Jim McDowall

It is my humble opinion at this time that the only SAO that will end up operating under P149.

 

Did you mean "It is my humble opinion at this time that the only SAO that will end up operating under P149 will be RAAus"?

All about airlines, state and local government - nothing about GA (which includes RAAus aircraft). The people in Canberra dreaming up this shit probably don't know about the importance of GA - especially private GA - in the regions.

I agree it's a slower process these days, but is has eliminated a lot of inappropriate activity.

 

And expanded the scope for activist or corrupt local government employees to pervert the system sometimes in concert with similarly minded state government counterparts. These people rarely get brought to book as developers simply shrug their shoulders and move on to the next opportunity. There is no reward for principled behaviour by developers who may wish to take on the entrenched players in the system.

The story has nothing to do with law makers, just allegations of people scamming the system.

 

So Turbs, do you read this quote from the article differently?:

 

 

The seven-point plan calls on the government to regulate litigation funders through the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, impose reasonable limits on returns to plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders, and prohibit litigation funders from exerting any control over the positions and arguments prosecuted by law firms.

 

The Ai Group also asks to expose plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders to adverse costs orders for unsuccessful class ­actions and to increase the current minimum number of plaintiffs and implement a “predominance rule” that operates in the US requiring common issues among claims. The peak industry group also wants the government to implement a preliminary or certification hearing process, under a similar system operating in the US.

 

Shooting from the hip was always inaccurate

In Oz we continue to lag the rest of the democratic world. UK, US and Canada both have enlightened medical requirements based on a much larger sample of experiences. In Canada for example it is a one page declaration signed by the applicant and countersigned by the MD. With this in hand, you can fly aircraft upto 4 seats, albiet with only one passenger. Waiting for commonsense to arrive in Canberra is like waiting for rain in western NSW, a potentially fruitless exercise.

What are you talking about?

 

I got it. Law makers just put bandaids on things instead of dealing with the real issue.

disclosure is directly related to purpose for which the information was collected, RAA would not need to gain your consent for this disclosure

 

It would appear that this is the key phrase. For what purpose does RAAus collect information and how does this information related to assisting others in their commercial operations (if my belief that the local government legislation would regard this revenue as a "commercial" activity is correct.)

Like the new format but my LastPass (password manager) login no longer works

day to day where commercial operators, who fly every day want to talk about operational issues they're running into on a daily basis.

 

Lets hope one of the "operational issues" they run into is not a RAAus aircraft - after all we all inhabit the same airspace and (hopefully) play by the same rules.

It took about 6 months I think between the consulation and "decree" from CASA

 

And Part 149/103 etc took over two decades - so the answer may lay between 6mo and 20 years!

I didn't read anything in part 149 that would exclude ELAAA.

 

Even though the language of Part 149.060 would seem to indicate that CASA may approve ELAAA their prior statements in the Part 149 consultation papers and minutes of consultative committees indicate that CASA is keen to preserve the status quo. CASA has history on this. CAO 95.4 used to permit people to opt out of the GFA system and fly independently of GFA (the so called "parallel path"). Under pressure from GFA and their internal (to CASA) acolytes the parallel path was dispensed with without any evidence of a safety case.

I think we now just pay Standard GST and a small amount of extra tax per litre

 

The CASA annual report shows that it had revenues of $122 million from the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Act 1988. The accounts a;so show that CASA has cash reserves of $69 million! Maybe they could spend some on promoting recreational aviation by paying the various ASAO's their costs of complying with Part 149.

That pic looks like a RV-7 which is approximately 815kg. If you're saying it too needs more weight, how much do you want?

 

Have a look at the nosewheel in the pic. Nosewheel leg failure on the RV series is well known and poor engineering should not be used to justify maintenance of the 45knot stall speed requirement. Many other 800 kg series production aircraft have long term service records that demonstrate the safety of the FAR23/CAR3 61kt stall standard.

Some students 1 lesson per week, others 2 or 3, so 60 hours is right in the ballpark.

 

Typically students do about 40 hrs in RAAus then move on to VH over a 12-14mth course

One Moorabbin based flying school has over 30 Foxbat/Vixen on the line and that may be more than Bob Stillwell’s Civil training fleet from the GA heyday.

 

But are the students flying 60+ hours per annum each? see post #1 which is about members hours not aircraft.

