DrZoos

2004 age discrimination act makes it illegal to discriminate based on age only on strict criterea See: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00188

To discriminate on age is not illegal. Drinking, driving, health insurance, driving licence tests, old age homes, pensions, super... its perfectly legal to require an age for something... there is no legal defence what so ever. Certainly cant be challenged in any Australian court with any success.

More money in Rupert's pocket, by using stock photos. we are rapidly approaching the point when journalists will never need to take another photo or interview, they will simply use stock photos and edited audio to cover everything that happens.

Oscar seriously...if your numbers are remotely correct we wouldnt even be discussing this, we would never hear of a jab failure, we wouldnt know jabs had cooling issues and we wouldnt know what a through bolt was , the size or the difference between valve lifters.... But alas we do...owners and observers have spoken about them with amazing regularity over many years.... Your figures are fanciful at best...and your assumptions about which aircraft had which engines are as ill founded as what you acuse CASA of doing, unfounded statistics I dispute CASA's numbers, but creating a new set of fanciful data doesnt help

Your on nav 2 , i suggest asking your instructor....anyone on nav 2 asking this much detail is either in way over thier head, getting too far ahead of the curve and or needs to consult thier own instructor There is a wealth of knowledge in here, but specifics about your navs really need to be asked and addresse by your own instructor...not only so you get the right answer, but also so they know your level of knowledge and understanding... If you bypass your instructor too much the learning and instruction process gets disjointed and becomes more difficult for both parties. Ask ask and ask your instructor... Bypassing the instructor can lead to mistakes, assumed knowledge and errors..

If you select special assistance required, no matter who you are they must by law offer to take you with a wheel chair or cart...if enough people do this they will surely put in travelators...personally i like the exercise given your generally gunna be on your bum for a very long time.

Gnarly Gnu said: ↑ Only tards on twitter 320 Million or more apparently ...and most seem to like Trump

Oh dear someone has an AGENDA on twitter!

If they sacked CASA and employed Australia's most undereducated people, it would certainly improve.

R.I.P....and condolences to all.

So if they can't be used for any commercial advantage or trade, how then does CASA allow display of RAAus aircraft from manufacturers and importers at flyins... do they travel there on truck? The act linked above is pretty clear, I think, however, I would say these aircraft breach it so its consistently not being enforced. Once a law is consistently not being enforced, that can become a legal defence. This in itself can become a precedent. It wouldn't affect the finding of guilt, but it could certainly reduce the sentence / penalty for breach.

Yep i too know several people who have been asked for a maintenance release form for their RAA aircraft on a ramp check... Do a google search for "RAA maintenance release" there are plenty of results indicating it is a common term

Something for you to digest, rip apart, enjoy or hate! Engine failures and malfunctions in light aeroplanes 2009 - 2014 http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2013/ar-2013-107_research Type: Research and Analysis Report Investigation number: AR-2013-107 Publication date: 9 March 2016

So assuming your right Kasper there is still the initial problem, why do we have raA maintainers working for raa clubs and they are the only person in the club that is not covered by insurance? If insurance is so critical which it is, why is it that RAA has not addressed this issue, since they are obviously well aware of it. And is it just me or do we think that this ought to be addressed, given our aircraft that train n all our new members and the future of our sport rely on maintainers to do so without an uninsured risk to thier livelihood.

Kasper good luck arguing that one in court....i cant think of anyone in any club, company or organisations n i deal with that isnt covered by insurance, let alone an aircraft maintainer doing so for a club charging money to complete strangers who trust there have been no mistakes or over sights....its a recipe for disaster to do so without insurance

