Problems

[AlfaRomeo]

. . . RAA has a board of management Damkia; they are not directors, and management is management, not directors oversight. This common mistake, I believe is one of the root causes of members not reacting two years ago when some of the present issues came out.

Turbo, We have disagreed on whether they are or should be a Board of Management or a Board of Directors. I understand that, technically/legally, you are of course correct. This is an Association with a management committee that only styles itself as a Board. Our Constitution still has the Treasurer banking the daily takings! I can assure you that does not happen. The Incorporated Association structure is an historical fact. It came from a time when RA-Aus was much smaller and, like an Aero Club, was managed by the Committee (Board).

 

What this organisation needs is full time professional management. You are NEVER going to get that from an RA-Aus Board/Committee. They can't be full-time and we just don't seem to care about any qualifications other than Post Code. However, we do have a full-time, professional manager employed. Therefore, the Board needs to step back and guide at the Policy level not on an operational level. The Manager needs to be held accountable by the Board for the approved plan/budget and their execution.

 

Our real problems are the result, I believe, of having had a top manager employed who, in my opinion was ineffective to say the very least. And he continued to be ineffective for a number of years. I believer we are in so much trouble because the Board did not hold the manager accountable for his ineffectiveness. I also believe that a member of the Board virtually acted as the top manager until he resigned recently and thus took away from the employed top manager any requirement to do anything useful.

 

 

[Oscar]

As a small aside: while the owners and operators of many imported RAA-class aircraft may be apprehensive about what might happen to their weight limits, the same cannot be said for the owners and operators of our dear old, home-grown, stalwart of the recreational aviation scene: Jabirus (and no, I don't work for Jabiru, I just part-own one). They can confidently plan to continue as always, flying and training etc. in their aircraft.

 

With the 'good old Jab.', what you get is what is advertised on the box. Actually, a bit more than that, on which I will elaborate further. Yes, a Jab is somewhat of a 'fleet owner' level Commodore or Falcon; yes there are continuing problems with the (2200, particularly) engines. However, Jabirus are designed to meet the Australian ultralight rules, and anybody who has studied the development of those rules will fairly quickly realise that in this country we were a bit ahead of the game internationally in some areas - weight limits being one of those.

 

Jab. airframes are, if nothing else, tough little buggers. They are well-suited to Australian conditions. If you fly beyond gliding distance of a decent airfield and have a problem that forces you down, a Jab. is arguably the safest aircraft in the RAA class in which to have an 'eventful' landing. They are all over the place like a contagious rash yet the serious injury/fatal rate from accidents is remarkably low, even though they share the general trend of small aircraft accidents in rather often ending up with their legs waving in the air. They get pushed through fences but the structure mitigates the risk of you being decapitated by barbed wire. They get dumped into cane fields, stump-strewn paddocks, beaches, flopped down in the midst of trees.. and mostly the occupants get out shaken but remarkably intact, the aircraft is repaired and life goes on.

 

Why? Quite simply, the more realistic Australian weight limits allow for a more rugged airframe that still delivers competitive performance - both in terms of real flying in Australian conditions and crash-worthiness. It's worth thinking about.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Whilst you are considering how RAAus might be restructured in the future, may I suggest that you also look a little further?

 

RAAus may or may not survive this current debacle - which has been building for a decade, not just a few years - after appearing to be prospering enormously. This sort of boom-and-bust pattern is something I have observed more often than I like; and its effect in this current instance will be to drive people away from aviation, which to me seems a huge and completely unnecessary waste.

 

In the event that RAAus does implode, one of the possible scenarios is that CASA will cancel CAO 95.55, and follow the NZ - US model, by pulling recreational aviation into Part 91 of the CASRs. I realise that it is something of an article of faith amongst RAA members that CASA is the ogre in the piece, but my experience from a professional lifetime of dealing with CASA and its predecessors does not bear this out; CASA has its share of obnoxious officious idiots, union pushers, career climbers, and really good people, like any sizeable organisation. It's not out to destroy aviation, but it may accidentally trample on it. I would suggest that you extend your thoughts to dispassionately evaluate that possibility, because I am far from convinced that it is necessarily anathema, by comparison with what is happening as a result of the mis-management of RAAus.

