Jim McDowall

And why do you think that this document has legislative force?

Don I suggest that you have a look at the recent decision in the Federal Court (summarised at https://www.allens.com.au/pubs/cg/fucg03aug15.htm) and reconsider your view. In general terms, it is the duty of directors to do what is good for the company which is not necessarily good for the members.

So Don, what legislation gives CASA the right to impose SMS on RAAus? And if my rights, liabilities or obligations are varied how is the contract not varied?

My experience in insurance is that insurers pick and choose their risk on a world wide basis with some local biases. In the US, which is probably the largest and most active risk group insurers still accept risks (ie insure) despite the absence of organisations comparable to RAAUS etc. This is a fallacious argument.

I am not aware of any legislative requirement for a self administering body to set up a safety management system. CASA has entered into an agreement with RAAus for RAAus to undertake certain tasks in return for a paltry $120k - SMS systems were part of that deal which by the way is an unapproved alteration of the members contract with RAAus. As yet Part 149 of the CASR's are not law yet CASA and the self administering bodies who have been coerced into behaving as though it is even though no-one knows what the eventual Part149 will look like. To my way of thinking I would gladly pay an extra $20 membership fee to dispense with the agreement (ie 9000members x $20). CASA has not been able to get the largest model aircraft organisation to play the self administering organisation game and they have 40000 members apparently (ie 40,000 voters). The law says that we must be members of RAAus and CASA must approve manuals - that is all. Anything else is what CASA makes up by itself.

I am VERY aware of associations and the law surrounding them since I did the legal research on a law suit which we won and is now used in law schools to educate students about associations. Are you saying VH pilots are a rabble? The government does not escape liability as CASA approves the various manuals RAAus has a number of participants who earn their income in the "sport" eg instructors and mainainers The safety rules are simply proposed by RAAus and approved by CASA. It is simplistic to think that the Government escapes liability by having a third party undertake administration of an activity. As with any aspect of commerce, If I delegate responsibility to undertake a task - the ultimate responsibility for performance still remains with me

This discussion only serves to amplify what I have been saying on this forum for the last 12 months. That is that the only reason RAAus exists is because the various CAOs require membership of RAAus. There in lies the root of the problem. Associations are created by a contract between the members. The contract sets out the rights, liabilities and obligations of members. As with any contract it can only be varied by agreement between the parties and yet RAAus and CASA have regularly varied this contract. If we move to a company the relationship changes. A company is a legal "person". Its interests are paramount and the interests of its shareholders (ie members) come second, or actually further down the food chain when you consider the various liabilities eg creditors, directors that arise in the course of a company's operation. So any view that a company operates for the benefit of members is fanciful. For example, shareholders of a company cannot vote to direct the Directors to take a course of action. In reality, they (the members) can only vote to change directors or the constitution. So,CASA's legal people should be aware of this dilemma caused by the CAO requirement to be a member of RAAus which dates back to the postwar arrangements that DCA and GFA negotiated to avoid DCA having regulate a few nutters who wanted to fly mostly homebuilt gliders. The world was a much different place back then but nevertheless the model persists and over 9 pages of this forum prove why it is broken. The only rational way to proceed is for CASA to delegate to individuals who undertake those activities that the various recreational aviation bodies undertake on behalf of CASA. This is already done in respect of many of the delegations required by the recreational bodies (ie the delegations are held by employees or volunteers). Some would say this will be more expensive but if this were the case why is a VH registered homebuilt experimental cheaper to comply with airworthiness requirements than my VH registered glider?

As someone who runs a business in a regional city it is a definite DISADVANTAGE to be in that location compared to my competitors who have relatively easy access to everything that matters. And then there is the "out of sight - out of mind" factor. A move to a location like Narromine, however romantic, would be a retrograde step for an organisation like RAAus which is fundamentally an advocate. Advocates belong in the seat of power, not wandering around in the wilderness which is where we may end up if we relocate to the bush.

And the there is the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/acanca2012523/). The regulators are not interested in associations generally - consequently members are left to fight out issues by themselves in the courts. And then there is the inherent conflict of interest created by the legal relationship of an association and its members where the association seeks to be a quasi regulator. Whilst companies overcome much of this conflict why doesn't CASA just delegate to companies or individuals administration of the various CAO's in the same way as they delegate many functions such the issue of experimental certificates? Then RAAus or its successor could become a true advocate in the same way as the EAA in the US advocates on behalf its members - fearlessly. That is real democracy in action.

Don't some GA schools also train RAAus? The real cost is the post solo hours before PPL granted

Instructors who have a licence endorsement gained by examination and flight review by a person holding a delegation from CASA to examine ultralight pilot instructors.

The expense is in the aircraft they fly.

SAAA have form - they screwed up the maintenance for experimental aircraft by requesting CASA to require undertaking a maintenance course. See my previous post on the subject.From where I sit SAAA would be happier if the experimental category was replaced with the old CAO 101.28 arrangements.

Question is do we need to be unified in any way except as a lobby group? I am definitely not advocating further subdivision and if anything I would prefer to see a unified body if we can't get independent arms length delegation for private parties to do what RAAO's do now.

There is scope for new organisations to become RAAO's and I have spoken to CASA about this - be prepared to jump through a lot of hoops. I agree that 95.10 is left behind - no one seems to recognise the legal significance of the placards we all put on our 95.10 aircraft.

