has never lifted a spanner to the bloke who has loved engines all his life and built & owned several planes.

 

RAAus welcomes L2 applicants who can demonstrate mechanical knowledge, and then provides training and guidance on what is expected.  When I started with the AUF, anyone who put their hand up could do maintenance because they were all volunteers and nearly everything was home built.  I met some keen but useless ones and some good ones. 

 

I can understand why RAAus does not run apprenticeships for aircraft mechanics or Diplomas in Aircraft Design & Construction.  That is too involved and too long to be funded by members.  TAFE and industry run courses.  People get experience working with mechanics.  It takes years, not a 1 day course.  I note that some L2's restrict themselves - eg only do Jabiru, or don't touch fabric aircraft.  For some L2's it is a business and livelihood, because a lot of aircraft owners know little about engines and planes.

[turboplanner]

12 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

The alternative For-Profit organisation to AUF/RAAus - the Experimental Light Aircraft Association of Australia (ELAAA) had a Maintainer's course run by Myles.  ELAAA never got off the ground.

 

The problems with running a course that teaches you how to maintain aircraft to L2 standard (how to use tools, etc) is 1. getting enough people together in one place on one date.  2. Dealing with the wide variation in experience - from the guy who has never lifted a spanner to the bloke who has loved engines all his life and built & owned several planes.

 

RAAus welcomes L2 applicants who can demonstrate mechanical knowledge, and then provides training and guidance on what is expected.  When I started with the AUF, anyone who put their hand up could do maintenance because they were all volunteers and nearly everything was home built.  I met some keen but useless ones and some good ones. 

 

I can understand why RAAus does not run apprenticeships for aircraft mechanics or Diplomas in Aircraft Design & Construction.  That is too involved and too long to be funded by members.  TAFE and industry run courses.  People get experience working with mechanics.  It takes years, not a 1 day course.  I note that some L2's restrict themselves - eg only do Jabiru, or don't touch fabric aircraft.  For some L2's it is a business and livelihood, because a lot of aircraft owners know little about engines and planes.

It's beginning to look like RAA has been neglecting this area; it's problematic for sure given the geographic spread you point out but if they issue a qualification they need to be able to measure and guarantee it. Maybe they need to establish a TAFE network and develop a course, or piggyback on an existing TAFE course with variations which the geographic goup of TAFES to teach and examine. When you read some of the scary discussions here, it could do with bumping up the priority list before a serious accident occurs.

[facthunter]

If you did the Technical School  woodwork, metalwork and descriptive geometry and technical drawing courses I used to teach you'd be well on the way. Today practically no one does that sort of stuff. Where would the TAFE draw suitable skilled people from? It won't happen.   Nev

[FlyingVizsla]

TAFE Courses

Aviation and Aircraft Maintenance Courses | TAFE NSW

WWW.TAFENSW.EDU.AU

---

Fly into the career of a lifetime when you study aviation and aeroskills. Use attention to detail to understand the intricacies of aeroplane...

 

[facthunter]

I doubt that is very relevant to our stuff..  Learning was the reason for the 51% rule. WE have grown in the most unstructured way anything could with just being grateful for "crumbs" at the whim and fancy of the AUTHOURITY who wished we didn't exist. and would "Just go away".     Nev

[spacesailor]

TAFE , Had to employ a none certified  bricklayer ,

To teach " how to make arch's " .

It seemed there were no Australian brickies able to make an arch like the " Lithgow rail bridge " .

spacesailor

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

I doubt that is very relevant to our stuff..  Learning was the reason for the 51% rule. WE have grown in the most unstructured way anything could with just being grateful for "crumbs" at the whim and fancy of the AUTHOURITY who wished we didn't exist. and would "Just go away".     Nev

You started out on the right track in the previous post, but if you are referring to Recreational Aviation it's a self administered body. You have to manage it yourself; you have to train people yourself. This thread is indicating that training may be an issue.

[jackc]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

It's beginning to look like RAA has been neglecting this area; it's problematic for sure given the geographic spread you point out but if they issue a qualification they need to be able to measure and guarantee it. Maybe they need to establish a TAFE network and develop a course, or piggyback on an existing TAFE course with variations which the geographic goup of TAFES to teach and examine. When you read some of the scary discussions here, it could do with bumping up the priority list before a serious accident occurs.

The money cost to RAAus would probably prohibit their interest, because what TAFE would want. But in reality it really should be run by RAAus or SAAA themselves.

 

[facthunter]

When I was in SAAA they did a lot of visiting builds in various stages of construction and they take building far more seriously than We RAAus  DO now Weight and Balance was extensively covered as an example. The Essential knowledge is not it the CASA these days. Earlier on it drew from military experienced operational People. NOW, It's more legality based and Lawer laden. RAAus is god knows where. They are not really "In the Game". Just fringe dwellers.  Nev

[jackc]

RAAus are interested in training pilots and L1’s and after that…….?