 

All the CAO 95 series associations suffer from a fundamental flaw - which is that the professional staff are under the control of the elected representatives, who simply do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject to comprehend what the constraints are under which the professional staff have to function. In a complex regulatory scenario such as aviation, this puts intolerable pressure on the professional staff, and makes it impossible for the organisation to employ the calibre of professionals it really needs. RAAus will not be able to employ the "right" people, because those people will not work under that sort of setup. The "we don' need no steenking professionals" philosophy is not going to work.

 

So I would question whether the real message at this point, is not that the 95.55 type of experiment is actually a failure? Recreational aviation is here to stay; however it does not have to be run by amateur associations in order to do so; look at the NZ and US scenes. A more stable form of regulation may be more constructive in the long run.

 

What can one forsee if 95.55 is superseded by a paragraph or two in CASR part 91? Firstly, the existing RAA pilot certificates will have to become recreational pilot licences; that's hardly a pain. Secondly, there will have to be a suitable reconciliation of the existing RAA maintenance arrangements - probably via maintenance autorisations similar to those already issued by CASA for VH-registered experimental /amateur built aircraft; this is likely to be the major area that would present difficulty in such a change-over, so it's where some thought and possible consultation with CASA is needed right now. Thirdly, the bulk insurance scheme will likely be unworkable - tho it looks pretty shaky right now. I've owned and operated a couple of GA aeroplanes in my time, and these issues are not really all that great.

 

I am not a stakeholder in RAAus, so I have little interest whichever way it goes - but I think the current situation offers an opportunity to at least realistically consider this alternative. Now please excuse me, I'm off to fly my experimental motorized Blanik.

 

 

[ave8rr]

Dafydd, well put. I was going to write along these lines myself but you have done that. The NZ system works well. Register everything VH and just have two classes, single and two seat. All ultralights in NZ have an annual inspection done by an Authorised person like a L2 etc. there is usually no cost for this. Insurance is covered by the owners. Two seat ultralights can be used for training if they are powered by a certified engine so even club built Rans S6S etc are used by clubs. As the ultralights are ZK registered pilots with any licence can fly after the normal conversion and not just holders of a micro light cert. there is now as I understand it NO requirement to belong to a club / association.

 

MTOW's are as per factory built/LSA or designer for kit/plans built up to the NZ max of 600Kg.

 

There is a annual "airways" activity of of $100.00 for all NZ registered aircraft.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Thanks AR. The obvious question arising from that is, Why? by whom and for what reason? This is not the time to worry about the odd dollar... Nev

Nev,

I can assure you he wasn't sent home by the new Tech Manager, it was at the surprise of the Tech manager; it wasn't the new GM either, he had only just started.

 

However, Dean did deserve a break from the long hours he was working on our behalf. Why his engagement wasn't continued at the same level is anybodies guess.

 

So who was running the show then you might reasonably ask?

 

 

[kaz3g]

Nev,I can assure you he wasn't sent home by the new Tech Manager, it was at the surprise of the Tech manager; it wasn't the new GM either, he had only just started.

However, Dean did deserve a break from the long hours he was working on our behalf. Why his engagement wasn't continued at the same level is anybodies guess.

 

So who was running the show then you might reasonably ask?

It wouldn't have been decided by the Executive would it, David? Surely not?

 

Kaz

 

Tongue firmly implanted in cheek...

 

 

[kaz3g]

Whilst you are considering how RAAus might be restructured in the future, may I suggest that you also look a little further?... <snip>...I am not a stakeholder in RAAus, so I have little interest whichever way it goes - but I think the current situation offers an opportunity to at least realistically consider this alternative. Now please excuse me, I'm off to fly my experimental motorized Blanik.

Total agreement, Dafydd. I run a VH registered aeroplane and don't see CASA as an ogre. It is like much of the public service with mainly good people, some incompetents, and a few rogues all headed by tree-climbers. I don't mind the last-named but put my own crampons away years ago.

 

Incorporation into GA experimental with variation may be the only viable option into the future given that further deregulation is extremely unlikely and the status quo is looking untenable.

 

Do you fly your L13A-1 as a glider pilot or as a licence holder these days?

 

Kaz

 

 

[AVOCET]

Nev,I can assure you he wasn't sent home by the new Tech Manager, it was at the surprise of the Tech manager; it wasn't the new GM either, he had only just started.