FromTechnical manual section 4 Policy 6.1 If an aircraft was operated at any time as an owner-pilot type, then that aircraft may not be used for hire or reward until a Level Two Maintenance Authority holder has examined the aircraft, is satisfied that the aircraft is correctly maintained and in an airworthy condition, and records the examination in the aircraft log book. And Aircraft Used for Hire/Reward. Only factory produced aircraft may be offered for hire and reward and flying training, other than CAO95.55 para 1.5 aircraft which can only be used for flying training of the builder or builders. Aircraft used for hire and reward are to be wholly maintained, and/or the maintenance authenticated by, an RA-Aus Level Two Maintenance Authority holder. Daily inspections may be completed by the pilot-in-command. Maintenance on the engine, propeller or flight controls should be checked by an independent person. At the completion of any maintenance on an aircraft, details of the work carried out must be immediately entered into the aircraft log book, the entry signed by the Level Two Maintenance Authority holder who is to include their name in block letters, RA-Aus number and the date of the entry. A solo check flight after scheduled maintenance in accordance with the manufacturer's schedule is mandatory before the aircraft is used for hire or reward. Successful completion of this check flight is to be recorded in the aircraft log book and signed for by the Level Two accredited person who conducted the technical work and the pilot who conducted the flight. What clubs commonly call a maintenance release... Dont forget the context of this thread was initially to do with Raa and clubs having no insurance for L2 doing work on club planes

See Maintnace authentication http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/students/maintenance.html Read the first and second paragraph...case in point

Terry...maintenace release....ie airworthy...

So i wrote to the ICC as suggested complaining about the Jabiru issue and this issue...Needless to say they aren't real interested unless you want to dob someone in or incriminate yourself!

Not only that Nev, but as some are un aware of...if you sign it as airworthy your signing every single sceric of that aircraft as airworthy, not just the part you worked on... and Joe average comes in wants a 5 minute job done on his aircraft or the club wants an oil change....they dont really want to pay for you to check every aspect of that aircraft.... yet you take responsibility for it once you sign it off.

I don't think this should be an argument about the quality of L2's, that is a separate issue , as some have said, we get good and bad operators in every industry...The fact is many of us and the future of RAA rely on flying clubs teaching pilots to fly. Without L2's the whole thing stops. Right now we have a huge inequality in that every person performing things for a club is insured except an L2 L3 L4 who signs off maintenance, often for 50% less money than an instructor...now lets not debate that either as the instructor risks their life... But if the future of RAA is reliant on RAA, every club needs one or tow or three of them, then why the hell are they left out to dry... Our club has two, both are extremely uncomfortable signing of on aircraft...as am I about to be qualified.... i simply wont sign until I am insured...Id like to and i have every intention to help the club , but i simply cant take that risk... There are plenty in here with fantastic experience in the areas of risk analysis, risk reduction and risk mitigation....any fool with a brain knows that in this day and age, dont even think about putting up your hand to do anything unless you are covered by liability insurance... RAA needs to address this urgently as this has the potential to get very ugly for RAA very fast if someone gets injured or sued and all RAA maintainers for clubs refuse to sign off aircraft. RAA would be in a far better position to rectify this before an incident or high profile court case than after or during . Some members may think this post is self serving and yes to an extent it is, but its also in the interest of RAA future, as having existing relationships with insurers is always better than trying to get coverage after an incident. Thus given the future of RAA relies on a continuation of flying clubs pumping thru new pilots, why are we not ensuring the correct risk management is in place, to ensure maintainers are adequately protected from the same mistakes and liability all other club members and RAA members are protected from.

Bruce if you have saved and invested your entire life, own your own home ...to sign off and say an aircraft is airworthy is a financial huge risk , especially in a club so tuation where some users dont even know your face, let alone appreciate your efforts.... The court case alone could send you broke with or without a loss. If they get injured , when i sign off....i risk everything i have ever worked for...and the stuid thing is, when you're u sign in ff your signing off to say its fully airworthy even though some company nents you may not have inspected or worked on... Why does RAA insurance cover committee and instructors, but not maintainers

Has anyone checked weather data for condioions that may be conducive to icing? seems a lower possibility with the conditions in NSW lately, but i havent checked data. According to the abc he took off at mdday 27th feb, which on face value wouldnt indicate icing.

Hi guys i have been plugging away developing my log book and experience and applied for my L2 A bit concerned to find out however, that all club committee members and instructors are covered by club insurance, but L2 are not... can anyone clarrify or elaborate on this as im really not interested at all in gambling my hard earned duture on an uninsured assistance to the club.... Yes it pays, but not wnoigh relative to the loability...

They will find a scapegaot and the incompetance will continue