Jim McDowall

Maybe the hold up is due to the fact that RAA's Part 149 is held up in the works after over 12 months. What could be so hard? Afterall they (CASA) have only been working on Part 149 since at least 1998 so should know what needs to be in an exposition OR they could look over the ditch to see how its done.

Or perhaps, political influence? After all it is said that Earl Mountbatten influenced the Australian Govt to purchase the F111 over the TSR2 thus assisting in the killing off of the TSR project. These things happen.

or be open with the council in the negotiation process and get their permission in writing - preferably with a DA which is a condition of the land contract

Put on my old estimators hat, made a few phone calls and the cost (using all subbies) for a 125mm steel fibre reinforced slab with 300Wx 450D edge strip is about $90/m2. This depends on ground conditions, local contracting and concrete rates. A steel fibre reinforced slab is structurally the same as a 150mm traditionally reinforced slab which should be more than sufficient for the job unless you plan on installing compactuses or heavy machinery. BTW steel fibre reinforced slab is what is used on B1 hangars in Georgia.

Instead of traditional steel reo look at using steel or plastic fibres (see https://fibercon.com.au/products/slabs/sfrc-floor-slabs/ for example). As a rough rule of thumb concrete is about equal to the steel cost.

Maybe the existence of the PL insurance gave rise to the court action. It is noteworthy that despite the "trauma" the girl experienced she has ridden on ferris wheels again - she was old enough to refuse. Was her brother not traumatised as well? Did he also take action? This verdict should be appealed by the Council as long run Councils have more to lose. Also, the damages awarded were against the Council and the pilot - how was it split?

An early iteration of the GAF Nomad?

That he is not myopic and maybe open to change.

CASA is undoubtedly an agency as defined by the Act: agency means: (c) a body (whether incorporated or not), or a tribunal, established or appointed for a public purpose by or under a Commonwealth enactment, not being: (i) an incorporated company, society or association; or (ii) an organisation that is registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 or a branch of such an organisation; or (d) a body established or appointed by the Governor‑General, or by a Minister, otherwise than by or under a Commonwealth enactment; or As to the terms of the contract, as members we have no idea what is in the agreement with CASA but maintaining the aircraft register, administering aviation safety and other legislation etc must surely be undertaking a service on behalf of CASA

My understanding is that because RAAus has a contractual relationship with CASA, a government agency, there is no minimum turnover threshold. The Privacy Act has always applied. See Australian Privacy Principles guidelines Chapter para A.15 contracted service provider, for a government contract, means: (a) an organisation that is or was a party to the government contract and that is or was responsible for the provision of services to an agency or a State or Territory authority under the government contract; or (b) a subcontractor for the government contract. The agreement with CASA to provide certain services in return for a paltry sum clearly makes RAAus a "contracted service provider"

It used to be "If it ain't Boeing I'm not going", now I'm just no going!

The only requirement of the CAO's is that the person seeking the benefit of the exemptions is a member of RAAus. When you sign up to RAAus you agree to abide by their rules. Members (or if you wish subscribers) can change the rules by a majority of members voting to change the rules (usually at an AGM). So for example we could propose a motion that requires a change to the Ops Manual so that following a check flight a member who holds a GA licence has all the privileges of a RPC holder including any applicable endorsements. (ie GA=RPC) There maybe a limitation for example, exclusion of low momemtum aircraft (eg 95.10 aircraft) which caused many of the problems for experienced pilots in the early ultralight days. The issue of membership is more problematic. But already there are different classes of membership, including free trial memberships. All that is needed is a proposal that meets the CAO requirements of membership and RAAus's membership costs.

Probably not true. At least 25% of my RAAus acquaintances hold GA licences. Facts are required, not supposition. Al that is required is a change to the operations manual. I believe that a GA BFR is already accepted by RAAus as a valid BFR for their purposes.

Depends what oversight means in reality. Does holding and authorisation constitute oversight? If so, we all are subject to CASA's oversight.

This is the way the legislation works. A sport aviation body (defined under CASR 202.900 but not defined in CAR 2.1 as claimed in CASR 21.192) may become an ASAO. These and other bodies may become an ASAO by application under CASR 149. SAAA some time ago declined to become an ASAO. However, like every other private incorporated body they are by defintion "self administering". This is yet another example of CASA distorting the language to confuse. This is why well meaning people often find themselves in difficult legal situations trying to "give back" to their communities by participating in the management of associations, particularly those with full time employees. They are often unaware of the legal minefields that apply to all organisations, particularly in the areas of employment law.

But you do not need to have one - RAAus says so.

They phone the ATSB who calls in the RAA which is well down the line from "first response" which is to assist victims the secure the site. Ministers in my experience are more keenly tuned to political risk than, financial or long run legal risk.

Negligence in an administrative act is hard to prove and very costly to litigate. Govenments are very adept at losing critical pieces of evidence, delaying procedures and generally frustrating litigants.

None of that has anything to do with registration. It makes not a bit difference to a "first responder" on whose register the aircraft is noted.

There needs to be negligence, not merely a "mistake".

No, the reason they got into de-regulation was to minimise the growth of the public service, and their ever growing unfunded superannuation commitment. The world has moved on since the Hillmer report and many of its promised benefits has un-intended consequences that we are all living with today.

My point exactly which is why ALL aircraft should be on the one, central register.

Actually I built and still own a 95.10 aircraft and would have no problem with CASA doing the work parliament gave it the powers and resources to do, and removing the un-necessary intermediary. CASA can do everything that RAAus does within its existing systems (delegations and authorisations) whilst maintaining the informality of the sector. Isn't that what ELAAA were trying to achieve?

NO! I'm reading the regulation: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 201.003 Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases (1) Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things. (2) Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, CASA exercising powers to conduct tests under regulation 139.135, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to those powers. It seems as though they have so long as the act or omission of CASA IS done or made in good faith. (IS added) Also in a number cases concerning the operation of ASAO aircraft, CASA has been found to have no liability for negligence. If the Government was at all concerned about liability in these matters it would not allow VH registered gliders, maintained by unlicenced people to be flown by un-licenced pilots. As a corollary, isn't it true that motor vehicles today are manufactured by firms to a standard, independently(?) certified by engineers not required to be members of any organisation? Thousands of people are killed and maimed on Australian roads each year and yet no one attaches any liability to the government for its administration of the ADR's.

Germany has a system that registers gliders as D-9999, and we already make radio calls as Jabiru 9999, I can't see any issue with VH-9999.