jackc Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 14 minutes ago, turboplanner said: Good point, but it was RAA members and officials that took us up to the weight levels and speeds etc of GA and shortly you will see RA and GA pilots both flying Cessna 150s in much the same areas, so it would be very hard to turn back. Unfortunately true. However I still hope for the impossible, or something like it being the FAA FAR Part 103 segment of aviation that the U.S. has which harkens back to our old Ultralight days. I have no interest in flapping around in an RAA reg Cessna 150. They should all be in low budget GA Flying Schools, instead of the fast and flash glass cockpit equipped, costly to learn aircraft. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 They were never built with lasting this long in mind. It's only thin sheet aluminium not very well corrosion proofed either. For what they are they have done a great job. Bit squeezy though. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 Latest info is raaus are going to make L2 responsible for aircraft for 30 days only after they do acr then it reverts to owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackc Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 57 minutes ago, BrendAn said: Latest info is raaus are going to make L2 responsible for aircraft for 30 days only after they do acr then it reverts to owner. Has this always been the ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 (edited) 10 minutes ago, jackc said: Has this always been the ruling? I don't know but the new office lady told me they are going through every acr with a fine tooth comb from now on. The L2 responsible thing may well have been there before and they just decided to enforce it. Edited February 29 by BrendAn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 On 28/02/2024 at 11:48 AM, Deano747 said: Sorry, where does the hull coverage come in? Your RAAus membership gives a basic level of comprehensive insurance (but should be topped up to a realistic amount), but I don't see where the rego cost covers the hull. Very happy to be proved wrong as I have been quoted between 2% and 2.5% of the hull value for that insurance. My apologies - I have it the wrong way around Hull insurance is optional and insurance through a company or broker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueadventures Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 (edited) 3 hours ago, BrendAn said: I don't know but the new office lady told me they are going through every acr with a fine tooth comb from now on. The L2 responsible thing may well have been there before and they just decided to enforce it. Were they saying they are changing the tech manual in this area?; I wouldn't think an L2 would take on any owners responsibility; only responsibility for maintenance work that they perform to an aircraft. Regarding the condition report it specifically states wording about responsibility - "The Level 2 / 4 inspector (or LAME) does not assume responsibility for the airworthiness or otherwise of this aircraft. Airworthiness of the aircraft rests solely with the owner." Any detailed attention to ACR's is good I reckon. Edited February 29 by Blueadventures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 3 minutes ago, Blueadventures said: Airworthiness of the aircraft rests solely with the owner. However if you issue an official Condition Report you are responsible for your own advice (which is why mechanics issuing roadworthy certificates photograph every single item they look at). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueadventures Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 2 minutes ago, turboplanner said: However if you issue an official Condition Report you are responsible for your own advice (which is why mechanics issuing roadworthy certificates photograph every single item they look at). Agree; would be responsible for the correctness of inspection and it is good that its being checked by RAA; need to eliminate dodgy work regarding these inspections; like RAA reported finding dodgy bfr's (400kms between the instructor and pilot as one example) and like dodgy car road worthy's being picked up and actioned. Will make things safer and compliant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 47 minutes ago, turboplanner said: However if you issue an official Condition Report you are responsible for your own advice (which is why mechanics issuing roadworthy certificates photograph every single item they look at). "However if you issue an official Condition Report you are responsible for your own advice" Any sort of honest "Condition" report is contextual, in that the degree of responsibility, by the author/mechanic/engineer/etc (technician) will depend on the scope ie if the report is understood/know to have limitations, as expressed by the technician and or documentation supplied, the technicians liability/responsibility will be limited accordingly. Technicians are not expected to be God's/infallible, in that they would be required to know all things past/present about a vehicle/aircraft condition.. "(which is why mechanics issuing roadworthy certificates photograph every single item they look at)". First I have heard/seen of such a practise (might be a Vic thing😁) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said: "However if you issue an official Condition Report you are responsible for your own