However, Dean did deserve a break from the long hours he was working on our behalf. Why his engagement wasn't continued at the same level is anybodies guess.

 

So who was running the show then you might reasonably ask?

Dean went home because he wanted to , he worked tirelessly and he definitely deserves a break .

 

I'm 58 , and Deans old enough to be my father !, although he doesn't look it

 

And that's a fact .

 

Cheers , young Mike .

 

 

[David Isaac]

There was no doubt about Deans' commitment to us Mike and so far from home is exemplary. I am reliably told he has the energy of a young man.

 

If it was his choice to go home and discontinue involvement it cannot be questioned.

 

 

[TK58]

If it was his choice to go home and discontinue involvement it cannot be questioned.

I was told by Steve Runciman in mid May that Dean is still assisting us.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So let me just paraphrase to clarify what I think has happened so far, the CTLS people (and others) just rewrote the flight manuals/ certifications for their planes to increase the MTOW from 450Kg to 600Kg without doing any testing and the RAA accepted this change without checking for compliance. And now the RAA have reduced the MTOW to original whilst they are seeking correct documentation?

 

Is that right?

 

 

[David Isaac]

Not correct.

 

In simplistic terms:-

 

RA Aus either in good faith or in error accepted documentation that allegedly established bona fide weight increases in certain aircraft beyond the original Type Certificate (TC) MTOW and issued a Type Acceptance Certificate (TAC) for the increased weight, this required an amended POH to establish the increased weight.

 

It subsequently turns out that the documentation that RA Aus relied upon (either in good faith or in error) to issue the Type Acceptance Certificate did NOT meet the CASA requirements for a weight increase and the Type Acceptance Certificates issued by RA Aus are subsequently invalid.

 

As a consequence the aircraft involved in this weight increase error must return to the MTOW specified in the original Type Certificate and the POH amended to the original TC weights.

 

 

[facthunter]

"Assisting" could mean a lot of things depending on who says it.. Nev

 

 

[Thirsty]

As a consequence the aircraft involved in this weight increase error must return to the MTOW specified in the original Type Certificate and the POH amended to the original TC weights.

But only at registration renewal time?? I have a friend with a CTLS and we are all going away this weekend. He'll have his aircraft loaded to close to the "current" MTOW - what happens if he has an accident? Will his insurance be void?

 

 

[facthunter]

The only way to really know is to test it. I wouldn't as insurance companies spend a lot of money with Lawyers to avoid payments. RAAus ( and CASA)would have a lot of difficulty with selling the idea this only becomes important at renewal or transfer time. It's a fair question to put to your insurer and you are entitled to know. They would be obligated to inform you if they were aware of the circumstances. Have it in writing.Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

But only at registration renewal time?? I have a friend with a CTLS and we are all going away this weekend. He'll have his aircraft loaded to close to the "current" MTOW - what happens if he has an accident? Will his insurance be void?

Well if he is aware of the problem and aware that his aircraft is NOT legal at the increased weight (and it can be established that he is aware) and he flies and he has an accident ... what contribution to the problem/accident do you think he has made? (This of course may be subject to establishing that the over weight contributed to the accident.)

The bigger problem is what would the estate of the passenger do if the passenger was badly injured or killed and would the owner's insurer cover him?????

 

If I were an owner of one of these aircraft caught up in this debacle I would fly it at no more than the MTOW on the original TC and then I would at least be legal.

 

 

[Thirsty]

I doubt he knows about any of this - he doesn't browse these forums and he doesn't use the internet. I know though and probably others going would know I guess. I don't know whether to tell him or not. If he flies to the lower MTOW then he won't go 'cause he'll be overweight with just himself and his wife.

 

The way I look at it is that our governing body has seen fit to allow him to continue to fly at the higher weight so he is legal and that "should" hold up in court if it came to that.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Its really all about the level of risk an individual is prepared to accept Thirsty. Not sure my balls are that big!

 

 

[turboplanner]

But only at registration renewal time?? I have a friend with a CTLS and we are all going away this weekend. He'll have his aircraft loaded to close to the "current" MTOW - what happens if he has an accident? Will his insurance be void?

The process of discovery for RAA happened some time ago, and there is an issue that board members either were not told, or were told and kept this to themselves. This would be an issue if the aircraft departed and there was a crash.