Without saying that there is a conspiracy afoot, it is in the ASAO's interest to report high flying hours numbers so the accident rate ( fatalaties etc/ 1xxxx flying hours) is less. If you think the RAAus numbers are humbug take a look at the hours reported by the gliding fraternity to the BITRE which do not stand critical examination. Of the nearly 1300 registered gliders nearly have do not have annuals (derived from GFA accounts) done which means the fleet averaged nearly 100 hours per aircraft. Taking into account weather, the seasonal nature of gliding and the need for support for launches (except for SLG), the dormant nature of many clubs the reported stats can only be described as bunkum.

And where is the evidence basis for these changes as they seem not to be "safety related" or is the object to drive us from the skies to make room for legions of drones (acting behalf of Amazon, Google et al) delivering parcels, dinner and whatever else can packed into a pilotless vehicle?

In Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd's response to CASA Medical Certification Standards Discussion Paper (December 2016 - page 13) it said:

"Adoption of a self-certification model by CASA would put CASA in direct competition with RAAus and create the untenable situation of RAAus having to compete with the body that controls its very existence – a conflict of interest for CASA that could have significant adverse consequences."

It may be that CASA could overcome this by requiring medical certification for all (despite international regulators moving towards self certification in varying degrees.) Has RAAus shot itself in the foot?

Roll bars wouldn't work on Quads, they need a roll cage plus seat belt to hold the occupants inside the cage.

 

There are two approved devices that qualify for the rebate scheme and neither of them are roll cages (the Quadbar Flexi and the ATV Lifeguard).

I agree with your reference about tractors but who was talking about tractors?

SA SES responded by disposing of all their Quad bikes.

 

After watching those guys in action a number of times in various situations, I would say that the management of the SES would do well to remove every powered device from their members for their own protection. Don't get me wrong there are some wonderful people involved in the SES but when the adrenaline kicks in all the training in the world wont save some from themselves.

Victorian Government which made itr mandatory for an owner to provide an effective roll cage.

 

The Victorian Government did no such thing. It simply introduced a rebate scheme for roll bar fitment to NEW quads which could be sold without roll bars (probably because of interstate trade issues).

You are seeing less quads as a result of market influences such introduction of the buggies, and yes, the marketplace recognizing the dangers associated with quads. I doubt any farmer new of the Tasmanian case or even if it influenced any on farm decision.

there is no such thing as an acceptable kill rate

 

So the 136 deaths on quad bikes over the last 8 years weren't an acceptable kill rate? Whilst it is unfortunate that anybody meets an untimely end, society cannot afford, for many reasons, to be so completely risk averse as to not allow people to explore the boundaries of behaviour. Whats next? banning walking because pedestrians get killed?

The proposed regulation without the MOS referred to is like buying clothes on ebay because you like the colour and forget to see what size you will be delivered. You get what the seller wants to deliver.

CASA has form on this regulatory approach of leaving the detail to a MOS and their online straight jacketed approach to consultation makes a farce of consultation. The Part 149 MOS is so open to interpretation by CASA any sensible commercial operator would not go near Part 149 but the ASAO are damned to conform to CASA's demands.

Most of the aircraft that would migrate to RAA under the 760kg weight limit if stall speed was not 45kt were designed to FAR 23 or CAR3 in which case the structures were designed to the higher stall speeds.

Yes if you hit the ground you may be hurt, but if you have stalled the aircraft into the ground there is every likelihood that the impact speed will be higher than the stall speed.

The wing loading of a  Jabiru 160 is about 67kg/m2 which is higher than a Cherokee 140 and Cessna 172( 65kg/m2) and a Cessna 150 (50kg/m2) . Interestingly the recommended landing speeds are similar (63 - 65 kts). Surely this is a better determinant than stall speed.

The numbers still used in training of these types bear testimony to their ruggedness and safety performance.

requirements prescribed by the Part 103 Manual of Standards for the purposes of this subregulation.

 

What MOS? does it exist? The Part 103 consultation document titled "Proposed new rules for sport and recreational aviation operations"

includes the following passage:

"To make it simpler for the sport and recreation community, CASA is considering the development of a plain English guide that consolidates the relevant provisions of Part 91, Part 103 and Part 103 MOS in one easy to read document"

The High Court has repeatedly said that legislation should be clear and unambiguous. This statement is an admission that the legislative mess that is aviation law does not meet that standard.