Jim McDowall

As the RSL used to say "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". It is essential that all of us with an interest in maintaining our flying "rights" make a considered response along the lines suggested by Mike. The CASR's madate 1.003 (2) " (2) An object of these Regulations is to harmonise certain parts of Australia's aviation safety law with the FARs.". The FAA is now manadated to accept the aeromedical reforms passed by the US Congress. (see Aeromedical Reform FAQs | EAA ) I am sure, given the litigious nature of the US, that the US legislators paid high regard to safety in adopting these rules. The reticence of CASA to follow the lead of the US and Britain and create the regulatory environment similar to those jurisdictions simply illustrates the resistance to change that is endemic in the organisation. The lengths that CASA will go to are illustrated by the misquoting of the UK Civil Aviation Authority General Aviation Policy Framework: The CASA discussion paper says: "The questions relating to third parties are as follows: 2.1: Would the proposal/change to existing regulation involve an incremental increase in the level of risk to third parties on the ground? 2.2: Would the proposal/change to existing regulation involve an incremental increase in the level of risk to commercial transport users of airspace? 2.3: Would the proposal/change to existing regulation involve an incremental increase in the level of risk to other general aviation users of airspace? An answer of ‘yes’ to these questions triggers risk assessments taking into account the criteria by which probability and severity are to be measured and EASA and ICAO levels of risk." In actual fact the UK Civil Aviation Authority General Aviation Policy Framework says in answer to the questions posed in 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3: If you answered yes to any of questions 2.1, 2.2, or 2.3, you must assess the level of the risks to these classes of third parties by using the following steps: Conduct a risk assessment using the tables listed in Annex A and Annex B of this policy framework. Determine the level of risk to each separate class of third party (both probability and severity), taking geography and population density into account whilst making your calculations. List the evidence relied upon in reaching the conclusions regarding risk. Also list any evidence you discounted. If such risk is at a low level using the criteria in Annex B, the risk is acceptable. If such risk is at a medium level using the criteria in Annex B, assess how such risk could be appropriately mitigated in a cost-efficient manner using a proportionate and targeted option. Demonstrate using evidence that the above option will be effective and less burdensome than existing regulation. If such risk is at a high level using the criteria in Annex B, STOP. The proposal/change to existing regulation is not appropriate. If a change to an existing regulation is proposed in order to remove gold-plating, proceed directly to 5.2. After completing these steps, proceed to 2.4. If you answered no to 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, continue directly to 2.4. 2.4 Would the proposal/change to existing regulation involve an incremental increase in the level of risk to others not on the aircraft which are not listed above? If yes, describe the risk identified, assess the probability and severity of the risk using the tables in Annex A and Annex B and identify targeted and proportionate options to mitigate identified risk. Determine costs associated with targeted option, and continue to 3.1. If no, continue directly to 3.2. The omission of the word "ANY" changes the discussion markedly. The CASA paper infer that ALL questions must be answered "NO" in order to proceed directly to question 2.4 As at least 40% of Australia's aircraft fleet is piloted by people who simply submit a declaration that they are fit to fly (Ra-Aus and GFA predominantly) and as the statistics do not support an increase of regulation in this area the underlying thrust of the discussion paper should be disregarded. For example, in its report entitled "Pilot incapacitation occurrences 2010–2014" the ATSB found: Why the ATSB did this research Occasionally pilots become incapacitated during flight. Incapacitations can arise from different reasons. They include the development of an acute medical condition, changes in environmental conditions during the flight, or the effects of a pre-existing medical condition. The effect of incapacitation on a pilot can be restricting their flight duties for the remainder of the flight, or for single-pilot operations, a collision with terrain. This research report documents pilot incapacitation occurrences in high capacity air transport, low capacity air transport, and general aviation to help educate industry about the causes and risks associated with inflight pilot incapacitation. What the ATSB found In the past 5 years, there have been 23 pilot incapacitation occurrences reported per year on average. Nearly 75 per cent of the incapacitation occurrences happened in high capacity air transport operations (about 1 in every 34,000 flights), with the main cause being gastrointestinal illness, followed by laser strikes . In the majority of the occurrences reported, the incapacitation was severe enough for the pilot to be removed from duty for the remainder of the flight. With multi-pilot crews in high capacity operations, these occurrences usually had minimal effect on the flight. Low capacity air transport and general aviation had fewer occurrences with a wider variation of causes of incapacitation. These ranged from environmental causes, such as hypoxia, to medical conditions, such as heart attack. Furthermore, 70 per cent of pilot incapacitation occurrences in general aviation had an effect on flight operations, namely return to departure aerodrome or collision with terrain. In other words 6 pilot incapacitations per annum for low capacity air transport and general aviation would be beyond the predictive capabilities of medicine. In fact, the ATSB report "Accident Occurrence Statistics 2005-2014" do not record pilot incapacitation as aan accident or incident cause so the claim that "70 per cent of pilot incapacitation occurrences in general aviation had an effect on flight operations, namely return to departure aerodrome or collision with terrain." may be without foundation. The foregoing is but a sample of the mis-statements that can affect the circumstances under which we are "permitted" to fly. So please take the time to respond to this discussion paper so that the weight of opinion leaves no doubt in the regulators mind that to do anything less than follow the lead of the US and hopefully the UK regulators. Dont forget to copy in your local MP and your state's senators - they may be pilots. Thmis