advice" Any sort of honest "Condition" report is contextual, in that the degree of responsibility, by the author/mechanic/engineer/etc (technician) will depend on the scope ie if the report is understood/know to have limitations, as expressed by the technician and or documentation supplied, the technicians liability/responsibility will be limited accordingly. Technicians are not expected to be God's/infallible, in that they would be required to know all things past/present about a vehicle/aircraft condition.. "(which is why mechanics issuing roadworthy certificates photograph every single item they look at)". First I have heard/seen of such a practise (might be a Vic thing😁) You learn something every day; that can't be a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 57 minutes ago, Blueadventures said: Agree; would be responsible for the correctness of inspection and it is good that its being checked by RAA; need to eliminate dodgy work regarding these inspections; like RAA reported finding dodgy bfr's (400kms between the instructor and pilot as one example) and like dodgy car road worthy's being picked up and actioned. Will make things safer and compliant. In every community, every company, every association, every team there will always be around 5% "Mr Dodgies" who will obfuscate the rules, bend the rules, break the rules, spoiling their sport or industry for the majority. When you're trying for Zero problems/fatalities etc they'll fight you to the death, and have a million ways of staying under the radar. In the case we are discussing where a Self Administering body is trying to improve conformity, it's always had to avoid going back to prescriptive rule yourself chasing them with new rules. The Audit is a good way of staying at arms length from law suits. Self Administration works well,in that the dodgy people ultimately have to pay the price of their actions rather than the organization, but it would still be better if those accidents didn't occur. Prescriptive industries have much the same problem with this rump which has turned avoidance in an art form. The Transport Industry is one of these, and about 25 years ago it introduced Fatigue laws for trucks and drivers of long distance semi trailers. They were ignored. The driver wanted to rest at the correct times but the managers usually suggested that they could, but they wouldn't get any more work. Chain of Responsibility laws were introduced for that; they were ignored. A National group of Prosecutors focusing on long distance transport was introduced, and have been quietly sanctioning management for a while, but of course the fines were claimed on expenses. The Prosecutors stepped up ther stories in the transport media, explained how they work, explained who they were after; those Mr Dodgies. but they were ignored. The results of one of their most recent cases has just been announced. Four police officers who had jut pulled over a speeding motorist were kille by a truck driver high on drugs. The driver had been hallucinating and pleaded that he needed sleep but was told to do the trip. The National Operations Manager was found guilty of failing to follow health & safety standards and jailed for up to 3 years. The company is no longer operating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Australia seems to have a "thing" (technical term) for enacting legislation, that on the face of it seems to have meaning/logic at its core but is all too often incomplete, illogical and fails to follow through with appropriate policing/enforcement. I learnt a little about fatigue and fatigued management in the early 1970's. From imperfect/aging memory, truck drivers (amongst others) were one of the featured studies. In short, despite fatigue mitigating strategies, like rest breaks every 2.5 hrs - by 9 hrs, the drivers response times (as a measure of fatigue) had dropped well below safe limits ie their ability to respond to a sudden/unexpected event was markedly reduced. They were/are in effect, a danger to themselves and the public, if still driving after 9 hrs behind the wheel. About this time I obtained my HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) Articulated (Semi) License, as a way of earning fast cash (truck drivers being well paid in the UK, at that time) to assist with living expenses during term time. The limits on driving 9 hrs (behind the wheel) and duty 12 hrs (on the clock). (there were also minimum time between duty cycles, to ensure adequate rest) A detailed (time, place & breaks) log book of driving/duty times had to be completed for every trip. The police were very active in monitoring the log books, with heavy penalties, to the driver & sometimes his/her employer) for false entry. Over about 45 years I have intermittently driven trucks in Australia (NSW) - I have never had my log book checked. Further I did one job, about 3 years ago, where my log book did not have to be filled out at all, as my multiple daily trips where within a 100km (?) radius of the truck depot - in effect, this meant I could drive for as long as I liked/my employer wanted - who thought up this "brain dead "exception? My point: Standards are set by the leaders. Rubbish leadership leads to organisational (societal) failures that can not just be blamed on the individual - Government is our primary leader. Failure of Gov, to appropriately legislate and/or then follow through with adequate enforcement, creates a climate where the individual may make bad decisions or is coerced, through circumstance (employer?) to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 28 minutes ago, skippydiesel said: despite fatigue mitigating strategies, like rest breaks every 2.5 hrs - by 9 hrs The breaks are a little further apart and have conditions then a 10 hour break. 