[facthunter]

At one stage they called themselves the "New GA". That went down with the rest of the Industry like a thick walled lead balloon as any thinking person would have anticipated. If a was active i'd be VH EXP as those in the know seem to agree with.. There's too Much angst in flying. It's not like it used to be. Nev

[Flightrite]

The scary part about the the millionaires club (RA) is that grubby CASA would like to see ALL GA planes up to 1500 kg’s administered by RA….God ‘elp us!🤮

[jackc]

Word on the street is……no one has applied for. 760kg yet, if it’s true?

[FlyingVizsla]

14 hours ago, jackc said:

Word on the street is……no one has applied for. 760kg yet, if it’s true?

Yes, it is true because applications are not yet Open.  You can express an interest, and I know several who have, so RAAus can get a feel for how many applications they will get come D-Day and have extra staff to make it happen.  There are threads running on this subject.

 

AUF was offered up to 750kg by CASA back in the 1990's.  The response then was "we're too busy right now ..." Had the AUF accepted the offer we would not be having this grief now.

[BurnieM]

Timing of Basic 5 med may kill group G.

 

RPL and basic 5 and you can fly a 4 seater (with 1 passenger and a lot of luggage and full tanks).

[FlyingVizsla]

On 09/03/2024 at 9:23 AM, turboplanner said:

if they issue a qualification they need to be able to measure and guarantee it.

I don't know about Guarantee it, but they do oversee it.  Even back in the AUF days, The Bunny Farmer & Myles would visit the Club annually to see how things were going.  They were rather horrified by what they saw and their advice was given as a friendly suggestion, getting a little sterner each time.  They guy who maintained the Club's plane was a cowboy and his aircraft was about the worst advertisement for an ultralight.  They would suggest he take it away from the airport.

 

RAAus does check up on their L2s and one I know thought they had a vendetta against him as they asked him for copies of Log books for a plane he maintained 2 years running.  He has to renew ever 2 years.  He has since retired due to health & mobility issues.

 

If you supervise, oversee & train too much, L2's will toss the towel. 

[turboplanner]

30 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

I don't know about Guarantee it, but they do oversee it.  Even back in the AUF days, The Bunny Farmer & Myles would visit the Club annually to see how things were going.  They were rather horrified by what they saw and their advice was given as a friendly suggestion, getting a little sterner each time.  They guy who maintained the Club's plane was a cowboy and his aircraft was about the worst advertisement for an ultralight.  They would suggest he take it away from the airport.

By Guarantee I mean that the Self Administering Organization, by appointing an L2 has to eliminate all reasonably forseeable risks from their appointee (so they would need someone meeting the qualifications required for what an L2 does.) The L2 would also need to eliminate all forseeable risks from what he is doing. It's not that hard to reach that position if you create a position standard and an operating standard and everyone operates on a go/no go basis. The beginning isn't easy, but once there's a document people start to say "this is missing"or "that isn't necessary" and the process quickly comes together. The revese is if there's a body on the ground and a primary control with a missing nut and no hole for a cotter pin to suit a castellated nut, the flame goes to the L2 and bounces up to the organisation because an unsecured nut was a reasonably forseeable risk.

 

I agree supervision is very difficult because you don't have statutory powers like the Inspectors did in the old days. In Speedway the Machine Examiners check the cars before every race and enter the results in a log book. The entries are exactly what was found. If there's a safety issue it goes to the Chief Steward. He decides whether the car is safe to race. If the driver is prohibited from racing he has access to a Tribunal Hearing, so by the time they've made the final decision, multiple people have assesed and judged the issue.

 

Myles knew all this because I think he worked in the mines and was familiar with the processes, and I like the way he worked and fought very hard behind the scenes when people played politics to try to get him out.

 

Based on the reasonably forseeable risk, you can't miss one aircraft.

 

One of the ways we netted build qulity and mistake was to invite everyone to practice days where they could do laps to test their cars, and we'd show them how to fix the issues and those days attracted more and more people because it was informal. In some cases the fix would be done for them in the following days.

 

Breakfast fly-ins are the ideal venues for doing this with aircraft.

30 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

RAAus does check up on their L2s and one I know thought they had a vendetta against him as they asked him for copies of Log books for a plane he maintained 2 years running.  He has to renew ever 2 years.  

Audits are a way an organisation can step into an arena like Instructor, CFI, L2 without prescribing everything they do.

