Move over RAA here comes CASA

[Methusala]

It is exactly my point Turbo. Politics is not for the nice people. If you want to win this game then strategies and hard work will make the difference. But remember that Dick Smith and Boyd Munro, with all of their resources and abilities, could only get so far.

 

This, I feel is the beginning of the "fight of our lives".

 

Cheers, Don

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'd disagree with you slightly Methusala. Polictics can be for the nice people and conducted in a very professional manner with excellent results. You certainly have to be a lot more blunt with the nasties and hidden agenda pushers though.

 

Dick Smith posts a lot on prune, and after a while you can see why he had trouble in his CAA days.

 

I note that the meeting with John McCormick at Gympie has come and gone and, it appears to me, sunk without a ripple.

 

So I would say again that communication starts with the Minister, who controls these people and the Shadow Minister whose job it is to make sure the Minister does an optimum job.

 

But you can't just spout off about a single ting that happened yesterday, or a pet theory which only 2% of an industry are ever going to support.

 

That's where you're strategies and hard work come in Methusala, but I haven't found too many people willing to stand up and put together a sustained effort.

 

So we bumble on, taking what comes from the other agendas.

 

 

[Vev]

Methusala (Don),

 

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>

 

Happy for you to also have a healthy level of scepticism along with a dash conspiracy theory for good measure…. but have you actually read the White Paper???

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

Everything I have read tells me that the RAA model has support by the Minister and should be considered for replication (not the RAA but the model) to try and advance aviation. The paper recognises that the RAA (and others) have done a good job in self administration (including safety) to develop aviation.

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

In my view, telling CASA “put up or shut up” and suggest they don’t take up some sort of leading safety overview is nonsensical in the extreme… one of CASA’s lawful primary roles is to manage safety (albeit they could improve) but if RAA was found to be neglectfully wanting in safety by CASA it must be called to account.

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

You say “fight for our lives” … in contrast to you, I say, “we are we are poised for growth”.

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

In a war you take sides and talk about "them and us" … we are not at war and there’s much more to be gained through constructive collaboration across all stakeholder be it the Government, CASA, the community or Mr McCormick.

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

Cheers

 

Jack

 

 

[Methusala]

My first input to this blog nailed my colours to the mast fairly plainly. I identified myself as a "paddock flyer". I own 3 machines but their cruise speed ranges from 55kts (Thruster) to 70kts (Karatoo). I don't want to travel very far, just fly. I know that perhaps the larger no of members have the dream of travelling. This is similar to GA flying and I believe that those people are the ones that John McCormick has in his sights. It is probably quite appropriate for him to do this. I made a plea for some distinction to be made between the quasi GA flyers and those who, like me, fly strictly for fun.

 

I must say that I have flown reasonable X country, to Moruya, Goulburn, Narromine Natfly (8 times) etc. but I would be happy to restrict myself to local flying if it meant avoiding requirements such as mandatory carriage of beacons and heaven help us ADSB.

 

To Turbo I say that so far I am not overly concerned with the current situation. But I recently sat the ABSURD human factors test and though I think myself of average understanding can put my hand on my heart and state that it did NOTHING (at all) for me.

 

I do think that there is change in the air and that for some it will be unpleasant. Yenn asked the question about safety stats. I think that this is very reasonable to ask and why haven't the RAA Aus done this work and publicised it. I accept Turbo's statement that politics should be engaged in by those equipped to do it. Isn't that the real reason for our association's existence?Sorry for the rant, Don

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't see that CASA are wanting to shut us down. They have for a long time stated that they want us to self regulate and also the recreational side of GA. It would suit CASa to have one body regulating all recreational flying, or even several bodies as we have now. The problems I see are that there is nobody putting up their hand to regulate the recreational side of GA. I believe that is something RAAus could do well, but a lot of RAAus members want to only be involved in paddock flying, plus a lot of GA pilots look down their noses at RAAus.