 

You've confirmed the process of discovery for you has occurred, and would be part of such a flight.

 

I'm not a lawyer but my rough interpretation of Culpable Negligence is that a person of reasonable intelligence knew, or ought to have known that what he was doing was wrong.

 

From that, RAA should have contacted all 0wners immediately it knew, and de-rated all aircraft immediately, not as they come up for registration, and in your example the CTLS needs to be de-loaded back to to correct weight limit if the owner wants to participate. Similarly there should be no training taking place with these aircraft unless the lesson time plus 45 mins fuel reserve can be carried along with the weighed weight of instructor and student.

 

The significance of culpable negligence is that usually you'll be charged with manslaughter first and the liability claims will quickly follow with a conviction. There have been quite a few convictions over the past few years, in various industries, including a specification conviction (which this would be).

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Total agreement, Dafydd. I run a VH registered aeroplane and don't see CASA as an ogre. It is like much of the public service with mainly good people, some incompetents, and a few rogues all headed by tree-climbers. I don't mind the last-named but put my own crampons away years ago.Incorporation into GA experimental with variation may be the only viable option into the future given that further deregulation is extremely unlikely and the status quo is looking untenable.

 

Do you fly your L13A-1 as a glider pilot or as a licence holder these days?

 

Kaz

Take a look at how Primary Category and LSA aircraft are covered in FAR Part 91 - or the NZ part 91. The current -19 registered RAA aircraft would go into the paragraph on Experimental Category, in Part 91. It's really very straightforward. What will be needed is some appendices to Part 43 to cover the maintenance of these aircraft.

 

I was speaking figuratively in regard to the Blanik - it's still awaiting a part, to complete the life extension. I could fly it either way, but plan to do so under GFA since I hold an extensive GFA mantenance authority, and they have an "independent motorglider operator" provision these days.

 

 

[TK58]

Take a look at how Primary Category and LSA aircraft are covered in FAR Part 91 - or the NZ part 91. The current -19 registered RAA aircraft would go into the paragraph on Experimental Category, in Part 91. It's really very straightforward. What will be needed is some appendices to Part 43 to cover the maintenance of these aircraft.

What about 95.10 aircraft? Is there a straightforward and cost effective path for them in this brave new world?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

What about 95.10 aircraft? Is there a straightforward and cost effective path for them in this brave new world?

I hesitiate to shoot from the hip, but in principle there is no reason I can see why appropriate clauses cannot be added to CASR Part 91 to accommodate all existing classes of RAA aircraft. If things go this way, it will need a group of RAA operators to sit down with CASA as a working party and thrash out how it can best be done. So I would suggest that it would be prudent to start pulling together a committee for this purpose, and for that committee to start acquainting itself with how it works in NZ; do your homework, in other words. It's useless approaching CASA unless you have a pretty well-formulated proposal, and you need to learn CASA-speak as well. However I would expect that such a well-prepared committee would get a reasonable reception from CASA. Picking the right political moment would also be wise.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So let me just paraphrase to clarify what I think has happened so far, the CTLS people (and others) just rewrote the flight manuals/ certifications for their planes to increase the MTOW from 450Kg to 600Kg without doing any testing and the RAA accepted this change without checking for compliance. And now the RAA have reduced the MTOW to original whilst they are seeking correct documentation'Is that right?

?No that simplifies about 10 steps too far.

 

If this stuff were simple we wouldn't be where we are today.

 

The point that was made about Australian designed and certified is well made. The paperwork for them is simplest. Anything from overseas is more complicated, especially if the country is not a signatory to ICAO.

 

People's livelihoods are affected so care and timeliness is needed. Ideally transparent and quality communications are also needed......as always

 

Andy

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So can I ask why has this occurred now? I take it that the new GM is cleaning out Steve Tizzard's old desk and found some unfinished paperwork in one of the drawers. I assume that CASA has no part in the process as the RAA is doing this part of the regulation.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So can I ask why has this occurred now? I take it that the new GM is cleaning out Steve Tizzard's old desk and found some unfinished paperwork in one of the drawers. I assume that CASA has no part in the process as the RAA is doing this part of the regulation.

" Ideally transparent and quality communications are also needed......as always"

 

If this isn't occurring then how can anyone here possibly answer that question definitively?

 

Andy