Jim McDowall

The medical requirements is less than the RAMPC, and basically if you are fit to drive a private motor vehicle you will get your certificate (see attached CAA form - actually it is a declaration). The flying experience requirements are sensible and actually probably reflect the real life experience of people who go from ab initio to cross country rating in Australia. Also people who have Part 61 licences can fly ultralights with a flight test and examination of aspects of microlight flight. The downside of the NZ approach is their requirement for type ratings rather than group ratings which means if you have a unique aircraft it will be difficult to findan instructor with a type rating who can issue the endorsement. But there is no need to adopt this peculiarity as our categoriries work well enough.

In support of my argument for owner maintenance of RAA category aircraft, it may come as a surprise to some that “across the ditch” in NZ owner maintenance is permitted, including repairs to restore an aircraft to its originally manufactured state. Annual condition inspections by Part 149 organisation authorised persons (yes they have had P.149 for a number of years and there are several P.149 organisations servicing the sector) are required. The requirements for becoming an authorised inspector are not onerous (ie no Level 2,3,4 etc). Examination of the NZ accident stats do not reveal any substantial difference in the nature of occurrences. Given the 30+ years of intergovernmental effort to harmonise legislation between Australia and New Zealand, it is a wonder to me as to why after 20 years of discussion and navel gazing CASA has not simply adopted the NZ legislation for recreational aircraft.

And the source. I think the ABC are the only reporters of this so-called investigation. It is in the Labor Party's interest to get at Hanson due to the precarious nature of the Senate. The Coalition would not sensibly do anything to diminish her support.

Thanks for the history lesson but we need to look for solutions to what is becoming an administrative nightmare.Whilst it may be true that RAA is not legally a subsidiary, the relationship is definitely not arms length, nor is RAA able to negotiate in any fearless way as an advocate would because they will always be fearful of what may be lost without the action of parliament - our bulwark against bureaucratic overreach. It is within the capacity of CASA to embrace alternative approaches - after all similarly developed western countries have been able to do so. The RPL was a step towards this and CASA is prepared to grandfather RAA certificates into RPL with essentially a flight review. A bit of loosening of silo like attitudes on both sides is required to come up with an internationally comparable outcome. Remember that recreational flying is considered GA under ICAO rules.

So its true - RAA is only a subsidiary of CASA - not by virtue of the approved manual reaquired by the various CAO's BUT virtue of the memorandum of agreement which dictates CASA's demands which RAA acquiesce to for a paltry $100,000 (approx as current agreement not available on net). We are really paying twice to be regulated - once though our taxes (income and fuel tax for those who use avgas) and for sustenance of RAA through membership fees etc. Time to make all RAA aircraft experimental by definition (thus absolving CASA of any responsibility see the CASR's) and creating a PPL lite for recreational pilots issued in the same way as PPL. Result is no need for sports aviation bodies as regulators but frees them up to be fierce advocates

It only matters to those with a political interest who owns the plane(s) in question. In this forum I would have thought the question is "was he flying it within the rules?".

Which statements aren't true?

It is dangerous to presume that Ashby needs someone else to pay for his flying activities, as distinct from the potential that someone does. Presumably, as Paulines CoS he is paid a reasonable sum and who knows what his personal circumstances might be.

why doesnt RAA run an MPC course? Had a look at the syllabus requirements and it is made for online

The established principle is that itis OK to fly as Ashby has if it is incidental to his employment, just like the guy who flies the corporate KingAir on a PPL which is incidental to his clerical job.

GFA has proved that an organisation can disappear up its own tailpipe by sucking up to the regulator and producing reams of paperwork which demonstrably is not followed. Over the last 30 years the membership has halved, the average age of members has increased at a rate greater than the population generally, clubs are dying and accidents are killing people a rate far faster than the dodgy statistics show. The organisation is demographically destined to fall of the proverbial cliff within the next decade.This is a lesson that RAA must learn from. In respect of the magazine issue I would much prefer to see the money spent on developing the website (no I'm not in IT) and the tech/ops bulletins emailed direct to members. Reading magazines on the screen is cumbersome and a vast majority of the data consumed in transmission is bumpf.

And in Canberra the political class are driven by small groups, media and pollsters. Yet we think that we live in a democratic society but is it a Participatory democracy? A true democracy is a participatory democracy which involves more than turning up every so often to cast a vote. It REQUIRES its members to discourse, to argue amongst ourselves in an effort to achieve an outcome. It may not be the outcome that suits us all, but at least it reflects the totality of input. This forum is part of that discussion. I agree with your comment about the malcontents in small organisations but RAA is 10,000 strong. Even major public companies have these issues, just observe what is happening to BHP and the agitating hedge fund. Ask yourself this question which is pertinent to the Part 149 issue _ "what happens if RAA goes bust - where do we sit then?"

