Jim McDowall

So paying for fuel is now a safety issue?

So Turbs, re post#26 where did your stats come from? Or did you do the bureaucratic thing of making up stats and hoping no one would ask where they originated. Time to come clean

This was over a period of several hours. I too spend 15 -20 hours per week on the roads , country and city, and it never ceases to amaze me the way traffic control is abused, for example 25kph for well over a kilometre beyond the workzone on an open (ie no vision obstacles) road and those controls left in place after working hours. I work in the construction industry and the pedantry of some site safety officers is unbelievable whilst others simply fill out the forms and stay in their airconditioned hut and work gets done by people who know what they are doing and what the risks are. My point about the Snowy is mirrorred by CASA's inability to complete writing proper regulations 30 years after the CAA came into force and yet (for example) immigration regulations can be drafted and implemented literally overnight. Safety is CASA's pre-occupation and only a lower order concern for immigration. Somewhere is the sensible middle.

If today's safety standards were applied to the Snowy Mountains project it would still be being built. I watched a road repair at a minor intersection the other day - 3 people actually worked and at least 5 did traffic control and a further 2 watched.

Where did these stats come from because as far a I know only stats for hours flown are collected and to call those stats dodgy would be an understatement?

And people go to the car races for the crashes! Excitement is not necessarily related to safety.

Turbs, do you have any friends outside aviation? Almost everyone I know who isn't an aviator thinks I'm nuts to fly around the countryside in a small aeroplane.

Anyone who gets into a light aircraft with the expectation that their safety is similar to flying Jetstar probably does need treatment!

Not if the skill base and systems are in place They do this with startup airlines so should not be a problem And perhaps wither on the vine. Aircraft all operate under the same basic rules (eg Day VFR or Part 91). Maintenance obligations are easily defined, flight training regimes are known and delegations managed by CASA to ensure quality standards are maintained. No a practical problem just a re-adjustment of attitude, after all "low end GA" and recreational aircraft are technically all GA.

So what is the difference between an "angel flight" and the friend down the road who offers to fly you to a centre for treatment. The only difference I can see is the non profit who links flyers with the need. The problem I can see with the Mount Gambier accident is that there is a commercial service available which was not utilised and a (relatively) inexperienced, community active person focused on the need to meet deadlines. It would seem that the accident potential was raised by imperative to meet deadlines which we have all experienced on the ground. Unfortunately a human response.

Just a thought - how will CASA cope with vehicles like the Blackfly eVTOL on a mass scale?

Gliders are VH registered, upto 850kg MTOW and can be self launching (actually if motorised, under ICAO definition they are regarded as aeroplanes). GFA nominates people who hold delegations for a number of activities and types. As the GFA is the oldest of these organisations CASA is obviously capable of, and comfortable with, organisation with mixed aircraft categories. And technically (again ICAO defined) GA and ultralights are all GA. Just because CASA has not done something before doesn't mean that they cant do it. Afterall drones have not really stopped flying because CASA couldn't get their head around it , CASA just fell into line with marketplace pressure. The proposed Part 43 arrangements may go some way to lowering maintenance costs but if an EAB can be maintained by the builder CASA is clearly some way down the path. Further CASA has approved RAAus's manuals which could easily be expanded to accommodate Schedule B aircraft maintenance in accordance with the manufacturers manual as is currently done with LSA administered by RAA. It doesnt really matter if the organisation RAA or any other body if CASA approves the manuals etc. Agreed that there is little political will. However, the existing tensions within the Board may have unforseen outcomes. Afterall in 2015 who would have thought that Donald Trump would be POTUS (a commonly used acronym).

Why? gliders are on the VH register. The problem really is that CASA has convinced themselves that the existing silos need to be protected from competition. Delegations are already handled by a variety of different organisations from Qantas to individuals and are overseen by the internal CASA Office of Delegate Oversight (Management?)

Saw a large dead roo on the side of a road 15km from the Adelaide CBD last week - closer in than Parafield

But what about the pediatric specialists widow who has to keep all his notes etc for 21 years after his last consult and lives in fear of an insurance claim for that time?

And then there is S.97AB of the Act which RAAus and CASA seem to be ignoring!

