Feb 2010 Brd Meeting - CASA Presentation

[Admin]

At the Board Meeting Jim Coyne spoke to the board members and made a presentation.

 

That presentation is attached for your information.

 

RAAus Board Presentation by Jim Coyne 31 Feb 2010.pps

 

RAAus Board Presentation by Jim Coyne 31 Feb 2010.pps

 

RAAus Board Presentation by Jim Coyne 31 Feb 2010.pps

[HEON]

I may be of the age where I have viewed too many westerns but why when CASA talks of a "strategic framework" and a body to "supervise" organisations like RAA, do I see Indians around the hill ready to scalp the blokes and rape the woman (or the other way around in these "enlightened" times!)?

 

 

[Captain]

I agree Heon, and expressed a similar concern in another post here.

 

I reckon I know what is in store for us ............. so it looks like the women will need wigs.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Real simple,...read : CONTROL.... which they just haven't had with us in the past.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Australia: Land of the free: Girt by sea: And there is no escape.

 

Everything seems to be run by meglamaniac control freaks.

 

Revolution anyone? Stand up for yourselves or let them walk over you.

 

choice is yours.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

There used to be a lot of good people in RAAus/AUF, who were prepared to stand up and activly resist any outside attempts to mold our sport. Now there are just a lot of Mandy Pandys who want to 'go with the flow' until there is no flow any more !...This sport was not built by those type of people..................................................................Maj..

 

 

[Admin]

Don't forget though that unless we toe the line by their requirements our funding gets pulled and they then still call the shots

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I think its a fact that as we get older we get more cynical and unsurprised when bad things eventuate. The trick is to not overlay that cynicism and expectation of foul play on absolutely everything that is put forward such that its foul play before enough details are there to actually deduce that.

 

I'm not saying don't expect this to be bad, just don't loudly judge it so until there is information to support that assertion.

 

The expectation of a knife in the back is an evolutionary survival trait but it doesn't follow that every single change is of itself bad.

 

I personally will look at this with one eyebrow raised and the other eye searching for the knife that is likely to poke me in the coite, but I will hear what is to be said before pronouncing any change bad. I dont see that there is enough information in the powerpoint without the verbal discussion on the night to determine if this is good or bad.

 

For those that are convinced it is bad, and so I dont judge that you are jumping to conclussions, exactly what bits in the presentation are problematic, and what would the follow up question that you would put to the casa guy to better understand if the lolly is sugar or cyanide, if you were there at the time it was presented. Maybe in answering that Ian can get some follow up questions that could be asked? ALternately if the whole idea is bad in total, what would your suggestion be to CASA as an alternate. Its rare that in negotiation you can just offer "No" without an alternate position, especially when it isnt a meeting of equals....

 

Andy

 

 

[Captain]

From my point of view, I just don't want our form of aviation FORCED to go the way of GA ........ with creeping over-regulation, political correctness, declining numbers ..... and less fun.

 

If that is the creeping incipit result as we are girt by beaurocrats, then we need to resist, but in a measured and professional way with reasoned arguments.

 

Having listened to a few presentations by Airservices senior people recently, they are consumate pubic servants and don't give a rats about our fun.

 

 

[hihosland]

CASA

 

Commonwealth aviation Safety Authority

 

not

 

Commonwealth Aviation Support Authority.

 

CASA's remit is aviation safety and nothing else.

 

The safest aircraft is one that is shut up in the hangar

 

The next safest is turbine powered, multi crewed and LAME serviced.

 

RAA aircraft are a way down on the safety list.

 

A major point in that presentation is the concept of "unacceptable risk to the non participants"

 

Pilot A with his RAA certificate ( not a pilot's license) puttering along at 55kts in his 300kg aircraft one could argue presents an acceptable risk to the non participants.

 

Pilot B also without a pilot's license tearing along at 120 kts in his 600kg aircraft presents a totally different risk potential to the non participants.

 

My fear is that when a some one fitting pilot B's description crashes into a house the coroner will have serious words with CASA about the lack of license and the lack of LAME supervision.

 

Past experience would suggest that when a SAFETY organisation is put under that kind of criticism they will react with a set of new draconian regulations. Regulations and restrictions that could remove many of the features we currently enjoy.

 

The closer we get to GA type operations the closer we are to being subject to GA regulations.

 

dem's my thoughts

 

davidh

 

 

[antzx6r]

This is what I don't get... RA Aus pilots jump thru the same hoops spend the same time training(only less money), have the same restrictions on what we can fly until checked out by cfi, yet because its a certificate and not a licence, we are not properly trained. It seems as if casa think all we do is the min 20 hrs in a scout and then jump into a 150kn pocket rocket.

 

You know I honestly think this is the same thing as the reason car drivers get so agro with bikers. They just can't stand to see someone slip thru traffic when they're stuck. GA pilots get snotty because it dosn't cost the same as they had to spend. So they sell the public on how dangerous we are.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Andy, I read you points. Unfortunatly we didn't get this far in creating one of the most successfull aviation organizations in Australias' history by being mushrooms (kept in the dark and feed on S#%@). We are where we are, because of our own efforts, not because of CASA's help. We are still here despite CASAs attitude towards us in the past, and we need to keep that in mind. I agree we need to remain flexable, and keep an open mind. However the one's who have been around for a while, not the newcomers, are the ones with the whole picture on the subject, and are therefore in the best position to judge what is occuring..............................Maj..