Maybe its is not so much conspiracy BS, but a recognition of how organisations develop. Agricultural co-ops are a good parallel, the latest being the Murray Goulburn - a corporatised co-op where the board were asleep at the wheel whilst the "professional" managers led the shareholders (aka members) down the garden path. It wasn't until milk prices plummeted did the folly be seen for what it was. History has plenty more examples.Whilst no-one can predict what event may possibly befall RAA, or when, it is healthy to be aware that something may happen. I think Bobby Kennedy said something along the lines of : 95% know something happened 4% know what happened, and 1% made it happen. (or maybe it was Oscar Wilde) Either way, simply pay your dues and keeping your head down is not the answer. After all as Edmund Burke said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Turbs, I checked the reference site you gave (Accident and defect summaries - RAAus) and trolled through the many incidents and accidents reported. The vast majority were flying occurrences, some were things picked up on routine maintenance or pre-flight inspection but very few (I can't actually recall any) were maintenance related with in flight consequences. Personally, in respect of engines, I would draw the line at doing any maintenance on an engine aside from plugs and oil changes. I certainly would not mess with a carby after experience with chainsaw carby adjustments and overhaul. Control linkage adjustments are OK but these are things where you know your limitations. Experience tells me that arbitrary boundaries defeat endeavour, and the reason we are all aviators is to expand our personal boundaries. I have no problem with RAA developing advisory documents to assist our maintenance education but can see no reason why any "qualification" should be mandated. I noticed on the EAA website description of an upcoming webinar: To err is human, but when humans make mistakes working on aircraft, bad things can happen. Maintenance expert Mike Busch discusses the kinds and causes of maintenance errors and what can be done to prevent them. Mike thinks that some piston GA maintenance shops may have more distractions and less quality assurance than do airline and bizjet maintenance facilities, so savvy owners of GA aircraft need to act as final inspectors and take that role very seriously. A refreshing attitude - in real contrast with our local attitudes where we rely upon the qualification hanging on the back of the office door.

So why doesn't RAA deliver the MPC currently delivered by SAAA online then RAA would be on the same regulatory basis as VH experimental? And why is it that so many people in the aviation caper seek third party validation for their actions? I ould wander down to the marina, buy a boat, get all my mates over to go for a cruise (some would say I would be very lonely) capsize the thing, drown everybody and there would not probably even be a coroners hearing. Why? Because seafarers don't ask permission from any body else. There are rules of the sea as there are day VFR rules and we know that if everybody knows the rules and plays by them the chance of any one causing someone else grief is miniscule.

"Not all are competent but why should the lower or un qualified group cause all of us to lose what is fundamental to the Ultralight movement" Where is the evidence, rather than the fear, that unqualified(?) maintenance has been the cause of unfortunate outcomes? I repeat that the Canadian owner maintenance experience is as good if not better than professional maintenance. As Bruce has observed, society is being dumbed down to the extent of the majority believing that they are only competent to pay bills, and that there is always a "qualified" person who should do the job in a manner approved by some authority, be it a TV personality or a public servant looking to expand their influence on peoples lives. Anybody with any experience of the "qualified" people that the TAFE system is turning out in a number of disciplines (hence the recent Senate inquiry) knows that in many instances the presented qualifications have little worth. When I was building my plane "off the street" observers would ask questions like "Are you allowed to build a plane?" which illustrates to me that our society has been reduced to the point where we have to seek permission to explore our capabilities., but this is a philosophical discussion for another place and a bottle of good red. If we all understood what our capabilities were and worked within them, and knew when to go looking for assistance this is the desirable outcome. I believe that in the main this is what our education as pilots teaches us and if it doesn't there is a solution in the pilot training system that should be implemented.

It occurs to me that airlines maintain their aircraft, not because of regulatory requirements but from a commercial desire to remain in business (crashes are not good for business, insurance etc). Why would it be any different for individuals who an interest in surviving to fly again? The FAA's review of the Canadian owner maintenance system is proof that owners are capable of unsupervised maintenance with safety outcomes at least as good as the professional maintenance system.

Have a look at Superstart's data sheet. http://www.superstart.com.au/Portals/1/LiFePO4%20Batteries%20SDS%202017.pdf

Have a look at the lithium (LiFePO4) batteries at http://www.superstart.com.au . I have used one for 3 years without any problems. They are available all over Australia.

I wouldn't mind seeing a copy of the CASA request - in my experience it is common practice for administrators to claim instruction from on high when none actually exists.

Have not attended - was $1500 last time I looked - If it is less I apologise - but even at half that it is way too much. Remember, that when Experimental category was introduced there was no MPC requirement. Then some SAAA members who could not let go of the idea that 101.28 gave some sort of regulatory approval to their construction efforts, lobbied CASA for introduction of this requirement effectively benefiting a private organisation in a way that legislators normally avoid.

The MPC is nothing more than a rort organised by CASA for the benefit of SAAA -$1500 for the course. The whole thing could be done much cheaper and better under the auspices of CASA online. This alone would encourage participation. Also, I seem to recall that the most dangerous time to fly an aircraft is straight after it has been in for maintenance. What the Canadian experience has shown is that most people understand the limits of their capabilities and seek assistance when in doubt. Not doing things "illegally" encourages people to seek help when they are out of their depth, rather than hide their incompetence in a potentially dangerous aircraft.