Registration is not proof of airworthiness it simply records detail of ownership, type etc. (see Part 47 CASR)

The point is that it is Ra-Aus's register no one elses

Correct

Under CAO 95.55 aircraft are required to be registered with RA-Aus. This is different to the requirement in the agreement which talks about RA-Aus maintaining "that portion of the register of Australian aircraft;". As RA-Aus aircraft are exempt from the CASR's (see part 200) then Part 47 does not apply and thus they are not eligible to be included on "the register of Australian aircraft" - a formal term.

95.55, 95.10 and others are exempt from the CASR's and thus not required to be registered. In fact they are not Australian aircraft as defined by the regs. The agreement between CASA and RA-Aus desrves a more critical examination than RA-Aus's legal advisors gave it - or was no advice obtained?

The Part 149 NPRM closes Friday - 30 plus pages of more regulation is coming!

"club " means an association of more than 30 persons associated together for social, literary, cultural, political, sporting, athletic or other lawful purposes that— (a) has a licence (other than a temporary limited licence or a major event licence) to supply liquor under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 ; and (b) operates its facilities wholly or partly from its own funds; It would seem that this Act has no application.

My reading of the link is that Consumer law does apply - it is just not stated in words of one syllable. Fee of service is the model adopted by CASA which they have delegated to the various bodies like RA-Aus. Why not another body. The member interest in the recent elections was very low (demonstrated by the number of voting papers returned) which indicates that in actual fact the vast majority of RA-Aus members are really just consumers of services - membership is simply the mode of access to the services. Consequently it would appear that who owns the "service provider" is of little interest to the consumer.In the event of a competitor to RA-Aus evolving the market will operate as any other with consumers making decisions on the basis of the perceived suitability of the "offer" as with any other purchasing decision.

My point is this. We elect members of Parliament and that election carries with it the implication that they represent their electorate. In reality, often less than 50% of the electorate voted for them. Whilst there is a presumption that the views they express are those of the political party they represent this may not always be the case and we all know this. There have been many cases where people use their office holding to promote themselves, for example, in standing for local government or other elected postion. That they are a member of the Board of RA-Aus is simply a matter of fact. To conflate this with representing Ra-Aus is like saying that Nick Xenophon represents all South Australians. If the Board were to decide as a group that no member of the Board should use the descriptor "Board Member" in any communication it may be a backward step as it would make them virtually invisible.

Jonathon Aleck's view is clear. In the unseen NPRM that has been circulated to the existing RAAO's by CASA MR Aleck says (Appendix C para 14): "...... 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." In an environment where regulators should not be seen to be favouring one constituency over another, that is, seen to be facilitating competition and providing equal opportunity to all, it is breathtaking that CASA has sought to embark on this SECRET NPRM process by consulting with the existing participants to the exclusion of all else. Put simply the fox is in charge of the hen house in this process. To illustrate how ethically and intellectually bankrupt this NPRM is, it only considered three options for consideration and all of them required that the existing RAAO model would be a requirement in future regulation. No consideration would seem to have been considered such as CASA undertaking the tasks currently undertaken by the existing RAAO's or delegations to individuals in same way as the issue of VH experimental certificates is currently done or a consolidated body to take up all the RAAO's regulatory tasks or any other model. BTW Don, any group of people can form a body to take up memberships to lobby a particular point of view. That is how the AUF got going. The estimate of $1 million has no basis. However, it is interesting that you think that it would take 6-12 months to establish a new RAAO when CASA says in its preamble to its secret NPRM: "CASA proposes a transition period of 18 months to ensure that industry has sufficient time to transition to these changes. CASA is presently engaged in planning the transition for all expected applicants to become ASAOs from established sport and recreational aviation groups. Expressions of interest and subsequent applications from the wider aviation community will be managed as they arise." (Note: RAAO's are ASAO's) Interestingly, prior to this statement CASA said: Overall, it is CASA’s assessment that the impact of the proposed Part 149 rules will be largely borne by the existing RAAOs, in the first instance, with the requirement to develop a suitable exposition that could range from a few weeks of effort for some organisations to approximately one year for more complex organisations. ( Note: an "exposition" is the set of documents that roughly equate to RA-Aus's Operational and Technical manuals) It is probable that RA_Aus's documents that have been approved by CASA may not be subject to copyright as they probably exist in the public domain in which case there is nothing to stop a group from using RA-Aus's CASA approved documents as the basis of their exposition to gain approval for a new organisation. In short this RAAO model is broken for a myriad reasons and it is time CASA, the RAAO's and those who have been mandated to be members of RAAO's woke up to this an began a search for a model which, for example, means that people who are compelled to join that organisation cannot be expelled or otherwise disciplined by a body that cannot legally act as a tribunal to determine guilt or innocence.

So when your local member of parliament sends a letter to the local paper he shoudn't sign it "Joe Bggs, member for Somewhere Else"?