 

For RAAus to take over the recreational area of GA flying would possibly add to the costs for GA pilots as they would have to be members of RAAus and also pay registration fees for the plane. They would gain with the insurance we currently have, but I doubt that CASA would allow maintenance by owners rather than LAMEs.

 

As far as the minister being in charge of CASA, that is a Furfy, there has been no way a minister has been able to control CASA, because when he tries, CASA claim it is a safety issue and ignore him.

 

 

[turboplanner]

As far as the minister being in charge of CASA, that is a Furfy, there has been no way a minister has been able to control CASA, because when he tries, CASA claim it is a safety issue and ignore him.

The Government is elected to run the Country, or the State.

 

It is true that Ministers often are not made aware of genuine problems, which the posts here seem to indicate, at other times they may decide too many votes will be lost, and others where politics are at play and someone with a bucket full of money wants to make more money, and then there are the bureaucrats sometimes "yes ministering" and muddying the water to try to get him to make the decision they want, and finally there's the Shadow Minister who doesn't get off his bum.

 

However Yenn, he is in charge, it's not a furphy, and when things get bad enough a Minister will strike. It's just that at the moment people aren't telling hiom there's a problem, so why wouldn't he be listening to McCormick?

 

We used to have the Transport Regulation Board in Victoria controlling trucking, with its own multi story headquarters in Carlton, field officers throughout the State, and rules upon rules upon the Act to the point where they could make the judgement and put a vehicle off the road based on its failure to comply with their rules, without the benefit of the legal system, appeals etc.

 

So in some ways it was very similar to the ever expanding CASA

 

One day the Government had had enough and the TRB doesen't exist any more.

 

 

[Methusala]

I think there are a couple of issues that should concern most of us about the new head of CASA. One is that we must question statements from John McCormick such as "I believe in regulation with a capital R", and that a we need sport aviation types within our organisation. There are reports of numerous other remarks made along these lines. While it is true that I havn't read the white paper (most of these documents are simply PR), I did read his interview in Flight Safety. He does seem to come into the job with a big aviation industry view (natural when his immediate past is with Cathay, a commercial giant). So my perception is that those who are opposed to recreational aviation are in the box seat. I don't see any evidence that RAA Aus would be closed down, but rather that they may become too close to the regulator.

 

This leads to my second point which is that the two broad groups in RA need seperate levels of regulation. With the technology of carbon fibre aircraft capable of 150kts+ meeting the RA standards McCormick's concerns have some justification. I therefore raise the question, would "ultralight aviation" be more comfortably accomodated in an HGFA type organisation. The RAA Aus are by their own admission stretched in their capacities already. I wonder if another organisation for small stuff isn't a solution. Regards, Don

 

 

[turboplanner]

I therefore raise the question, would "ultralight aviation" be more comfortably accomodated in an HGFA type organisation. The RAA Aus are by their own admission stretched in their capacities already. I wonder if another organisation for small stuff isn't a solution. Regards, Don

No, I've previously tried to point out that other sports are thriving under self regulation - total self regulation where the body makes its own regulations and is responsible for a level of safety way above ours...........and covers maybe 100 venues, 25 different classes (with different, appropriate, regulations and costs) and maybe 5000 participants.

 

We are just getting smoke blown up our nose.

 

 

[kevinfrost]

If our representatives have our best interest at heart they should have enough clout to stand up to Mr Mc. Not to long back the GA clan wanted nothing to do with our lot. We were dangerous and irresponsible, well some were. I think our safety record is probably better for Hrs flown than GA. Once the performance of our AC got to GA levels our numbers started to swell because our costs were considerably less than GA as was our health requirements.It would be interesting to see how many of our members have come from GA. . It would also be interesting to see how many GA pilots first went solo in Ultralight AC, I think if it wasn't for RAAus the current GA situation could be worse. Most of the people that are pushing the barrow for more demanding standards and costs seem to be GA oriented, Either ex or would be if they could be. I think we lost a bit more of our independence with the move to Temora, Narromine was run for us by us. It now looks like we're under the arm of the big boys and I bet they'll let us know if they see something they dont like.. No point talking to the minister, he becomes the puppet of his advisors as he knows little of his port folio. The more you gain the less freedom you have. I think we should be happy with what we've got, fight to keep it. If you want more go GA. I'm Agree mostly with Don & Yenn and will now stop my rant.

 

 

[Guest sirius]

I think it is very impoprtant to note the subtle fact that RA-Aus are NOT "self regulating".

 

RA-Aus are a "self administrating" body that take an "administrative burden" off CASA.

 

CASA will always "regulate.

 

 

[kaz3g]

If our representatives have our best interest at heart they should have enough clout to stand up to Mr Mc.

I think clout comes with credibility and numbers in equal proportions, and has little to do with whereabouts in our representatives' collective anatomy our best interests lie.

 

Not too long back the GA clan wanted nothing to do with our lot. We were dangerous and irresponsible, well some were.

 

Yes, times have changed and most recreational pilots now exhibit skills/airmanship as good as, if not better than, many GA pilots. The credibility of the adminisering organisation has rown along with te member numbers.

 

I think our safety record is probably better for Hrs flown than GA.

 

It would be good to see some stats on that but, to be fair to recreational pilots, the GA figures should be restricted to those who are flying the smaller GA stuff --- whether for training, private or sport purposes.

 

Most of the people that are pushing the barrow for more demanding standards and costs seem to be GA oriented...

 

I think most of the pushing is being done by those who think little aeroplanes shouldn't be able to mix it with the "heavy metal" brigade... even though most of them learned to fly in antiquated Warriors and don't realise the extent of sophistication of many RAAus types today.

 

I think we lost a bit more of our independence with the move to Temora, Narromine was run for us by us.

 

I remember when Narromine was largely run by the gliding fraternity for glider pilots but we all ended up, and were made welcome in the aeroclub bar at night<sigh>

 

I think we should be happy with what we've got, fight to keep it.

 

Back in the 70's I had a pastoral station in the Upper Gascoyne region of WA. Carnarvon, the nearest town, was 350 km away to the west. It got bloody hot with summer days sometimes into the mid-50's centigrade and the only pub to save your sanity was at Gascoyne Junction.

 

 

 

I dropped into the Junction on the way back home one such day and there, in the gloom at the bar was an old fellow from Bidgimia Station nearby who was wetting his throat. He had been doing a windmill run on a motorbike nearly as old as him.

 

 

 

As my eyes became accustomed to the dark inside, I happened to glance at a newspaper cutting stuck on the wall. It was dated sometime in 1924 and told how Charles Kingsford-Smith had started the first motorised mail run through the Junction out to the Bangemall gold mines which were in the middle of my station (my homestead was originally the Bangemall pub). Gascoyne Online The Gascoyne Portal Covering Carnarvon, Exmouth, Denham, Coral Bay, Gascoyne Junction

 

 

 

I asked the old-timer what it had been like then and he told me he thought that the young fellow and his mate were crazy trying to take business off the camel teamsters. But his next words were quite prophetic..."You can't beat progress"!

 

kaz

 

 

[facthunter]

Moves and changes.

 

I can't really contradict what you say kaz3g, but I would be wary of some of the generalisations of where certain "pushes" are coming from based on background. The past will not be the future of Recreational flying. The nostalgia is understandable and I share a lot of it, but going back to the minimum aircraft is not the answer. There is some safety in numbers remember. Small groups can be eliminated by the stroke of a pen and most of those regs. were concessions against the rules that apply to most other forms of aviation.. Isolate yourselves to a small group and you become very vulnerable. Much more vulnerable than under the present umbrella where you might feel that your continued existence is threatened by a weight increase etc. and being "swamped" by other types.. .and with the other "wishes' that have been floated here and other places. I wil comment on them briefly.

 

CTA. Transit only. Absolute easy case to present for an improvement in safety. goer in simple form.