 

 

[SilverWing]

Control & regulation

 

It seems to me that the world over - not just Australia - control & regulation is an inevitable result of increased complexity, MTOW etc and therefore potential for 'disaster' - ie death of people in the aircraft and destruction and death of people and property on the ground. Some people argue that it's our lives and therefore we should be able to decide what, where and how we fly. But if you hit someone/something on the ground as a result of your own incompetence it become everyone's responsibility. If you want unregulated flying - move to a country where there are no regs or buy a paramotor. (I'm not selling paramotors!) See attachment for schematic.

 

Whether we like it or not, aircraft accidents are over-reported in the news - reference the widespread reporting of the Victa landing on a road in Tasmania (no-one hurt) and the item, some minutes later of the carnage on Easter roads.

 

 

 

[The Wolf]

I agree with you silverwing, but i think the problem with everything these days is "safety". It is becoming the witch of our day, needing to be sought and captured and statisticsised (is that even a word?") The problem CASA has is that when a plane crashes, everyone looks to the "Safety body" and says, why? even if they arent to blame and have little control over it. The general public still see flying as witchcraft and a miracle that those "dangerous contraptions" still stay up.

 

I have to admit, that looking around NATFLY i was a little suprised at the wiring looms in some of the planes. I am in defence, everything is perfectly shaped, lengths are exact, everything is type 55 wire, J-STD-001 soldering, The works. But i understand that if a motor stops, there has been hours training in what to do, where to go, how to do it. I noticed on the report on the news some cop came on and yabbered on about how "i would expect he would have picked a more appropriate place to land" Like where? an apple orchard!?!? I personally think his flying and landing without incident was a credit to himself and training.

 

 

[Guest sirius]

I posted another thread yesterday in this regard titled CASA White Paper presentation by Jim Coyne because I believe the responses here to date have MISSED THE POINT. It's a pity both threads can't be amalgamated.

 

I would urge you to read my appreciation of what Jim Coyne was trying to tell us about the risk management group associated with a possible positive outcome for flight in controlled airspace and weight increases, and how we can achieve this with no capital outlay, but have a hands on part in the outcome of the same assessment.

 

 

[flyby]

The article from CASA in the Natfly liftout in the Magazine certainly sounds like an admonishment to me.

 

"The bottom line is that if CASA is not confident that the organisation is meeting safety outcomes and oversighting activities adequately, then the organisation will lose these exemptions. And, people wanting to fly under the exemption will no longer be able to fly"

 

Perhaps the Association should report to members that it has been meeting CASA requirements?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

sort of gets your attention doesn't it

 

 

[flyby]

This is what I don't get... RA Aus pilots jump thru the same hoops spend the same time training:

As a GA and now a RAAus pilot I can't say I agree with this.

 

 

[antzx6r]

Thats because you did GA training and the convertion was a formality to see that you can handle the other. If you did them both as from ab initio the only differences would be (a) no dame medical and (b) no instrument hood time or CTA. The 20hrs is really only equivelent to GFPT. With x-country, radio, and pax endorsements, the time taken is easely more than 40hrs (usually 50-60+). And I believe some instructors also prefer to use the CASA BAK, Pre Solo, Pre Area Solo and GFPT, PPL online exams. Something I wish I did, now that i'm looking at the conversion to PPL.

 

 

[flyby]

Again I have to reiterate that I don't agree. I have looked at the RAAus "syllabus" compared to the Day VFR syllabus and there is a big difference.

 

I assure you the conversion was not a formality, had you known my situation you would not have said that. You see I am now a "real pilot" I stepped out of a fast GA single into a drifter for my conversion. Never flown a tail dragger, a pusher or something you can almost walk faster than

 

I am not saying that RAAus pilots are lesser pilots, I don't agree with that. But RAAus pilots most certainly do not jump through the same hoops as GA pilots otherwise we would all be GA would we not.

 

Being a pilot for me is about choice. RAAus does not give me the freedom that GA does and contrary to popular belief it isn't cheaper for me certainly when you compare $/mile cost.

 

Jason

 

 

[antzx6r]

True, but what about $/hour or better yet $/smile? I think you'll agree RA comes out way on top there.

 

I've just been browsing thru the two and I have to say that appart from what i've mentioned, I can't see the extra hoops. I can see that training in a C172 is complex compared to a Drifter, but so is a Tecnam Golf. You wouldn't have tracked a VOR in the Drifter but I did in the Golf. You've just gone from one extreme to the other.

 

Can you give me some examples of where the syllabus differs? I am actually interested in a conversion opposite to yourself. RA to GA. So I genuinely would like to know.

 

 

[flyby]

I had a quick chat to a young RAAus pilot doing his GA conversion, all agree he is a great young pilot and after six hours in a C152 is ready for a GFPT so there is nothing at all wrong with his flying skills.

 

He did say however that he was really struggling with the procedures at a GAAP. Procedures are part and parcel with GA flying and is part of that unknown quantity called Airmanship.

 

I have to ask why are you converting to GA?

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

He did say however that he was really struggling with the procedures at a GAAP. Procedures are part and parcel with GA flying and is part of that unknown quantity called Airmanship.

I suspect the differences may be more due to where the training was than the regime is what done under. Very few RA-Aus pilots learn in CTR but those that do would obviously already be familiar with the procedures. However a non CTR endorsed PPL would probably struggle flying in a GAAP at first.

 

John

 

 

[antzx6r]

I'd like some restrictions removed. More than one pax, transiting controled airspace and if the need arised, land in a CTR airport. It seems that CTAFs are moving further from the cities. Its looking like the CTR endorsement is a fizzer so off to GA.

 

I would also like to do some mild aero training and maybe even build an RV or similar.

 

 

[flyby]

:clap:So what your saying is you want to jump through more hoops:clap: