bull Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Great video buddy. The age old proven techniques, real nice to see. Long live timber. Yep David but as DON has got his way based on no fact or figures, I might have an aircraft built to the highest standards using methods tried and tested and PROVEN , that according to the new rules I cant register,,,raa really sucks...................https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILBTjFTtny8 see it flying The blue and white one is the same as the one I,ve just brought lovely taildragger and sweet little plane ,,that I can see RAA being a royal pain in the #$^%@ to get it regoed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Rod- Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 ...............As others have said, the test for regulation is "Does this proposed regulation have a robust risk analysis that shows a regulation is required"? The problem is that no robust documented safety case was presented to prove multiple compulsory homebuilt aircraft stage inspections were necessary. RAA's serious accidents do not show this area of our operations is a problem. A cost benefit analysis would also have been a good idea with regard to the new rule changes. No one doubts advisory, non compulsory, regular, competent, peer advice is recommended with any homebuilt project. In the same way that the SAAA and the EAA work with their homebuilt projects. Multiple compulsory inspections, that are likely to come with legal liability problems (over who approved or didn't approve the airworthiness standard of any particular project) is in my view going to be an ongoing problem for RAA. Rod Birrell 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 It's great to be high powered motivated modern thinking focussed (that covers a lot) exec, but it pays to know a bit about what you are dealing with. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 The problem is that no robust documented safety case was presented to prove multiple compulsory homebuilt aircraft stage inspections were necessary. RAA's serious accidents do not show this area of our operations is a problem. A cost benefit analysis would also have been a good idea with regard to the new rule changes.No one doubts advisory, non compulsory, regular, competent, peer advice is recommended with any homebuilt project. In the same way that the SAAA and the EAA work with their homebuilt projects. Multiple compulsory inspections, that are likely to come with legal liability problems (over who approved or didn't approve the airworthiness standard of any particular project) is in my view going to be an ongoing problem for RAA. Rod Birrell Hi Rod, What you have highlighted is a fundamental test of any new or existing regulation. You must first establish there is a problem then establish the cost of the regulation to offset the risk and then do a cost v benefit (CBA) to establish whether a regulation is justified. This has been a major breakthrough in building regulations and deregulation generally as I eluded to in my previous post on regulatory reform in the building industry. If CBA were applied to the Civil Aviation Act and regulations, much of the CASA bureaucracy would disappear. But for that to happen, the Federal Government will have to step in and hold them accountable for their actions. Most of the Feds haven't got the balls and there will probably be no action until the industry has been destroyed. We are close to that destruction now; at least in the terms of personal bankruptcies in the aviation industry. RAAus surely MUST NOT follow the CASA example. We need to exercise prudent caution in the application of internal policies and regulations. We don't need to 'impress' The CASA with our over exuberance for personal policies that don't stack up under a CBA, otherwise we are as bad as them. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Rod- Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Hi Rod,What you have highlighted is a fundamental test of any new or existing regulation. You must first establish there is a problem then establish the cost of the regulation to offset the risk and then do a cost v benefit (CBA) to establish whether a regulation is justified. This has been a major breakthrough in building regulations and deregulation generally as I eluded to in my previous post on regulatory reform in the building industry. If CBA were applied to the Civil Aviation Act and regulations, much of the CASA bureaucracy would disappear. But for that to happen, the Federal Government will have to step in and hold them accountable for their actions. Most of the Feds haven't got the balls and there will probably be no action until the industry has been destroyed. We are close to that destruction now; at least in the terms of personal bankruptcies in the aviation industry. RAAus surely MUST NOT follow the CASA example. We need to exercise prudent caution in the application of internal policies and regulations. We don't need to 'impress' The CASA with our over exuberance for personal policies that don't stack up under a CBA, otherwise we are as bad as them. Agree, well presented case. The goal here, to encourage the culture change needed within RAA - a difficult mission! Rod Birrell 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Very quiet DON are you out there??? Can you please address the issue just presented to you about these inspections and the lack of CASA requirements for same ................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Very quiet DON are you out there??? Can you please address the issue just presented to you about these inspections and the lack of CASA requirements for same ................. He said he wasn't well Bull, and would answer when he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 He said he wasn't well Bull, and would answer when he could. Ok Turb,s ,sorry I did,nt know ,hope he get well soon, cause besides all the bullshit we are still all flyers and are here for the same reason [our love of flight] So all the best Don and thanks turbo. