Jim McDowall

In the case of NZ, since the days of Malcolm Fraser there has been an agreement between Aus and NZ called the Closer Economic Relationship ("CER") which means that much of our legislation with common interest such as aviation is sought to be harmonised (bureaucratic speak for " made the same") For this and other reasons which is why the CASR's define a sport aviation body as to mean: ........... "(g) a body established in a Contracting State to administer sport aviation in that State." So in short, I can fly a NZ registered ultralight on a NZ part 149 organisation pilot certificate in Australia.

It never ceases to amaze how few people know how our laws come into being. Acts of Parliament are agreed by both houses of parliament. Regulations (like part 149) are usually never subject to the scrutiny of parliament. All that happens is that (in Federal Executive Council) the regulations are assented to by the Governor General on the recommendation of the responsible Minister. Unless there is a dis-allowance motion passed by either of the houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days of the signing into law by the Governor General of the regulation, it remains law until such time it is amended or repealed by another regulation. So as a group (as individuals with a similar objection) we have to get off our collective butts and get our Senators (who are less committed to holding the party line) to move a dis-allowance motion. This is how our democracy works.

I understand that the last consultation was October or November last year when the bodies were summonsed to a meeting in Sydney where there were "told" not "consulted" on how part 149 would be promulgated. A review of GFA executive committee minutes indicates that there were other meetings with the bodies but in general the memberships of prospective ASAO's were not told about these meetings let alone consulted on the detail.

If anyone is motivated the list of Members and Senators can be found at: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Guidelines_for_Contacting_Senators_and_Members It seems that many do not like to use email.

Petition your local member and all the senators in your state highlighting issues such as those highlighted here and ask theme to move a disallowance motion. "Its not fair" wont work

The real risk to ASAO is a civil action related to employment or trade practice in which case CASA is out of the frame and RAA's insurers may not be liable. Without wanting to cast aspersions but fraud is another way for the members to wake up one day and find that RAA (or any other ASAO) is no more. It happens a lot in "volunteer" organisations.

And there is no provision for what happens if an ASAO goes belly up (most likely in a non-aviation event)? Do those who have invested their hard earned in their favorite pursuit have to wait a couple of years whilst CASA approves a replacement?

Turbs, Within 15 sitting days after tabling a senator may give notice of a motion to disallow the legislative instrument. If the motion is agreed to, the instrument is disallowed and ceases to have effect. If a notice of motion to disallow a legislative instrument has not been resolved or withdrawn within 15 sitting days after having been given, the instrument is deemed to have been disallowed and automatically ceases to have effect. By my count the Senate has up until and include September 19 to disallow this regulation. Yes it is law but not set in concrete yet! and it does not come into effect until "A single day to be fixed by the Minister by notifiable instrument. However, if the provisions do not commence within the period of 12 months beginning on the day after this instrument is registered, they commence on the day after the end of that period." I am not aware of any proclamation by the Minister - too busy fixing the drought I presume.

Given that Part 149 is predicated on Parts 103 and 105 where the f--- are they? - lost in the bowels of CASA's interminable regulatory development process?. The Senate should chuck this piece of crap out until they see ALL of the relevant legislation. The explanatory statement omits the international requirement (and local I think) for the rules of evidence to be applied in any disciplinary procedure. Also the use of disciplinary procedures applicable to members of organisations (and thus the denial of the most basic rules of evidence that would be applicable in a properly constituted court) rather than properly constituted courts is a misuse of the legislation constituting the organisations. If members of organisations were refugees, the human rights lobby would be all over this.

I reserve the right to be wrong occasionally - Part 149 came into force July12 - 95.10 is probably critically endangered as a result and no indication in the regulation as to what happens if a RAAO ceases to trade (eg as a result of non-aviation related event). A BS piece of law.

Why??????

The regulations are make it clear that recreational aviation is on a temporary basis as ASAO certificates can only be issued for a period of up to 5 years (149.075). Also CASA can limit the number of ASAO (149.060) - I wonder what the ACCC would make of that restraint of trade? I note that: the position of safety manager and any other key personnel position in the ASAO’s organisation may be occupied by the same person simultaneously only: (i) in an unforeseen circumstance, and for the period specified in the ASAO’s exposition; or (ii) in the circumstances, and for the period, for which the ASAO holds an approval under regulation 149.005. 149.005 allows for the circumstance where the ASAO is a natural person. It is interesting that whilst the person referred to in 149.005 can be anybody on the planet (ie not an Australian citizen or resident) a corporate body must be be registered in Australia. Why is it that corporate organisations must have a dedicated safety manager when EASA is in the process of doing away with SMS for the light end of GA? CASR 149.200 requires that if a key personnel cannot carry out responsibilities for 35 days, CASA must be informed 5 or 10 days after the ASAO becomes aware of the absence. CASA seems to imagine that ASAO's are vast bureacracies as no account is taken of the annual leave that may be taken over the Xmas period. In any event the penalty is for not informing CASA not having the position vacant which may lead to suspension of authorisation as a secondary effect. If the authorisation is suspended were are all potentially screwed by a bureacratic oversight on the part of the relevant ASAO. Without the MOS in place how can any exposition be written or do some incumbents get the inside running? (potential Criminal Code offence?) And in any event which Act of Parliament gave CASA the right to delegate its enforcement powers to private organisations (149.290)?. This poorly drafted, intellectually weak piece of legislation must have been rushed out (how can any one be expected to get something together after only 20 years of work in a vacuum?) to meet a management deadline.

And then there is the dopey cops who threatened to arrest me for a breach of WHS laws in a public place. WHS is not much more than a method of achieving a compliant society when rational argument or discourse are beyond the capacity of arms of social engineers to employ so as to persuade people that a particular course of action is required.

FAR Part 105 is about Parachute operations but am I missing the point?

Try this site address and look for 21.195A delegates https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certification/standard-page/airworthiness-delegate-search

I wonder if RAA admin costs will go up, whether CASA's contribution to the organisation's costs will increase (not guaranteed in last consultation papers), and thus the cost per member will remain the same or decrease (same costs - more members/registrations)? Watch the bureaucratic demands increase - via CASA's approval process of Ops and Tech manuals and consequently cost per member increase.

But some ideas have drawbacks not imagined: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5817679/Eagle-trained-bring-terrorist-drones-attacks-girl-five.html

Aircraft in Australia are classified according to ICAO Annex 7. As such VH registered self launching gliders are classified as “heavier-than-air power driven aeroplanes”. (They are incorrectly held in the Australian Aircraft Register as “motor gliders” for which there is no ICAO Annex 7 definition) As VH reg aeroplanes weighing upto 850kg, they are flown under the GFA banner, and can be piloted by non-GA pilots without medicals and maintained outside the GA system, principally by owner/operators. They can fly in controlled airspace. So why is there the fuss about increased weights, CTA and the like? Answer – Whilst CASA can keep everybody in their respective silos they can keep every organization “guarding their patch”. In many other jurisdictions UL’s/ recreational aircraft are held on the same register as passenger airliners – no problem. The Canadian owner maintenance experience is positive and in NZ under 600kg aircraft can be owner maintained without oversight and no-one in NZ is bitching about accident rates caused from maintenance issues. And the rest of the world has worked out that aviation medicals for non-commercial pilots is a waste of time and money.

Don't glider pilots use CTA without a medical?

And what deed would that be?

As Mike B says if CASA and everybody else who has a regulatory oar in the water (air?) all recreational aircraft should become "experimental" category aircraft thus relieving CASA of all liability (see CASR 200.003) and thus RAAus. If RAAus can currently issue ELSA certificates why should not every other aircraft on the RAAus register be "experimental"? (aside from the change in CAO95.55) Back that up with US style owner maintenance of experimental aircraft and RAAus can become an advisory and advocacy bodies without the conflicts of interest inherent in the current regulatory arrangements.

For those who have an interest in how things are evolving in other jurisdictions EASA is moving towards owner maintenance - EASA GA Roadmap In the appendices of the new regulations (new Part ML) I found this little gem. Appendix II Limited Pilot - owner maintenance In addition to the requirements laid down in this Part - ML, the following basic principles shall be complied with before any maintenance task is carried out by the Pilot-owner: (a) Competence and responsibility (1)The pilot-owner is always responsible for any maintenance that they perform . (2)Before carrying out any Pilot-owner maintenance tasks, the pilot-owner must satisfy themselves that they are competent to perform the task. It is the responsibility of pilot-owners to familiarise themselves with the standard maintenance practices for their aircraft and with the AMP. If the Pilot-owner is not competent for the maintenance task to be carried out, the maintenance cannot be released by the Pilot - owner. In other words it is up to the pilot-owner to decide his competence not an external body. Before all the CASA and RAus sycophants run to your keyboards screaming "What about safety" or words similar this is what EASA said in the Explanatory Statement: 2.4. Summary of the RIA (Regulatory Impact Assessment) 2.4.1 — Safety impact -The creation of a separate Part-ML containing only the requirements applicable to the lighter end of the GA community is not anticipated to have any negative impact (not only on safety but also on other areas). On the contrary, the following benefits are expected:  it will provide more clarity for stakeholders and competent authorities, thus facilitating its understanding and implementation and, as a consequence, it will raise the level of safety achieved ; and  it will ensure that regulatory changes being discussed for more complex aircraft can be kept away from Part - ML, preventing any possible side effects on the lighter end of the GA community. In addition the bodies (similar to RAAus, ELAAA and GFA) as well as the maintenance firms are not required to have SMS. Similar reforms are proposed for GA pilot training. It seems that Australia is swimming against the international tide in respect of the regulation of the light end of GA (and remember RAA aircraft are GA by ICAO definition). We can only hope that our CASA "Sir Humphrey" types can join the international enlightenment.

I used cable operated disc brakes of mountain bike heritage for my 95.10 Hummel Ultracruiser. Work just fine - no problem holding the aircraft on engine run up. Much better than the drum brakes originally installed.

No such animal in RAA