fly_tornado Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 This is why the RAA want you to call the office so you don't get their advice in writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terryc Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 ol dear, f_t is going to be a pain when he's proven right 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planet47 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 You mean he can be more painful:yikes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 You mean he can be more painful:yikes: A bit of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 You mean he can be more painful:yikes: You mean he could be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Nope.....don't worry. Check out the RAAus web site FAQ's for MARAP, specifically states when it applies. There's also a big hint on the MARAP form that's says "Factory Built Aircraft". The email posted is undated, and may be old, and I'm pretty sure that it's not even addressed to the poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 Someone will have to reread email Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 So when I require technical information,, should I quote FT's email, or RAA documents? Not a difficult decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Maybe someone will have to stop quoting emails from 7 months ago when the Tech Manager was giving out incorrect information - acknowledged by him and corrected on the website - and maybe refer to the actual CAO95.55 paragraphs (para 1.2(e) covers 19- reg aircraft and para 6.1(f)(iv) introduces MARAP ... and applies it to only aircraft under para1.2(b)©&(f)) and the current correct MARAP per the current RAA website ... it may happen. I am an optimistic chap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 So, just out of interest, FT, which bit of your email have I misunderstood? The bit where it's addressed to Gary, not Phil ( or do you lie about your name?), the bit that has no date, or the bit that completely contradicts the current statements about MARAP on the RAAus website? Was going to cut and paste from the website, but stuff it, find it yourself, it's not hard to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 We still don't know why the tech manager was giving out incorrect information, he would have been involved in the development of MARAP from Day 1 and would have advised the board that they couldn't implement MARAP on #19 aircraft as the RAA didn't have the legal authority to stop owners modifying their planes. So how did this situation eventuate? I was led to believe at the time that the #19 was included and the RAA was under the impression that the owners weren't legally allowed to modify their aircraft. Ross has made it clear that the RAA will not release this information about how MARAP was developed no matter how nicely I ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 I linked to the source of that email here Mick, http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/marap.132799/#post-483316 The RAA have rewritten the MARAP rules after they where initially released, once they realized that #19 do have the right to modify aircraft. Losing the right to modify your #19 aircraft will kill the low cost element of the RAA and IMO definitely be a backward step as most RAA pilots are dying due to pilot errors not air frame modifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Considering how you feel about RAAus, why don't you just put your Tornados on ebay , go buy yourself a Cessna and forget all about RAAus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I linked to the source of that email here Mick,http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/marap.132799/#post-483316 The RAA have rewritten the MARAP rules after they where initially released, once they realized that #19 do have the right to modify aircraft. Losing the right to modify your #19 aircraft will kill the low cost element of the RAA and IMO definitely be a backward step as most RAA pilots are dying due to pilot errors not air frame modifications. And.... that is why you go to the source for current regs and docs, not stuff you found on the internet from months ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Ok have spoken to Darren B on this and I am differently furious1. The original description of MARAP posted by RAA Tech that included 19- in MARAP was as directed by CASA ... so clearly they did not know what they actually wrote in the the CAO 2. The currently MARAP description by RAA Tech (without 19- reg) has the 'new' 19- changes for second and subsequent owners because apparently CASA only ever intended for experimental 19- to be modified without overview and process if you were the original owner because only the original owner met the builder rules and the RAA proposal is a response to the CASA saying you must do this. Despite 2. being driven from CASA it is a horrible starting point because the logic that a modification to a home built aircraft is only available to the original builder equally applies in logic to the home built 95.32 (18- reg) and the entire 10- reg series. So I am still furious that RAA are simply proposing back to CASA a significant change that logically can be applied to other areas of RAA aircraft on the basis that CASA want this because its not an equivalent process as the SAAA for 101.28s on the VH register. If this is allowed to go unchallenged by RAA from a policy perspective we may as well just give up having a board or membership because in effect its a matter of whatever CASA say - if that is it then get rid of RAA and move the lot into CASA and remove the pretense of membership involvement in policy or process. This is post from April in the thread you quoted the top of - this is from page 9 of the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I'd be more worried about the intent. Clearly CASA (and maybe RA-AUS) wanted to include #19 as part of MARAP, they announced the program, saw the back lash and realised what they wanted to do can't be done under the current CAO so "revised" the program so #19 wasn't included.... at least until the CAO's can be redone so second plus owners can't do legal mods, and then MARAP as originally designed can be applied again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 This is post from April in the thread you quoted the top of - this is from page 9 of the thread So why did RAA continue with MARAP on #19? The RAA rules have no restrictions on modifications to #19. Anyone in the RAA would have known that if they had bothered to read the rules the members are given. What is the point of having the member representation if they concede our rights to CASA without questioning CASAs authority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 Considering how you feel about RAAus, why don't you just put your Tornados on ebay , go buy yourself a Cessna and forget all about RAAus? Well obviously, I don't think my criticism is unjustified. I would like to move my Tornados to VH reg and go RPL in the future because the RAA will eventually have the legal right to refuse my membership. I reckon they will exercise that right given the opportunity. The RAA has lost 900 members since 2010 so I doubt they will miss me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 So why did RAA continue with MARAP on #19? The RAA rules have no restrictions on modifications to #19. Anyone in the RAA would have known that if they had bothered to read the rules the members are given.What is the point of having the member representation if they concede our rights to CASA without questioning CASAs authority? I thought you were not a member? how can they be conceding YOUR rights??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Well obviously, I don't think my criticism is unjustified.I would like to move my Tornados to VH reg and go RPL in the future because the RAA will eventually have the legal right to refuse my membership. I reckon they will exercise that right given the opportunity. The RAA has lost 900 members since 2010 so I doubt they will miss me RAA already have the right to refuse membership - they just do not use it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 They are wanting to increase that right to allowed exclusion without reason. I thought you were not a member? how can they be conceding YOUR rights??? hur hur hur good one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 They are wanting to increase that right to allowed exclusion without reason. hur hur hur good one. If you as a non-member do not like what CASA or RAA are proposing then your option is through direct petition: Mark Skidmore AM Director of Aviation Safety GPO Box 2005 Canberra ACT 2601 Hon Warren Truss Minister of Infrastructure and Regional Development MG 41 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Well obviously, I don't think my criticism is unjustified.I would like to move my Tornados to VH reg and go RPL in the future because the RAA will eventually have the legal right to refuse my membership. I reckon they will exercise that right given the opportunity. The RAA has lost 900 members since 2010 so I doubt they will miss me I hope you are not suggesting that many of the 900 'lost' members have had their membership applications refused! Anyway, what makes you think that RA-Aus would refuse your membership application in the first place??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now