 

For example CASA, which is at arms length from the jobs RAA Ltd is supposed to do, conduct "Ramp Checks" In doing that you could say they are carrying out a duty of care without the direct-line supervision which would allow the flame I mentioned to climb up to them.

 

You have to be so diplomatic with Audits and have them planned out very carefully. 

One way is to just lay down a requirement that an Audit needs to be carried out every year, arrive with a clipboard, click all the items and move on.

 

One one occasion we had the experience of a Promoter being sued at a city track for a lot of money  for an incorrect safety cable assembly which injured someone. The case went for five years. The Promoter was a multi-millionaire but he was regularly on the phone crying for us to make it go away.

 

I was out in a semi-outback area one day and decided to check one of our tracks to make sure the cable was correctly fastened. It wasn't, so the same thing could occur there, but the fix was easy so I raised it with the relevant Association at the next meeting. The immediate response was that the President might find himself charged with trespassing, so I told them they knew where to find me and moved a motion to shut down the track immediatelt pending making it safe. The Association advised at the next meeting that all the cables had been fixed. That could easily have backfired on me, but you have to get the job done if you are the self-administering organization. 

30 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

If you supervise, oversee & train too much, L2's will toss the towel. 

Yes which is why you need to develop the training documentation before going near the officials with a talk from the hip. They have to be empowered. If they know what the documents say and why they say it, they have something to point to if an aircraft owner arcs up at someone who suggests that he has to change something.

[jackc]

Well, I hear horror stories from people I actually speak to,  been aviators for years and RAAus is not very popular, for a long time with many people.

There are many incorrectly maintained aircraft flying, but I won’t say anymore on that.

Suffice to say the current L2 situation getting worse over time, and the standover attitude of RAAus has caused problems in the past and not looking any better for the future, unless they change attitude and get a bit more professional.  The company structure principle has stuffed it, in my opinion.

[turboplanner]

3 minutes ago, jackc said:

Well, I hear horror stories from people I actually speak to,  been aviators for years and RAAus is not very popular, for a long time with many people.

There are many incorrectly maintained aircraft flying, but I won’t say anymore on that.

Suffice to say the current L2 situation getting worse over time, and the standover attitude of RAAus has caused problems in the past and not looking any better for the future, unless they change attitude and get a bit more professional.  The company structure principle has stuffed it, in my opinion.

The people who pushed the company structure dominated this site during the transition, pushing the line that we were not a cricket club, a BS analogy, and once it was voted in disappeared from this site.

Edited March 10 by turboplanner

[jackc]

16 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

The people who pushed the company structure dominated this site during the transition, pushing the line that we were not a cricket club, a BS analogy, and once it was voted in disappeared from this site.

If that is the case, no point moaning here about what was done in changing the structure, those that voted for that, screwed the pooch by the look of it.

I would allege RAAus doing nothing  except collect membership dues, aircraft rego, and browbeat the current maintenance regime into the ground, until many people give up.

They turn up at air shows, flying-ins to foster Aviation on one hand but on the other the maintenance training regime does not exist as it should.
Handballing it to TAFE, is a cop out.

CASA should pull RAAus ticket and look at SAAA.

[BrendAn]

21 hours ago, jackc said:

Word on the street is……no one has applied for. 760kg yet, if it’s true?

There is a Cessna 150 advertised ATM with raa rego. So at current 600 kg mtow it has a 120 kg payload.

[FlyingVizsla]

There were some C150 variants registred as ultralights - they got there by going single seat and removing things to reduce weight.  CASA disagreed, especially when at least one was seen with the passenger seat back in and occupied.  There was one French built that was renamed a Robin (my memory is getting hazy) on the register.  The Cessna 140 can be registered ultralight.  All subject to weight etc. 

 

It is a grey area, getting a factory built and then altering to fit the ultralight registration.  In one case essential things, like the oil & battery, were removed to squeeze it in.  CASA was of the opinion that if it was built standard, then it should stay that way.  Some of these questionable planes were removed from the AUF/RAAus register after the failed audits.  Presumably the C150's could put everything back in and return to VH.

[Blueadventures]

On 01/03/2024 at 3:26 PM, FlyingVizsla said:

We are doing 3 ACR's this weekend, so we'll see how it all goes.  2 planes returning to the Register after years non-flying and one sold.  Two owners who don't believe in Log Books will complicate things.  The other owner got caught up in early RAAus log book audits, so that one "might" be OK, but there's no serial number for the engine installed, or any entries for the last 4 years.  "Trust me, I did what needed doing..." no longer cuts the mustard.  When were the hoses replaced?  Dunno. 

 

Fingers crossed.

How did the 3 acr's finish up?  All pass?

[facthunter]

Plenty of people self eliminate themselves as being suitable for this GAME.   Nev