28 minutes ago, skippydiesel said: The limits on driving 9 hrs (behind the wheel) and duty 12 hrs (on the clock). (there were also minimum time between duty cycles, to ensure adequate rest) Anout the same 28 minutes ago, skippydiesel said: where my log book did not have to be filled out at all, as my multiple daily trips where within a 100km (?) radius of the truck depot Local drivin has shorter distances and is usually limited by businesses being open so takes care of itself. 28 minutes ago, skippydiesel said: Failure of Gov, to appropriately legislate and/or then follow through with adequate enforcement, creates a climate where the individual may make bad decisions or is coerced, through circumstance (employer?) to do so. The government legislation is fine and has been developed and refined over half a century in conjunction with drivers. The enforcemnent is quite good. My beef is that if the average car driver covers 30,000 km per year and the average over the road driver covers 250,000 he should be paying less per penalty because his percentage of offences is much lower than the car driver. What I was discussing was not the general Industry but the tiny serial flouters who always have a reason for what they do. In fact the auto and transport industries have an excellent safety record; way down there with medical negligence, and that's a very small figure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Just , why do they make those weird laws , that seem to be aimed to a small minority. ' wing loading rule ', that effects one particular aircraft maker . spacesailor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 1 hour ago, turboplanner said: The breaks are a little further apart and have conditions then a 10 hour break. Anout the same 10 hr break - Nuts! How can a worker be expected to get adequate rest , in 10 hrs, when commuting/shopping for essentials/family time may reduce this to 6 hrs or less sleep. Local drivin has shorter distances and is usually limited by businesses being open so takes care of itself. The studies (science) , conducted in the 1950-60"s are NOT specific to truck drivers, cover ALL industrial situations (speculation: recreational activities as well). The studies are about human limitation. In my very small case - I could start from my depot as early as 03:00, end as late as 18:00 (not counting the commute to/from). The driving (semi 19m / 45.5 tonne) was predominantly within the Sydney Basin. Heavy traffic, crawl -100 kph. Possibly far more taxing than any long haul driving. To even suggest that " limited by businesses being open so takes care of itself." is a rational argument, is just beyond comprehension 1 hour ago, turboplanner said: The government legislation is fine and has been developed and refined over half a century in conjunction with drivers. You jest! Where is the science? The enforcemnent is quite good. Again you jest - enforcement is woful, concentrating on after the accident/incident enforcement, rather than prevention. My beef is that if the average car driver covers 30,000 km per year and the average over the road driver covers 250,000 he should be paying less per penalty Why? The professional should be held to a higher standard, after all he/she is paid to drive. May be commanding anything from a 7 tonner to a road train, with exponentially greater potential for damage/injury, than any car driver because his percentage of offences is much lower than the car driver. True ! As a ratio of distance travelled to incident, car drivers are far worse, as one would expect, when comparing professional driver against amateurs. What I was discussing was not the general Industry but the tiny serial flouters who always have a reason for what they do. Legislation that is enacted without, due reference to fact/science, often watered down by vested interest, not followed by effective enforcement, is always bad law - something we excel at. In fact the auto and transport industries have an excellent safety record; way down there with medical negligence, and that's a very small figure. Excuse me - you are referring to Australian drivers???? amongst the worst in the western World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) 53 minutes ago, skippydiesel said: I was reeling with shock at your shock Skippy, so don't want to SHOCK you more by explaining that what we are dealing with is drivers high on drugs, hallucinating with some continuously driving for 48 hours. That's our problem area. However the point is that a Self Governing body has to start somewhere to try to mitigate the risk of one of its members selling a faulty aircraft. Edited March 1 by turboplanner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingVizsla Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 We are doing 3 ACR's this weekend, so we'll see how it all goes. 2 planes returning to the Register after years non-flying and one sold. Two owners who don't believe in Log Books will complicate things. The other owner got caught up in early RAAus log book audits, so that one "might" be OK, but there's no serial number for the