RAAUS - A 'MAJOR PLAYER' WITH A POTENTIALLY MAJOR SET OF PROBLEMS. AOPA Australia member opinion

[KRviator]

Would it not be the case that a school wishing to offer CTA endorsement would get their instructors trained at their expense at a school able to offer this service. A pilot wanting a CTA endorsment would pay for their own training, buy the transponder and get the medical. It has been pointed out that any RAA pilot can do this now. I don't see this impacting someone who just wants to fly a Thruster around the farm.

The school might reasonably be expected to foot the bill to train their individual instructrors, but RAAus - and as a consequence, everyone - has to foot the bill for the legal advice, development of a training and standardisation package, dialogue with CAsA, etc etc.

 

And for those of us who will likely never use CTA, then yes, we are footing the bill, indirectly.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Would it not be the case that a school wishing to offer CTA endorsement would get their instructors trained at their expense at a school able to offer this service. A pilot wanting a CTA endorsment would pay for their own training, buy the transponder and get the medical. It has been pointed out that any RAA pilot can do this now. I don't see this impacting someone who just wants to fly a Thruster around the farm.

A person can attend a GA flying school and get a CTA endorsement at his/her own expense.

 

There are RAA Instructors who are dual qualified RA and GA who can train a pilot.

 

That process would not affect the Thruster pilot flying around the farm.

 

However if RAA want access to CTA on a formal basis, then there are going to be substantial self administration costs; so far the visions of Board Members (as against majority need by the members) under the old Inc. regime and the new Ltd regime have been spread across the members, so that would affect the Thruster pilot for something he/she would never want or need.

 

An alternative would be for RAA to adopt a User Pays policy for CTA, but it's hard to see what the benefit would be in doing that compared to a pilot just getting a PPL with CTA endorsement.

 

 

[Thruster88]

Thanks for the good answers guys, l will  ask another stupid question. With Soar and others operating in CTA would  the legally required paperwork at all levels school, raa, casa not all ready be in place?. Is it safe to fly in CTA with self cert medical ?. Can Soar and others fly into essenden or are they limited to their base?. 

 

 

[poteroo]

A sticking point for CASA seems to be with RAAus pilot abilities. However,the 'recognition' given by CASA to the RPC, when changing over to an RPL, (but not a full PPL), indicates that there should be no issue with RAAus pilots ability to manage in CTA - and there should not need to be any difference in training for a CTA endorsement.

 

The only requirement is for the instructor to also hold CTA endo - which currently, only those holding both a GA & RAAus FIR will have.  It's a bit of a stretch to want RAAus, and so, every member, to pay for each RAAus FIR holder to be upgraded at RAAus cost. It's likely there wouldn't be too many holding only an RAAus FIR who would really see enough business resulting from the expense of upgrading their own qualifications. There'll be no rush.

 

I can't see CASA allowing a lower level of CTA endo, (which might allow straight transit of a corner of C or D airspace), so the cost of a comprehensive CTA endo can be substantial for an RAAus pilot wanting to make only the occasional transit. As well, it won't be long before Mode S is required for C CTA, and that's another painful possibility.

 

We may wish that we'd never asked CASA for CTA. You need only look at their past ability to create a camel out of a horse!

 

happy days (in G).

 

 

[Downunder]

Thinking about this some more.

 

Perhaps the RAA push into cta is nothing to do with existing members and their wish to enter controlled airspace.

 

As has been said, any member with ppl can fly their approved RAA aircraft in cta.

 

The cta push maybe intrinsically linked to the weight increase ( which is a very narrow specification and also benefits very very few members) and the primary purpose is to capture the commercial training market, including foreign students?

 

Where students are only members to complete basic training.

 

The RAA are chasing the money.....

 

 

[turboplanner]

It might be the time to go back to the OP and try to work out what the agenda is.

 

 

[Admin]

Would it not be the case that a school wishing to offer CTA endorsement would get their instructors trained at their expense at a school able to offer this service. A pilot wanting a CTA endorsment would pay for their own training, buy the transponder and get the medical. It has been pointed out that any RAA pilot can do this now. I don't see this impacting someone who just wants to fly a Thruster around the farm.