For those interested CAAP 42ZC-02 V1.1: MAINTENANCE OF AMATEUR BUILT AIRCRAFT Appendix A and B describe the requirements for a MPC. Very little practical (ie actually relevant to "hands on" maintenance) but predominantly dealing with compliance. FAA recently published a study on maintenance, part of which looked at the Canadian Owner Maintenance system. Under the O-M Category, Aircraft Pilot/Owners are Eligible To: maintain an airplane refurbish all or part of an airplane overhaul all or part of an airplane install certified and uncertified parts install or replace any instruments or avionics modify an airplane rebuild an airplane that is out of service sign the maintenance release The report referenced above says, “The overall accident trends and rates indicate that the Owner-Maintained aircraft category is a safe fleet with accident rates comparable to Standard Category.” That is: Enabling owners to maintain aircraft instead of forcing them to use licensed aircraft engineers at considerable expense has not, empirically, reduced the safety of the fleet. The tabular data presented on page 331 of the report indicates that approximately 2% of the Canadian fleet was Owner-Maintained in 2010, and their year-by-year accident rates are broadly in line with the accident rates for all aircraft registered in Canada. Because the number of Owner-Maintained aircraft accidents are small, the report can provide individual breakdowns of accident types: Seaplane takeoffs and landings are over half of the accidents recorded since 2000. The remaining accidents where wreckage was located were categorized as gusty wind-affected takeoffs and landings (5 accidents), snow-affected takeoffs and landings (4), blow-overs caused by not securing the aircraft to the ground (2) and flight into powerlines (1). None of these accident categories are affected by airworthiness standards, and the report observes, “Neither the Owner Maintenance Program nor the use of non-certified components has contributed to an accident in the Canadian O-M fleet in the last decade.” Significantly, the report also says, “It is likely that because of the lower costs and greater involvement of the aircraft owners, usage rates improved which contributed towards pilot currency. In addition, owners may have replaced components more frequently due to the lower cost thus improving the overall maintenance of the aircraft. Further, it is also likely that many of the aircraft are equipped with improved avionics systems, allowing safer flight, than comparable standard category aircraft because of the less burdensome approval process and lower cost.” To summarize: By empowering owners of non-commercial aircraft to perform their own maintenance, the Canadian regulator has improved the airworthiness scrutiny and safety of their GA fleet, at reduced cost to industry; and also improved operational safety by improving the equipage standard of the GA fleet, and pilot skill levels. The conclusion on page 332 is definitive: “It is safe to conclude that the Canadian O-M system has not detrimentally impacted safety and it is likely that it actually indirectly improved safety.” (thanks to Mark Newton for the summary) see the report at : https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/directorates_field/small_airplane s/media/p23_reorg_arcfinal.pdf

The BITRE reports of 2014 and 2015 notes (Table 12) "All statistics courtesy of Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus). These statistics are subject to revision. BITRE recommends caustion when using these statistics." Interestingly, the 2015 table shows total hours flown for RA-Aus aircraft as 151,600 hours in 2013 and 171,100 in 2014 which differ markedly from the 2014 table which show 181,100 for 2013 and 146,500 for 2014. The table in post #16 shows 151,411 for 2013 and 188,737 for 2014. This means that the calculated accident rate is variable and cannot be relied upon (ATSB uses BITRE stats) so does the huge jump in hours flown recently mask or seek to improve the accident rate to enhance the argument that self administering bodies are the way to go so as to prop up the argument for the introduction of Part 149? Who was it that said "facts, figures and damned lies"?

From my perspective the CAO's only require membership of the relevant SAAO , for CASA to approve tech and ops manuals, and for the aircraft to be registered with RAAus. CASA gathers its audit powers as a result of the agreements that come with the funding that CASA supplies. I don't know about anyone else I would be happy to tell CASA that their funding was not required ( at the cost of $12 - 15 per member) and thus the requirements of the funding agreement would lapse. CASA would be hard pressed to explain why the manuals that they have approved are suddenly no good. CASA can easily escape liability if it extends CASR 201.003 "Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, orarising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or anexperimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done ormade in good faith in relation to any of those things." to include aircraft excluded from the CASRs by virtue of CASR 200. By definition as they are exempt from CASR Part 47 they are not registered australian aircraft (CASR 200.025) I often wonder if the CASR's are explicit that RAAus aircraft are unregistered Australian aircraft, How is it that CASA regards the RAAus register as its own. Indeed, if CAO's are so clear that the only qualifications to the CAO's are those previously mentioned how is it that CASA can then re-insert various provisions of the CASR's by inclusions in the manuals or via the funding agreement when Parliament has instituted a regime that sets aside the CASR's. Part 149 will not come into force until the issue of liability of the delegates and organisations is settled.