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 How do we know CASA didn't push for this inspections and we got a good result by being allowed to be L1 rather than say L2? Plenty of other differences between Experimental VH and RAA amateur build Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 How do we know CASA didn't push for this inspections and we got a good result by being allowed to be L1 rather than say L2?Plenty of other differences between Experimental VH and RAA amateur build Because Casa did not push for them ,,,as they have not pushed for SAAA to have 4 compulsory inspections of build quality based on accident causes and failure records because those records of failure simply do not exist, so over regulation and cost is not justified is it Jet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 How do you know it's not on the cards for them too, no one says the rules have to be the same. If it is or not justified is a separate issue if CASA did push it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 But casa did not How do you know it's not on the cards for them too, no one says the rules have to be the same.If it is or not justified is a separate issue if CASA did push it. CASA has NOT pushed it mate ,,so you are defending these regulation changes by RAA without good cause, Hopefully we will soon see an organisation for ULTRALIGHTS that caters for its members and use,s common sence and is there for the love of flying and not run by med failed GA pilots flying GA aircraft masquerading as ultralights who have a serious problem with ego bloating to impress CASA can,t wait......................ps RAA had probably better pick up it,s act or it might suddenly find it will not have the members to pay for all those high flying exec,s 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Agree, well presented case. The goal here, to encourage the culture change needed within RAA - a difficult mission!Rod Birrell Education which develops a culture and by gosh we then have a by product which is safety. Why go out and hamer and hamer safety when it is so simple, a case of education and culture development. The good thing about culture it is a catching thing, people naturally take all on board without a grizzle as they do not want to miss out on something good, plus it is a good bonding issue. KP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 How do you know it's not on the cards for them too, no one says the rules have to be the same.If it is or not justified is a separate issue if CASA did push it. We all work under the same Act and Regulation. Not a case of different rules for different sectors. What is in Part149. We are all the same. KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planesmaker Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Want to know where the extra inspections came from? Talk to the tech manager. However it is the board who passed it in its present state, I sent emails to all the board, the CEO, and the tech manager, before the board signed off on it, asking for reasons to justify the extra regulation, the only response I received was a phone call from the tech manager, who still gave no justification for its introduction. Not one person bothered to email me in return! Acceptable behaviour?hmmm I don't think so. So much for contacting our representatives. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 My apologies to Don if the way I have addressed this issues seems to personally blame him,,,i don't ,But his replies to member inquiries on this forum seem to state that these inspections are good for raa as it will make them """"seem'''more on the ball to casa which is not really the case is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 It's not unusual where you have an Authority like the CASA overseeing HOW you run the show, to go HARDER with the troops, than you might normally, to keep them ( the Authority) off YOUR back. I've seen it happen many times and certainly after the audit and Jabiru fiasco's, they might be a bit gun shy. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Want to know where the extra inspections came from? Talk to the tech manager. However it is the board who passed it in its present state, I sent emails to all the board, the CEO, and the tech manager, before the board signed off on it, asking for reasons to justify the extra regulation, the only response I received was a phone call from the tech manager, who still gave no justification for its introduction. Not one person bothered to email me in return! Acceptable behaviour?hmmm I don't think so. So much for contacting our representatives. That tells us something, eh????????????????.. Look back what Frank and Rod told us, there are the answers loud and clear. Remember there was a big push to have only 5 on the new board, but this 7 has spoilt a lot of plans for the 5 to get their majority way. KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Remember there was a big push to have only 5 on the new board, but this 7 has spoilt a lot of plans for the 5 to get their majority way.KP. Sorry Keith, but I just don't understand your logic there. Can you explain what you mean? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Sorry Keith, but I just don't understand your logic there. Can you explain what you mean? I was commenting on planesmakers post. How he sent questions out and only one person replied in an unsatisfactory manner. When people go quiet, well we have to ask questions and when there is silence they are normally up to no good. Planesmaker was referring to the tech. manual. Upon Frank's and Rod's posts it was done in secret, which a number of people do believe. So when there is a board of 5, negotiating is far less as when there is 7 the task becomes a lot more complicated. So Frank's very valid suggestions were swept under the carpet and Rod saying "done in secret" rings loud alarm bells for me and the small board things could wriggle through without a lot of questions. What dose that add up to? KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 ......... What dose that add up to?KP. Keith, how could we possibly know? You are the one telling the story, so please enlighten us with a straight answer if that is at all possible and please spare us the innuendo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I think what Keith is saying is that the 7 board members we have in Raa is a better outcome than only having 5? Ok I am just guessing but then I saw the Elaaa has 3 so I am not really sure, maybe I am missing something obvious, time for an after lunch snooze. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 At some stage the board had to approve the tech manual, doesnt have to be all in agreement. Are you expecting power of veto for every board member simply nothing will get done. The development has been going on for years and a fair group of members, L2 and L4 saw and reviewed the manual. How is this secret? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Keith, how could we possibly know? You are the one telling the story, so please enlighten us with a straight answer if that is at all possible and please spare us the innuendo. I will reserve my opinion for my self. I think you can form your opinion as to what that adds up too. Not hard you know. KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I will reserve my opinion for my self. I think you can form your opinion as to what that adds up too. Not hard you know.KP. I rest my case ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts