Jim McDowall

Turbs, you do write some rubbish at times. Aircraft can be as complex or as simple as you desire - it all depends on what you are prepared (unprepared?) to take on. Besides AUW, where it fits in the regulatory scheme of things is largely up to decisions the builder. You could put a Weedhopper on the GA register as an experimental category aircraft if you wanted and aren't some Jabiru types interchangeable VH to RAA? Builder support is more dependent on the associations people form with other like minded individuals rather than associations they join. And then the numerous builder forums, online resources like the EAA and interested professionals who can assist. RAA is really only a quasi regulator and SAAA seems to be looking for meaning in a post 101.28 age.

Several years ago I went to the Watts Bridge flyin. A great event with anybody and everybody able to roam around the aircraft parking area - there was great interest in all types of aircraft by all age groups. The next year I went to the Watts Bridge Airshow. Patrons were not allowed beyond the barricaded area and were generally treated like cattle. Lots turned up but any potential to recruit was minimised because, as any car dealer will tell you, the first challenge is to get the customer to sit in the car. Excited potential new recruits could only get seriously sunburned whilst being "lectured" about how to learn to fly - sell the sizzle first and fill in the gaps later.

As CAO 95.55 requires that an aircraft to which it applies has a single engine and a single propeller probably means would have to be experimental GA or if single engine 95.10 if less than 300kg AUW and 30kg/m2. Some glider guys have done jet mods with variable results.

And hasn't the urban landscape changed - back shed gone in favour of a lanscaped space that is of no purpose other than to keep up with the Joneses and enhance? property value. A building space needs to be readily accessible and not add to the cost of the build.

I used to be a member at one of Adelaide's top golf courses where my brother is still a member. Yesterday he said his membership fees were $4,500 per annum. or $86 per week irrespective of if he plays and at the end of the year he has nothing to show for it plus the cost of balls, gloves clubs etc. At least the flyiing costs I incur are at my control so is it cheap? I guess it is what you compare it to.Also chat to the car buffs to compare expenditure - flying may be cheap.

This is how to get them! http://www.midnorthcc.sa.edu.au/aviation-program Another state school in the area has had a similar program. When I built my Hummel Ultra cruiser in a shed at the back of the local hardware store there were many visitors who said things along the lines of "you can do that! I though planes come from factories" whereupon I explained to them that aircraft, airliners through to u/l are all "hand built" and you can do it if you take the time to work your way through the labrynth and take the time to learn the processes/ techniques. I also found that as word got around the district that I was building other builders would turn up - none that I had known before. Perhaps it is the nature of things that we keep our projects to ourselves for fear of ????. Nevertheless I am now building a Thatcher CX 5 whilst dreaming of the project after that.

I think that the powers that be (CASA, GFA, HGFA,RAA etc) prefer to be in control of the information. (My VH reg glider is not surveyed by BITRE) Remember that control of information is the key to winning any argument.

Actually the BITRE form outlines the penalties and highlights that to provide false information is a criminal offence (see copy of form at the end of BITRE General aviation statistics)

The performance of the SAAO's is demonstrated by their respective bodies accident rates. The GFA worked this out about 2 decades ago and have been falsifying the hours flown by gliders in their returns to BITRE (and thus their accident rate may actually be 5-6 times greater than published). It seems that others may have cottoned on. Double the hours halve the accident rate which dived in the last annual report. I know half a dozen members who collectively flew less than 20 hours last financial year and I bet that there are many similar stories which means that some guys (and girls to be PC) are doing an awful lot of hours. So politically it is desirable to publish these numbers, BITRE knows they are false (personal communication) CASA needs them to show government that their administrative approach is working, the SAAO's need the recognition to justify continued monopolies which is why Part 149 will never become law.

My point exactly - but those rules should not exceed those required of VH reg pilots and operators or those standards shown internationally to be adequate. Simply writing rules to show CASA what goody two shoes you are is a recipe for over-regulation.

The only reasons RAAus exists at all is because historically it was the lobby group that got the then AUF off the ground only to become the quasi regulator under CAO95.55 etc which somewhat cruelled its role as a lobbyist organisation. So the only activiteies I want to see it spend its money on is the represent the interest of members insofar as required to maintain or improve our flying rights (or priveleges depending on your point of view) and expand the membership base so as to spread the costs of these activities further. What worries me are statements like this from the last annual report:Medicals In light of recent developments around the world and the resulting decisions about medical standards, the board had a discussion about the standards required for recreational aircraft. The board has agreed to develop a ‘fitness to fly’ document along the same lines as the Australian Parachute Federation’s ‘fitness to parachute’ guidelines. The board has also agreed to undertake a review of the current standards with a view to creating a clearer alignment with drivers’ licence requirements that are well understood by medical practitioners." CASA had prior to this report issued a discussion paper on aviation medical standards as a result of changes to medical certification around the world. It would have been germain to wait for the CASA outcome and also look further afield bfore wandering off on an excercise that in reality puts into doubt the adequacy of the Human Factors course. A look over the ditch at their microlight medical declaration or locally the Austroads publication "Assessing Fitness to Drive 2016 (as amended up to August 2017)" would have enlightened the policy makers in which case if you hold a private drivers licence you meet the existing standard. In the absense of any verifiable evidence that this standard should be changed DO NOTHING. This idea of "getting on the front foot with CASA" only leads to more regulation.Just look how the GFA has created rules and policies that are driving people away from the sport. We all know that CASA is slow to make new rules but quick to tug the chain so wait for the results of CASA's review.

VH - no annual rego & no membership fees.Bird Dog, you minimise your costs by maintaining your own aircraft - those who choose to have professionally maintained do not see a lot of difference between VH and RAA. . Remember your flying costs are lower because your fuel consumption is much lower than most GA types. What is really the point of this discussion is the lack of substantive information flowing to members. In the financial year 2016/17 the total expenses of RAAus were $2.753 million. I understand that there were a number of "one off" expenses in this number. A 5% increase in expenses would raise this to $2.89 million (ie 137,000 more). 500 more members means 117,500 will come from new memberships and presumably the aircraft register will increase to match this (say 165 @$165 =$27,225) which would be more than enough to cover the increased expenses. Any other shortfall in revenue over expenses should be met by expense control. The financial information provided to members on such activities as Ozkosh and Avalon is scant and it would seem to be covered in a catch all numbers like "Accommodation, meetings and travel .... $120,409. Much of this sort of discussion could be set aside if Board minutes were published as they are distributed to the Board along with the financial reports. I would like to know what the net financial cost of events such as OzKosh are or at least some analysis conducted (if there ever was) because the recent PR to members on the cash position of the organisation was nothing more than insulting. I for one do not like being taken for a dummy and I do not want to see the situation synonymous with local government where members are seen as some sort of milch cow to build an ivory castle. Remember, these sort of organisations in NZ do the same work an membership fees are less than $NZ100. End of my rant Jim McDowall Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

In NZ under 600 kg aircraft flying membership runs from $NZ30 to $NZ 95 depending on Part 149 entity. What is so much different about Australia that it is so much more expensive given the larger membership?

Excellent point

Perhaps a review of the Sport and Recreation SCC minutes is enlightening as to the attitude of the existing bodies but Johnathon Alecks diatribe issued as Appendix C in NPRM1502ss concerning Part 149 indicates the CASA view on multiple organisations administering the same industry sectors:- "14. That said, having regard to the nature and extent of the kinds of sport and recreational aviation activities currently administered by existing bodies, and cognisant of the potential safety risks attendant on the approval of more than one RAAO to administer essentially the same activities, it is not unreasonable to expect that, as a matter of safety and consistent with applicable anti-competition laws, CASA might not properly approve more than one applicant in respect of a particular sphere of activity. 15. At this point, it would still be premature to speculate about whether, and if so under what circumstances, there might be more than one RAAO approved to administer the same activity (in at least one case, there already is), and it would be unwise to suggest or imply that there will only ever be a single RAAO approved to administer a particular activity . As a practical matter, however, and mindful of CASA's overarching commitment to safety, and our expectations of others in that connection, it is reasonable to say that one of the most effective bulwarks against competition is to strive to offer the very best product and services, on reasonable terms and at affordable prices." The part I have colored red is only to show the duplicitous nature of thier position, because they (CASA) cannot be seen to formally exclude the concept of multiple organisations administering the same activity. AS I have pointed out in another thread there are several organisations administering RAAus type activities in NZ without any demonstrable administrative issues or cost impacts. I would like to think that ELAAA has a chance but the will to change must be evident within CASA for it to occur. One of the reasons we have been preparing for the introduction of Part 149 for at least two decades is that everybody, (the bodies and CASA), are quite comfortable with the status quo.

It appears as though ELAAA is lost in the bureaucratic maze that would require CASA to at the very least issue a new CAO to cover its operations, the CASR's to be amended and/or Part 149 to be adopted. At the moment CASR 200.014(from memory) requires that the CASR's do not apply if aircraft are operated in accordance with CAO 95.55. CAO 95.55 only recognises RAAus. Further the CASR 200.25 says that paragraph 20AB(1)(a) of the Act, a person is taken to hold a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform a duty that is essential to the operation of an unregistered Australian aircraft during flight time if: (a) the person holds a pilot certificate granted by a sport aviation body that administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and (b) the person operates the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body's operations manual. Sports aviation bodies are defined by the CASR do not include ELAAA (defines the existing "peak bodies"). ELAAA predicament could easily be resolved if there was a will to do it within CASA but it seems as though everybody is comfortable with the status quo.

GFA require annual flight reviews in VH reg gliders and self launching gliders. BTW self launching gliders are not properly registered in terms of the requirements Part 47. They should be recorded as single engined aeroplanes (as per ICAO Annex 7 as required by CASR 47) and thus only be flown by RPL, PPL or better.

Some specifics would be helpful otherwise its the same as CASA made us do it! So if the regs mandate bi-annual flight reviews in VH aircraft how can CASA approve a manual which mandates ANNUAL flight reviews in VH aircraft? Surely they cannot approve something that they cannot mandate themselves?

But where do they get the power? Other government agencies approve manuals and they do not have a problem telling you what should and shouldn't be in them. After all you said "CASA's authority is spelled out in the legislation; that's as far as they can go with demands" (#343) that means that they should not approve manuals that exceed their (ie CASA's) powers.

As CASA has to approve GFA (and others) ops and tech manuals, it should point out to the organisations concerned when they have gone overboard and beyond the legislative requirements. Regulation is not a pissing competition. With regard to the CASA audit of RAAus's registration system where does it get the power to do this? Part 47 of the CASR's is not applicable and the CAO's only require that aircraft be "registered with RAA". The CAO's do not provide for audit.

The point Bruce was trying to make, I think, is that we are all captive to our respective SAAO's. In NZ there are at least 3 Part 149 SAAO's that your have the choice of for under 600kg aeroplanes - if you dont like one you can move to another. There is remarkable variation in their ops/tech requirements which probably means NZCAA is not too bothered about the category - just give them some paperwork that fits the bill and move on?The real reason that Part 149 has not yet been implemented in Australia is CASA and the SAAO's have worked out how to preserve their monopolies. Meanwhile ELAAA, a fee for service organisation (ie parallel to GA) cant get into the game. So why is CASA trying to advantage one organisation over another?

Agreed, but what is it in the Australian psyche that thinks that if we make a new rule the problem (actual or imagined) is fixed which really only results in more regulation and usually more bureaucracy. eg before we had urban planners we had surveyors and they did a pretty good job (such as the celebrated Colonel Light in Adelaide) - no problems getting stuff built - now urban planners interfere with everything and impede growth etc.

Do you really want the Government to be responsible to the community at large for your actions? The courts have already decided that recreational flying is a dangerous pursuit where the participants assume the liabilities themselves.What CASA is saying in CASR 201.003 is that they are not responsible for those activities associated with the operation experimental and limited category aircraft. If an RAAus aircraft causes a loss (financial or otherwise) CASA will distance itself and any action against it will probably fail as it has it has in the past when a GFA pilot who failed in an action against the GFA sought to attack CASA. My proposition is that RAAus aircraft are included in CASR 201.003 so that CASA or others can cease using the excuses regularly trotted out to support increased regulation (eg CASA made me do it). In respect of the strict liability issue the following is worth reading. From Strictly liable, fairly enforced | Flight Safety Australia Breaches of most of the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, and a few of the provisions appearing in the Civil Aviation Act, are offences of strict liability. Dr Aleck says there is an unfortunate misunderstanding about what this means. ‘Many people believe that “strict liability” somehow involves a presumption of guilt, as opposed to the presumption of innocence that is central to our system of justice; and that it also involves a reversal of the burden of proof, shifting that burden from the prosecutor to the person charged with the offence. This is simply not so,’ he says. The difference between strict liability offences and other ‘fault-based’ offences has to do with the mental element, the Associate Director says. ‘There is no requirement for (and hence no need to prove the existence of) a mental element, that is a particular state of mind—intent, knowledge, recklessness or negligence—on the part of a defendant charged with a strict liability offence. This is the norm for a wide range of legislative requirements involving public health and safety matters.’ The parallel is in traffic law, where most ordinary road traffic offences are offences of strict liability. ‘So, for example, if a driver decides to dispute a charge of driving without a seat belt, the prosecutor need not prove that the driver intended not to wear, knew they were not wearing, or simply forgot to wear, their seat belt. All that needs to be proven is that, in fact, the driver was not wearing their seat belt,’ Dr Aleck explains. Importantly, however, strict liability does not reverse the burden of proof, and there are no provisions in any CASA legislation (current or proposed) that do so. ‘Every element of a strict liability offence must be proven by the prosecutor, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not and has never been the case that the defendant must prove that they did not commit the offence.’ Moreover, the defence of ‘reasonable mistake of fact’ is always available to a person charged with a strict liability offence under the civil aviation legislation. Section 9.2 of the Commonwealth Code Act expressly provides that a ‘person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is no fault element if: (a) at or before the time of the conduct constituting the physical element, the person considered whether or not facts existed, and is under a mistaken but reasonable belief about those facts; and (b) had those facts existed, the conduct would not have constituted an offence.’ If, for example a driver charged with a strict liability traffic offence was able to show that their vehicle’s speedometer had suddenly begun reading wrongly, or a pilot charged with a strict liability offence involving unauthorised low flight was able to show that the altimeter had, without reasonable warning, begun to read incorrectly, that would be a ‘reasonable mistake of fact’ because belief based on the mistaken readings of the instruments would be reasonable (provided the driver had no other reason to believe they were driving too fast or the pilot had no other reason to believe they were flying too low.)

But he didn't!. Situation is no different than an unlicenced driver wiping out a few pedestrians in an unlicenced car. At theend of the day the community bears the cost. We should not be reduced, as a community, to legislating for the lowest common denominator - in this case the stupid and reckless. In aviation it will only result in CASA's dream result - the only users of airspace would be the major airlines.

Forgot attachment RAANZMedicalDeclaration.pdf RAANZMedicalDeclaration.pdf RAANZMedicalDeclaration.pdf RAANZMedicalDeclaration.pdf