Perhaps the training rates will increase as the instructors are now no longer just teaching rag and tube RAAus but also teaching a higher level of instruction so they will be paid more increasing the training costs to a person that just wants to fly a rag and tube for fun...just a thought!

 

 

[facthunter]

Instructors have never been paid what they are worth and while they will work for peanuts that's all they will get. Anyone who thinks you will just be able to fly in CTA and the costs won't go up is indulging in wishful thinking. The Empire building of the RAAus is out of our control. Their plan (not yours) are what is driving this move. I predicted something like this about 7 years ago. YOUR RAAus cant be the authority and also represent your interests. C ASA should outline what their idea of the future is so we might have a clue and PLAN our aviation lives.. The old AUF and it's aims are out there "somewhere"  but don't just assume all will be "as before". ALL the action will be at the top of the NEW direction. No one ever wants to be the king of the $#1ts .That will be where the action is and the rest will be a memory. Nev

 

 

[Thruster88]

Perhaps the training rates will increase as the instructors are now no longer just teaching rag and tube RAAus but also teaching a higher level of instruction so they will be paid more increasing the training costs to a person that just wants to fly a rag and tube for fun...just a thought!

Just as not all schools now offer tail wheel endorsements, in the future if the CTA thing does get up, there might be many schools that don't offer this service due to cost and low demand. 

 

 

[facthunter]

 The "Organisation" will have to have an approved process  of training and verification of a standard to deal with it regardless how many schools get involved. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

 The "Organisation" will have to have an approved process  of training and verification of a standard to deal with it regardless how many schools get involved. Nev

That’s correct, they are self administering, not spectators, and the panic will start with the first big accident. Only two or three of us bothered to look at the Audit failures which grounded a lot of RAA aircraft a few years ago. Just lifting the standards to get the simplest aircraft up to standard will be a major task and require a lot of volunteer feet on the ground. 

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Audit failures which grounded a lot of RAA aircraft a few years ago.

Were the audit failures about the registered characteristics of the subject aircraft or actual defects picked up on inspection of the aircraft? My recollection was that the audit turned up RAAus system failures not actual airworthiness issues. But I could be wrong......................

 

 

[kasper]

Were the audit failures about the registered characteristics of the subject aircraft or actual defects picked up on inspection of the aircraft? My recollection was that the audit turned up RAAus system failures not actual airworthiness issues. But I could be wrong......................

Indeed. The audit was paper audit of Raaus records against requirements of the CAO and our own docs.  They were numerous, widespread and horrid admin errors but not linked to actual failure or risk. 

 

unfortubnately it was the perfect total wave of failure in admin that allowed the current process of expand and unify everything to be played at the same time a play of just fix our shit up would have equally complied with the audit.  

 

But it we are where we are and unless something happens soon I can see me giving up trikes and just going GA experimental on three axis to leave to costs of raaus behind

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

In any event CASA may have been outside its powers for the registration audit. The CAO says that an aircraft must be registered with RAAus. The agreement of the day gave no audit powers to CASA so how was it that RAAus let them conduct the audit? Remember RAAus is a private body holding no delegations etc so where did CASA get its power to audit apart from a bureaucratic over-reach?

 

 

[turboplanner]

In any event CASA may have been outside its powers for the registration audit. The CAO says that an aircraft must be registered with RAAus. The agreement of the day gave no audit powers to CASA so how was it that RAAus let them conduct the audit? Remember RAAus is a private body holding no delegations etc so where did CASA get its power to audit apart from a bureaucratic over-reach?

If you're interested in that you could contact CASA.

 

 

[Admin]

For memory I think there is a clause in the contract with RAAus where they pay them to Administer the low end that they can audit for compliance every 2 years...if my memory serves me but with the mad cow setting these days I can't be sure of anything...now what was I saying??????

 

 

[turboplanner]

Indeed. The audit was paper audit of Raaus records against requirements of the CAO and our own docs.  They were numerous, widespread and horrid admin errors but not linked to actual failure or risk. 

I don't know what caused CASA to take a closer look at its SAO, but hypothetically a W&B instigated crackup at a major flying event in front of the DAS, a beat up over water to the point where boat occupants said they were scared for their lives (making it assault) followed by a police complaint the aircraft had no ID, and some reports of non airworthy aircraft would normally cause an entity set up to manage air safety to take a detailed look.