 

Aerobatics-- forget it. The inspections and training to proper standards cost/benefit with LIGHTLY constructed aircraft, in my view, not a goer. Burden and liability on the organisation (read members).

 

Night VMC If you knew what was involved, Cost of reliable TSO'd instruments ,power system, training. Non-certified engines (one of). Not a goer really. Better to purchase an aircraft that already has these features. Cost is the stopper here and remember that CASA (unless they have changed) are not keen on Night VMC. They prefer the Private IFR with appropriate ratings. I happen to agree.

 

There have been quite a few "incidents" that might have attracted unfavourable attention to us. I know of enough to put the shudders up a new boss and I don't know the half of it. IF these incidents are significant, then I as a person who wants a fair go for RAAus would like to know the "FACTS" and IF we have shortcomings then see what can be done about them. I am sure that I am not alone in that. If people have compromised us, I would like to know HOW. and the details and How it can be rectified.

 

RE "White Papers" They can be a PR thing. I don't think they are a guarantee of much. The "actions" speak louder than words and I don't know that there is much of the latter of any benefit apparent.

 

I am , I hope, a thinking person and I have been a little alarmed and disappointed at some of the comments that have been claimed to have been made. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

We seem to be taking this topic to heart and there are lots of good comments. I was incorrect when I said self regulation I meant self administering.

 

Does CASA really want to have self administration of the recreational side of GA? I think it does, and if it does who will do that admstration? If RAAus doesn't want to there will have to be another player and that will be competition for RAAus. Maybe SAAA?

 

 

[Guest sirius]

Self administration of GA is just too wide a spectrum to contemplate. CASA caused their mess, let them take care of it. It's a poison chalice.

 

 

[kevinfrost]

I really hope I'm wrong but I think the gap between RAAus and the SAAA has got that fine that it is just a matter of time and the two will be replaced by one governing body and it's not going to be in favor of cheap affordable flying. It's got to the stage where a lot of schools are purchasing AC that are so expensive it costs nearly as much to go solo as it does with GA. It's no wonder the the fly ins are full of old XXXXs like myself. I've got to go and change my bag.

 

 

[Guest Walter Buschor]

Hi Don,

 

I've been to the evening held by John Mc Cormic in Gympie and I do feel we are in " good hands ". Having said this RAA has been pushing for some time to have " this and that " lifted and our rules changed to fly into controlled airspace etc. In doing so we DO attract attention within the governing body and this may not be to our advantage. We do as a group still try to " spread our wings " and gain more concessions . This has / is moving us ever closer to GA. As a result we will all be affected. Even the ones that only fly around their own paddock. Perhaps the time has come where we say enough is enough and we do not want anymore . This just might help in averting some attention from Casa. Sadly I don't have the answer.

 

Fly safe

 

Walter

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

I tend to think that the "squeaky wheel gets the oil". It has been advantageous for RA-Aus to make some noise about the privileges we would like, and we've been able to get these bit by bit. If we quietly accept things that CASA deals us, we may find our freedoms curtailed because we'd be seen as "easy prey".

 

We need well thought-through arguments to justify why we need these privileges. For instance, I got the impression that the weight increase issue didn't consider the implications of inheriting Cessnas etc. - I think that was one of the main arguments that RA-Aus pushed as justification. The proposed CTA endorsement fell through I believe because we were asking for a CPL standard to be applied to a PPL-equivalent license - it was incongruent with the type of aircraft we fly and where we fly (we can skirt around CTA to get to our destinations).

 

Now, apparently we will have the 5000ft altitude limit abolished - it's "on the cards" - which makes sense because of the terrain we fly over OCTA. If we "want this n that" we need to make a pretty clear case before approaching CASA - or before they approach us. We should have needs, not wants. Otherwise, we might be seen as people who don't take aviation seriously or proactively. RA-Aus can't really get knocked if we can show that we're a breeding ground for commercial pilots, for instance. It shows a valuable link between RA and GA worlds.