If you really want to see how it is done take a look at: http://www.copanational.org/files/COPAGuidetoUltralights.pdf More aircraft and more tiger country and more variable weather

Because it is my experience with GFA that a glider maintained under the GA is half the annual costs compared to GFA system. Remember that RAAus maintenance rules are increasingly complex and compliance will drive operators to commercial maintenance. In GA there is once only registration fee and no membership fees. So if all you have to pay is a Schedule 5 type maintenance cost I predict that there will be minimal difference if not a saving. I just don't have the data to do an exact comparison but if people can supply their current annual recurring maintenance costs for RAAus and GA experimental aircraft who does it and on what basis I am sure that this argument can be settled.

Your interest may be the long term survivability of RAAus but is not the concern of most members - remember they are only members because of the various mandates. The EAA has no role mandated for it in the US but look at its membership as it plays a role that is relevant to members (it is more than about homebuilding)

Yes, from the start I have been promoting a solution. I am not down on RAAus - I am concerned that its role is becoming less member orientated as its "regulatory regime" increases. I am proud to be a member of RAAus and locally am part of a small bunch of enthusiastic members who love this end of aviation. I have built a 95.10 aircraft and am seriously thinking of building something else - obviously not someone who is down on RAAus. I am just challenging the role that RAAO's play - I think that they would be better served not to be "regulators" and achieve more by being active advocates.

Just look at the GFA - over 1000 pages of "rules" and membership declining, hours flown declining. The same thing happens with many "volunteer" organisations. The founding generation get is going and it grows then as it reaches a size its own overhead begins chewing up the benefit to members and they enter a long slow decline. I am not down on RAAus - I am concerned that its role is becoming less member orientated as its "regulatory regime" increases. BTW in other threads aren't you expressing concern about these very issues especially the financial viability of RAAus? I am proud to be a member of RAAus and locally am part of a small bunch of enthusiastic members who love this end of aviation. I have built a 95.10 aircraft and am seriously thinking of building something else - obviously not someone who is down on RAAus. I am just challenging the role that RAAO's play - I think that they would be better served not to be "regulators" and achieve more by being active advocates.

Of course litigants throw a wide net but it is a big jump to prove that CASA's supervision has been lax if RAAus screws up - Look at the case of Echin and CASA?Southern Tablelands gliding case and others. Anyway I am not concerned about RAAO's as a solution as I think I have demonstrated that they are a flawed approach that will ultimately kill off recreational aviation. Recreational aviation will, in my view, will only survive if individuals operating commercial under specific delegations similar to those held by RAAO's or their officials if for no other reason that members will desert RAAO's as they feel that are not acting in their interests (which if they are associations they obligated to do even if it means the demise of the organisation).

"IF RAAus went broke the case would flow on to the CASA. by a natural pathway" Not true - as a matter of policy a Government do not bail out private bodies particularly in legal disputes unless it is to save its own skin ie it is aware of shortcomings in the arrangements with the private body. RAAus is a private organisation not a creature of Government.

If an insurable event occurs in general terms you are insured irrespective of a when the claim is made so you can change insurers or lapse the policy. "As RAAus found out" found out what in which circumstances? Of course insurers stand in the insured stead it is the basis of a hundred of years of insurance law. Why are you so worried that "THE GOVERNMENT SELF INSURANCE THAT TAKES OVER ONCE POLICY LIMITS ARE REACHED" - there are many situations where governments have and will absorb the losses of statutory authorities. I am proposing that individuals hold the various delegations from CASA in their own right. To draw CASA into an action and lose an plaintiff would have to prove that CASA was in some way negligent - a very difficult thing to prove. Clearly there may be some mistakes along the way but this how systems are improved - its the way our system develops.

In a sense you have hit the nail on the head. Statutory authorities can only make rules within the scope of their delegations. They cannot delegate their rule making authority to private third parties such as RAAO's but they do. For example, they require experimental aircraft operators to undertake SAAA's Maintenance course but then tacitly allow SAAA to make a rule that you must be a member of the SAAA to participate in the course. This is a delegation of legislative rule making that is not permitted. GFA does similar things. On the matter of liability from CASA's 2014 Annual report: INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES The Commonwealth indemnified CASA in relation to liabilities associated with acts or omissions that occurred before the expiry of two deeds of indemnity in July and August 1998. Since then, commercial insurance has been arranged to cover those risks. In 2013–14, CASA held aviation and general liability, professional indemnity, directors’ and officers’ liability, and a range of other corporate insurance. Aviation and general liability Aviation and general liability insurance provides coverage for injuries caused to third parties or to the property of third parties as a result of negligence arising out of the performance of CASA’s functions under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 and other applicable legislation. Professional indemnity CASA’s professional indemnity insurance covers claims arising from breaches of duty by a CASA officer. Directors’ and officers’ liability In 2013–14, CASA held insurance protecting directors and officers from liability for the consequences of wrongful acts as defined in CASA’s Comcover policy. So any presumed risk to Government is negated by insurance. Their 2014 financial also make good reading (p.121) shows that less than 10% of their revenue is derived from fees Most revenue is from fuel levies and appropriation from government. A 10% staff reduction would enable them to not charge fees - anyone who has dealt with public bodies knows that in many instances the cost of raising an invoice is greater than the invoice value.

So if CASA delegates to a private party it escapes the potential for liability if it is not negligent + massive saving A+B This is the case with GA with delegations to issue authorisations for maintenance, experimental certificates, flight reviews etc. When CASA starts being actively involved in the activities is when it starts having problems. Have a look at the court cases in relation to a gliding accident at Goulburn. CASA escaped scot free. In contrast the coroner was dismissive of the GFA culture in a recent hearing into a fatality at Goulburn.