 

With the standard they found, it would be quite possible for failures to have occurred; I can think of one where an instructor and student died in an aircraft I wouldn't have signed off.

 

I didn't spend time going through the audits; maybe 15 minutes from where I started to where I stopped,  but consider this:

 

No W&B details for the aircraft: 7 cases        How can the pilot conduct pre-flight W&B calculations as he is required to do - that's a safety issue.

 

No Certificate of Airworthiness: 5 cases

 

Aircraft registered while still on the GA Register

 

Conformance not done

 

Technically forged signature

 

Test flight over prohibited area

 

Non compliant W&B

 

Incorrect registration

 

Weighed with wing detached

 

Unauthorised modification

 

Registration of grounded aircraft

 

No production certificate

 

No compliance certificate

 

I have no information to say that RAA didn't fix all these issues and ensure that they didn't happen again, but if an SAO has difficulties just managing the registration and specifications of aircraft, the cost is going to be much higher to manage pilot training and behaviour in CTA along with the equipment standard of new CTA approved aircraft, and ongoing performance standards for the aircraft and its equipment.

 

 

[facthunter]

 Appearing to be doing something and getting the problem addressed and rectified are two different things. IF you care about an organisations future you don't pirate all their top brass at a critical time and do just do  audit on Audit,  without being more involved with a lot of matters that are CASA's delegated areas of responsibility. ( A contentious point at any time)  A lot of the problem was that people who should know better  (even GA licenced) LIED brazenly about certain facts to the RAAus.. CAA reneiged on  agreed proposals  for weight increase etc under it's new Management and took a very punitive approach to the organization.  It's future welfare was well outside their considerations. 

 

  The beat up over water  from memory the individual and aircraft were not even registered with RAAus so it's a straight out police matter.Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

 Appearing to be doing something and getting the problem addressed and rectified are two different things. IF you care about an organisations future you don't pirate all their top brass at a critical time and do just do  audit on Audit,  without being more involved with a lot of matters that are CASA's delegated areas of responsibility. ( A contentious point at any time)  A lot of the problem was that people who should know better  (even GA licenced) LIED brazenly about certain facts to the RAAus.. CAA reneiged on  agreed proposals  for weight increase etc under it's new Management and took a very punitive approach to the organization.  It's future welfare was well outside their considerations. /quote The beat up over water  from memory the individual and aircraft were not even registered with RAAus so it's a straight out police matter.Nev

I realise you have a problem with CASA, but you need to put that aside and address it from the point of view of any government department or appointed body which becomes aware of the SAO losing control.     In this case there were some safety and compliance issues which needed to be addressed.

 

What I was leading to was that if an SAO wants to get involved in a new activity, then they have to budget for the cost of training, compliance and enforcement.

 

The beat up example I gave was hypothetical, so nothing related to your memory.

 

 

[facthunter]

 I don't really have a problem with the CASA anymore than others who are following "their" current way of doing things does.  There's no certainty of purpose or sign of a coming improvement...

 

        Plenty of Impartial investigations confirm an unsatisfactory  performance but nothing is changing. In fact there are signs it's getting worse from the user/ pilot 's point of view. Its change of tack cost me personally enough money to get me essentially financially compromised for any serious further involvement  where I would commit effort and money to any degree. . Certainly it is once bitten twice shy for me. When they do it well I will be one of the first to approve the change. but I won't put money on it..

 

  I also think I saw another side of the matter which you may not have had access to. I don't actually don't believe the RAAus got much help and guidance and there was no intentional criminality .  Nor was the Jabiru "thing" done well either. Plenty of other examples if you care to look  deeply and I go back a long way . .Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I also think I saw another side of the matter which you may not have had access to. I don't actually don't believe the RAAus got much help and guidance and there was no intentional criminality .

The subject is about CTA, but in relation to the Audit Report, I was posting on the 187 page document which I obtained. What was going on in recreational aviation at the time is there in black and white. If you leave CASA right out of it; if that report had come to me I would have acted decisively there and then.

 

One of the most important things to understand is that Negligence does not necessarily involve any criminal intent. Culpable Negligence does, but the Negligence which can make you un-insurable doesn't.

 

So you have to act immediately.