engine installed, or any entries for the last 4 years. "Trust me, I did what needed doing..." no longer cuts the mustard. When were the hoses replaced? Dunno. Fingers crossed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 7 hours ago, Blueadventures said: Were they saying they are changing the tech manual in this area?; I wouldn't think an L2 would take on any owners responsibility; only responsibility for maintenance work that they perform to an aircraft. Regarding the condition report it specifically states wording about responsibility - "The Level 2 / 4 inspector (or LAME) does not assume responsibility for the airworthiness or otherwise of this aircraft. Airworthiness of the aircraft rests solely with the owner." Any detailed attention to ACR's is good I reckon. I think it may be that the L2 will be held responsible for what he puts in the report for 30 days. Raaus get a lot of complaints about condition reports stating things are in good condition when they are not. So the aim will be to get rid of dodgy L2 s that look after mates by writing bullsh#t to help sell an AC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 7 hours ago, Blueadventures said: Agree; would be responsible for the correctness of inspection and it is good that its being checked by RAA; need to eliminate dodgy work regarding these inspections; like RAA reported finding dodgy bfr's (400kms between the instructor and pilot as one example) and like dodgy car road worthy's being picked up and actioned. Will make things safer and compliant. Sorry, I should have read this post. I just said the same thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueadventures Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 1 minute ago, BrendAn said: Sorry, I should have read this post. I just said the same thing. No worries, all good, Cheers mate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 36 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said: We are doing 3 ACR's this weekend, so we'll see how it all goes. 2 planes returning to the Register after years non-flying and one sold. Two owners who don't believe in Log Books will complicate things. The other owner got caught up in early RAAus log book audits, so that one "might" be OK, but there's no serial number for the engine installed, or any entries for the last 4 years. "Trust me, I did what needed doing..." no longer cuts the mustard. When were the hoses replaced? Dunno. Fingers crossed. Engine log books are a big part of the blitz in acrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueadventures Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 50 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said: We are doing 3 ACR's this weekend, so we'll see how it all goes. 2 planes returning to the Register after years non-flying and one sold. Two owners who don't believe in Log Books will complicate things. The other owner got caught up in early RAAus log book audits, so that one "might" be OK, but there's no serial number for the engine installed, or any entries for the last 4 years. "Trust me, I did what needed doing..." no longer cuts the mustard. When were the hoses replaced? Dunno. Fingers crossed. Sounds good, remember being shown through your hangar and some other aircraft at a flyin at Childers club house a couple of years back. Be good to have them back in the air and the one off to a new owner. Look forward hearing how things go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 I agree with (1) holding inspectors of any kind/level accountable for their report(s) - (2)what I don't agree with is (2) RAA somehow being responsible for the condition of an aircraft, at any stage of its operational life including being sold/purchased. My opinions above, may sound the same/similar BUT (1) is holding an authorised person to account (2) is making RAA accountable/liable needing more staff/insurance for very little if any gain. Why? - If this is to be an effective authority, it will require enforcement, an inspectorate/police, punishment, sufficient funds to fight the inevitable court battle(s) brought by aggrieved members and authorised persons. This will all need funding - do I need to spell out to the RAA membership where the $$$$$ will come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said: I agree with (1) holding inspectors of any kind/level accountable for their report(s) - (2)what I don't agree with is (2) RAA somehow being responsible for the condition of an aircraft, at any stage of its operational life including being sold/purchased. My opinions above, may sound the same/similar BUT (1) is holding an authorised person to account (2) is making RAA accountable/liable needing more staff/insurance for very little if any gain. Why? - If this is to be an effective authority, it will require enforcement, an inspectorate/police, punishment, sufficient funds to fight the inevitable court battle(s) brought by aggrieved members and authorised persons. This will all need funding - do I need to spell out to the RAA membership where the $$$$$ will come from? Now I have learnt more it seems quite simple. Basically aircraft condition reports must be accurate. the L2 that fudges them loses his L2 authority. My friend who is an L4 and L2 is quite happy about it. He does things by the book and does not like half arsed L2 condition reports. He is happy to stand by his work. 1 1 1 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