It is a matter of fact that he is a RAAus board member. He did not sign "for and on behalf of RAAus".

Don you said: This leaves your statement at odds with your view: and also: It is concerning that the Constitution requires subsidiary documents and by-laws to make it work. One would hope and trust that in no way do they provide the capacity for the Board to reduce or modify members rights AND that the Constitution provides a mechanism for member review of any change such as ratification by referendum of members. In the meantime, the new by-laws etc would operate.

Don, it matters not a jot who did what when. Mr Skidmore has carriage of the leadership of CASA. If he thinks that it is on the wrong path he should take steps to make the changes necessary as he sees them. Part of leadership is to take decisions that will be unpopular with your minions. If the organisational culture such that the minions refuse to embrace the changes (see Dick Smith on Pprune.org on this subject) a few well chosen "resignations" will work. I think in the recreational sector knows where he should start. He could start unscambling the omelete by repealing the current operating restrictions.

The Corporations Act (sec.9) defines a director of a company as ‘a person who is appointed to the position of director’. There are no statutory academic, business or other qualifications to be appointed as a director of an Australian company, either public or proprietary. The only legal requirement is that a director must be at least 18 years of age to be appointed (sec.201B). It is usual for a company’s constitution to state that a director need not be a shareholder,but in some companies this is a prerequisite. Also, a constitution may specify certain other requirements to be a director. A person can, however, be disqualified from being a director unless ASIC or the Court consents (eg an undischarged bankrupt or have been convicted of various offences such as fraud or offences under company law, such as a breach of duties as a director or insolvent trading) Even major public companies do not have the proposed rules. Instead much reliance is placed on the commonsense of the shareholders that vote. Some despotic "democracies" have similar vetting arrangements for elections (eg Iran). Perhaps it is elitist to presume that people without formal qualifications (like Bill Gates) may not be suitable as directors. The outgoing board should not have any role in the conduct of elections from the time nominations are called. This democracy in action and how we end up with the governance (Governments?) we deserve.

If Mr Skidmore is smart enough to recognise the conflict of interest inherent in his membership of AOPA and his position at CASA maybe some board members of CASA should resign from other organisations such as GFA (Anita Taylor) and Jeff Boyd (Regional Aviation Association of Australia and a Director of Jetfast Aviation Pty Ltd). If you want to extend this thought pattern to other areas of governance maybe most of the Reserve Bank Board should resign. The conflict of interest argument is hollow at best UNLESS you know what is in the Project Eureka document (is it a publicly available?). Clearly the document's content and public knowledge of its existence upset Mr Skidmore to the point where he felt he could no longer be a member of AOPA .

Don, Being an advocate organiation like SAAA does not necessarily equate to opposing CASA. Lobbying is about representing your clients best interests which may or may not be congruent with CASA's. In my experience if you take this sort of attitude into a discussion with a regulator you will not do as well as you might if you adopt a less passionate position.

Yep, I had a barbecue last weekend!

Not that I'm spoiling for a fight but I'm sick to death of bureaucrats (not just CASA) mis-using or even creating powers to achieve goals that are not of the Parliaments making including allowing private organisations to, in effect, legislate.

Yenn, no one is suggesting that TIF's are a problem. No one is suggesting that pilots will jump from one discipline to another without appropriate instruction. What is under discussion is the requirement to become a member of an organisation to enjoy the benefits of the relevant CAO when the regulations do not make it a requirement. See my earlier posts. I know of no other pursuit where it is compulsory to join an organisation to enjoy the benefits of government regulation eg engineers can certify structures as compliant if they are eligible for membership (ie they do not have to be members) of Engineers Australia, GP's do not have to be a member of a professional organisation to get a prescriber number and so on. This is not anti RAAus or any other organisation it is anti CASA approving operations manuals that make it a requirement which is probably "ultra vires". When RAAus is more an advocate and not a regulator I will probably be a more satisfied member. The EAA in the US has prospered by maintaining this position.

Over the past decade we have spent over $600k defending our right to farm. Following a bushfire in the area I found a drone stuck in a tree. (the idiot flying it was flying it backwards). How do I know this? I got a free GoPro wth a SD card. What was on the SD card was a disturbing breach of our privacy and an obvious attempt to discover something. About the same time a senior police friend told me about the breach of integrity of their undercover operations when a drone was noticed hovering outside (from inside) the building in which the operations were managed. Imagine your response if you looked out your bedroom window only to see a drone!

CASA should permit farmers to blast drones from the sky if they are caught tresspassing. I have already found one parked in a tree on our farm. Drones just provide another arrow in the green activist quiver.

I didn't say that - what I said was some people have to practice more than others.

No one administers casual GA pilots. I played a lot of golf (state representative level) and it is my experience that a lot of hopeless players often play more than those who are proficient. Skills are built up with practice but once established remain at a high level with little activity. So effective training is the key. Also are you suggesting that someone save us from ourselves? Some of us will be highly proficient, many of us will be average and a very small number will be reckless. As the Hempel case demonstrated amply no amount of regulation will save us from the reckless.