 

 

[Yenn]

Kevinfrost. From what I see SAAA and RAAus are getting closer together, due mainly to the expertise in building of SAAA, but I doubt that SAAA could do much in the way of self administration without a great leap inoffice capabilities.

 

I may be wrong as I have only recently joined SAAA, but there sole aim seems to be to enable building of Experimental planes. Maybe amalgamation would provide a good answer.

 

 

[facthunter]

SAAA Role.

 

I have been a member for a couple of years. (SAAA) (Should have joined years ago), and the difference (briefly) is that they concentrate on building with a lot of emphasis on build quality, and inspections , maintenance etc and any design is possible. For instance, you can design and build your own Jet.( You would want to know what you are doing). The licencing side of it is CASA PPL., only at the moment. Some of their aircraft are quite high performance and require specialised endorsements/training. (Could be pressurised turboprop or turbojet/ fan). The relationship is improving . We were invited to Cowra but only a small number of us attended.

 

I have no idea whether a full amalgamation is workable or desired. Getting on is a good idea for sure and you might find that we work more together but each will have a separate identity. That is certainly the case now as I see it. This is only my OPINION and I have no authority to represent the views of SAAA. Nev

 

 

[Guest sirius]

SAAA lost it's mainstream income when the "experimental" catagory came into being. Up until then they charged, (quiet considerably some would say), for progress inspections. The same which thereafter became a thing of the past. I was half way through a Glasair project when this happened and it removed a considerable cost burden which I was greatful for.

 

It was then, as RA-Aus is now, a "compulsory" organisation that is operating on CASA "exemptions".

 

Remember that when making "demands" opon CASA.

 

RAA is a wealthy organisation, SAAA is poor.

 

They would do well to seek co-habitation with RA-Aus.

 

There is a vast sharing of technological knowledge that shouldn't be lost. There are some prejudices that need to be hurdled however and I would prefer to stay out of that discussion in the meantime.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Dear Nev

 

You ARE a thinking person.

 

Have a great 2010

 

kaz

 

 

[facthunter]

Ta...

 

We ALL have our cross to bear. Have a good new year Thanks. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

SAAA have a good relationship with CASA, which is something to strive for. They achieved this by their technical expertise and training programs as far as I can see.

 

 

[turboplanner]

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/miscinst/2009/casa597.pdf

 

For the Sydney guys particularly, this back down occurred just before Christmas - a little bit of commonsense coming back.

 

I see the GA guys are still hostile with McCormick with a suggestion the 6 AC limit in the circuit was based on a personal experience he had at one airport - a bit like the allegation about comments made at Wide Bay Airshow.

 

 

[Thalass]

Transit-only through controlled airspace sounds good to me. I don't think I'd like to land at Perth airport (let alone Sydney or Melbourne!) trundling in at 50 knots or less, with a dirty great turbofan passenger jet coming up my behind!

 

I don't know about the viability of the idea, but a club-owned (and club-maintained) transponder and antenna that could be temporarily installed on an aircraft would lower the cost involved. Though it may require CASA permission, which would be a hassle. And I don't know how practical it would be.

 

I think the main objective to that whole chesnut is the word mandatory, which implies you must always carry one, even if you're flying from your paddock in the middle of nowhere. Which would be stupid, I think. Mandatory transponder if you're flying through controlled airspace is better wording and more sensible. That way paddock-flyers and others that want to keep it simple can still do that, and those that want a quasi-GA aircraft can do that, too. The great thing about RA aircraft is that it is a broad spectrum from wright-flyer tech to the latest composite jabiru. You can build your own, or buy one. I think it would be the death of RA-Aus and low-cost flying itself if the members were restricted by blanket mandatory-this and mandatory-that regulations.

 

Back when I was in high school I wanted to get my pilots license, but a GA PPL was obscenely expensive even then, and ultralight aviation didn't really have much presence so I never persued that avenue. Nowdays it does, and it would be a shame to lose those future pilots if the cost skyrockets or the sport is regulated out of existance.