Actually, as CASA funds RAAus in part under a contract the Privacy Act (ie RAAus is a ‘contracted service provider’ is defined in s 6(1) of the Act ) there is no lower limit to which the Act applies. https://www.oaic.gov.au/agencies-and-organisations/app-guidelines/chapter-a-introductory-matters

ICAO rules on registration would enable VH-R???, VH-X??? etc - we are not stuck with 3 letters following the VH. I think also South Africa has: ZS-AAA to ZS-ZZZ (type certified aircraft) ZT-RAA to ZT-RZZ (type certified rotorcraft) and ZT-TAA to ZT-TZZ (civil RPAS)[18] ZU ZU-AAA to ZU-ZZZ (non-type certified aircraft). From 1921 to 1929, G-UA. but Germany does it this way: D-AAAA to D-AZZZ for aircraft with more than 20 t MTOW D-AUAA to D-AZZZ (test registrations) for aircraft manufactured by Airbus at Finkenwerder D-BAAA to D-BZZZ for aircraft with 14–20 t MTOW D-CAAA to D-CZZZ for aircraft with 5.7–14 t MTOW D-EAAA to D-EZZZ for single-engine aircraft up to 2 t MTOW D-FAAA to D-FZZZ for single-engine aircraft from to 2–5.7 t MTOW D-GAAA to D-GZZZ for multi-engine aircraft up to 2 t MTOW D-HAAA to D-HZZZ for rotorcraft D-IAAA to D-IZZZ for multi-engine aircraft from 2–5.7 t MTOW D-KAAA to D-KZZZ for powered gliders D-LAAA to D-LZZZ for airships D-MAAA to D-MZZZ for powered ultralight aircraft D-NAAA to D-NZZZ for non-powered ultralight aircraft D-OAAA to D-OZZZ for manned free balloons D-0001 to D-9999 for gliders.

Why not issue VH to RAAus - no valid reason not to - registration has nothing to do with airworthiness

From Helicopter Crashes in City | Dictionary of Sydney HOME.DICTIONARYOFSYDNEY.ORG This week on 2SER Breakfast, Dictionary special guest Dr Peter Hobbins talked to Tess about a terrible accident in the centre of the city in 1966 when a helicopter crashed onto Gold Fields House at… Maybe this is the source of the regulation idea? "While the investigation into the accident had consequences for the helicopter’s American manufacturers Bell, who faced litigation that went on into the 1970s, another long term outcome was that single-engined aircraft, like small planes and helicopters, could no longer fly over built up areas like the city, which is why today you see them flying along Sydney’s waterways like the harbour or rivers. "

Yes. Under the Deed of Agreement with CASA, RAAus receives in excess of $100,000 from CASA. The link on the website to this agreement seems to be broken. It is uncertain if RAAus will receive any funds from CASA under the Part 149 arrangements due to the operation of Sec 97AB of the Act which CASA has been ignoring for years.

Try this link: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774750/asd_53_nov_67.pdf

My point is this - RAAus is a company - when does variation of the rights of an individual member become a fraud on a minority? Similarly, the GFA's policies do not meet the requirements of the Victorian Association law - nor do the respective policies mirror the CASA MOS for enforcement. These corporate structures were not designed for this purpose. Governments of all types deals with public liability in the ordinary course of business. For example, your local council does not stop people playing football on a council oval just because someone may be hurt. The CASR's specifically take CASA of the hook in respect of experimental aircraft (CASR 201.003) - Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things. Solution is make every RAAus aircraft an experimental aircraft! Telling me to come to grips with an administrative position is not how democracy works - just watch how GetUp and Greenpeace work and the public/politician response. Turbs, I know your are hung up on liability but when was the last incident involving a member of the public who was not in the RAAus aircraft? As you will know courts have determined that if you get into a glider or RAAus aircraft you know that you are undertaking a potentially dangerous activity and no one else is to blame but you if it all goes pear shaped.

As usual Turbs you missed the point

The problem with the whole Part 149 thing is that at no stage has the legal capacity of the SAO's to play the role that CASA and some of the SAO's want to play ever been properly examined, particularly in respect of modification of members rights, either individually or as a group by the organisation concerned. BTW from April 1 next year the South African CAA will have absorbed the South African equivalent of RAAus back into its structure and within its absolute control.