The need for knowledge of the civil aviation legislation

[Admin]

June 30, 2010: The need for knowledge of the civil aviation legislation

 

In common with the other member nations of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), aviation in Australia is a highly regulated activity. RA-Aus members must follow all applicable regulatory material unless it is covered differently in our exemptions. Our exemptions are contained in Civil Aviation Orders (CAO) 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55, and these are included in our Operations and Technical Manual. We understand that many 'weekend pilots' will find it difficult to identify which legislation applies, never mind trying to interpret all the regulatory material.

 

It is evident that some members know very little about those regulations, or perhaps have little regard for them; it is essential that we do not blindly ignore that legislation. All members associated with aircraft ownership, maintenance and/or flight operations must maintain an acceptable level of knowledge pertaining to the legislation which relates to aircraft ownership, maintenance and flight operations (under the day visual flight rules (VFR) and outside controlled airspace).

 

All members should review the material contained in the document 'The enabling regulatory framework', particularly sections 1 and 4. Please note the penalties prescribed for non-compliance with most regulations.

 

Steve Tizzard

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

When the lazair runs out of rego this year it is going to be preped for storage and locked away in it's trailer. As someone who is still flying the same types long before the AUF came along i am tired of having my freedoms continually hacked away and forced to comply in areas were myself and the aircraft i fly where never designed to operate. i am over the continual threats for not complying. i am tired of handing over good cash to a body who are more interested in pesudo GA types. It is just not worth it. i have no interest in flying off airports in pesudo GA types nor am i interested in flying all over the country side. the current cao95:10 does not suit those still flying the types that were designed for ANO95:10. The RAAus may suit some but not me or my mates. RAAus you suck!

 

 

[ahlocks]

... the current cao95:10 does not suit those still flying the types that were designed for ANO95:10.

Why not?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

i am not grounding myself. i'll still fly these types and in paticular the lazair. but just not in this country. The answer to this mess is the same as for flying PGs. go overseas. when i started flying PG's here i found that achieving my personal best here was limited by regs and location to top sites. so i had to travel to europe to achieve my personal goals and build on my knowledge base. Now i find the same with ultralights. why fly on a leash. sure i could break all the rules and continue flying the same as i have for the past thirty years. Bill pointed it out beautifully with" in the black and white of the law", no one gives a stuff about what was legal back then as to what the law is about now. best to just split to the USA for a month or so each year. i can pick up a perfect airworthy lazair for 4 grand or so. fly it under 103. time the annual trip to coincide with sun and fun or airventure, team up with some locals and fly there. along the way if i want to turn the engines off and thermal away or find a ridge and shut down and soar or do a bit of fence hopping i can do it. here in Australia that will earn you a how many penalty units. I have plans and the sun will only rise so many times in my life and i am tired of having my valuable time wasted by control freaks. i'd rather pay a bit more and spend it on quality flying time.

 

Just like anything else be it aviation or product development/manufacturing there is no other alternative but to go overseas.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Oz,

 

Is your beef with RAAus or CASA?

 

As I don't have a copy of ANO95.10, I can't do a direct comparison with COA 95.10, but as best as I can determine the major changes were the removal of the 300ft altitude, no crossing bitumen roads and stay 5nm from airports limitations.

 

What rules do you think a hypothetical 95.10 flyer would be breaking??

 

 

[Yenn]

Ozzie. Please explain. As far as I am concerned RAAus has given me the ability to fly when I want for a reasonable price. GA has made flying too expensive although I am building a GA plane and will have to return to that fold to fly it.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Black Rod sums it up pretty well if you are interested in 'quasi Ga" then the RAAus seems to do OK for those interested in it. but why should a scout of similar be forced to operate in airspace and under procedures it was never designed for, i don't mind flying the lazair several thousand feet up but i wont fly a scout any higher than tree top height. It annoys me to see that the nanolight guys from HGFA can ridge soar or shut down and thermal don't have to display rego numbers. the RAus regs say no to engine outs and proximity to terrain. the only difference between them and me is i am not weight shift. i fit in their weight limits. the only restriction that needed to be changed to the original 95:10 was the height restriction and crossing of roads.

 

Since the AUF came along the true freedoms of building and flying as cheap simple machine has been swamped with to much BS. what also is geting my goat is picking up that mag every month and reading about how we are going to be smacked on the ass for stepping out of line. well guys if the RAAus cleaned up their act and had the regs written so we could understand them without any confusion or conflict to other areas then maybe people would not be out of bounds as often. If the RAus started to act like a govening body with a bit of political clout then maybe we would have the 103 and extra weight limits introduced long ago. and the CASA CEO excuse of too much on my plate excuse does just not cut it 14 bloody years for 103 and still no result. and they keep insisting i pay them money each year. Carol Carpenter from the USA sumed the rules and regs up correctly when she was out here recently with the comment 'from the backwaters' .

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's not unusual for a National Body to miss details critically important to some of its members Ozzie; I certainly notice from time to time the beefs of the next layer up from you.

 

Fair enough to take the path you outlined, but guys with similar problems to yourself should make sure the RA Aus Board and Management are aware of the omissions.

 

If they still ignore you, without proper grounds, then Old age and treachery sounds a good alternative.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I'll also jump in and ask this. the weight increase and 103 why so long and with zero results? I can understand the knockback for CTA. but the weight increase for those who need it for the aircraft they are now flying is a must. to not be able to put two people in it PLUS a useful and safe fuel load is rediculous. 14 years for 103. surely this time factor must mean that something is definatly wrong either in CASA or RAAus. Maybe the fault lies in both. I know the dept can get things done. i've seen it recently with the changes in the APF op regs that were completley rewritten.

 

I've been thru them and for almost the whole part they are great. not to over the top and a great improvement in many areas of the old ones. especially in the aircraft operations/maintenace and pilot's training requirements. All of the other areas have been overhauled and were done by a new generation of board members that have just replaced the long term serving board. the thing CASA's acceptance that blew me away was they past the whole lot cover to cover with no changes and done in record time.. So why are the RAAus having such a problem with 103 and the weight increase?

 

Yenn some of these new types are a bit on the pricey side. most represent the second biggest investment in one's life. not to mention all the bling in them, then hanger hanger fees ect ect. i think you'll find very little difference between what it is costing you now and what it will in GA homebuilt.

 

It is not that the older slower types are all i can afford i find it an interesting speed to fly. costs more to operate my ride on mower :) for some time i've beeen wanting to build a Savvy but can't afford the high cost of hanger rents and airport costs.

 

cost of the aircraft is not a problem just all the add on extras kill it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

e.g. no retractable landing gear (other than for Amphib.)

Now there's a piece of hypocrisy

 

 

[farri]

" Why is it that the AUF/RAA sees the need to continually stress the requirements of the regulations and threaten us with the conserquences of non compliance,isn`t every student pilot supposed to be made totaly aware of the requirements while doing their training"?

 

Over the 25 years of receiving our monthly magazine,I couldn`t count the number of times that the ops maganers report, was about, "Waving The Big Stick" instead of promoting our sport and I can certainly say that I realy got sick of it and I still am.

 

What`s this "Weekend Pilot" bit in the original post?,I thought the RAA was about representing recreational pilots and I also assume that regardless of age,most recreational pilots work through the week and try to get some flying done,over the weekend,is this description of our membership some form of putdown,hasn`t RAA got the fact yet,that we are not commercial pilots?

 

In my opinion,The RAA is there to administer the wishes of the membership,not the wishes of CASA and it is for those responsible with policing the regulations to do so.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.