Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
SSCBD

So RAA are looking to have 750 kg MTOW as well as 1500 kg MTOW increases from CASA.

Recommended Posts

Blower clearly has a totally unwarranted belief in the effectiveness of authority and should seek professional help for his nasty authoritarian tendencies.

 

What he is proposing results in people being unable to fly because somebody in a private body decides they don't like that person for some reason without the person being convicted of anything in a proper court of law.

 

This should be anathema to people in a liberal democracy, which Australia claims to be.

 

As M61A1 says he knows of people who don't glide because of the way the GFA makes rules which give people far less freedom than is available to a RPL or PPL holder. So do I. Their rules also clearly don't work as the accident rate is horrendous and far worse than officially stated as the GFA annual hours flown has been overstated for decades.

 

Blower wants these sort of people in charge of your operation complete with reams of paperwork and mini Hitlers doing "enforcement". This IS currently the GFA. Will anybody be still interested in the activity then ? An organisation that isn't even honest with itself cannot possibly improve safety. The public service is bad enough, private bodies with State power are worse. Lots of detailed rules can simply be used against the organisation or individuals when something does go wrong as when you have enough of them people need to work around them to get anything done.

 

Requiring compulsory membership of organisations like GFA and RAAus is the same as requiring membership of the NRMA in order to own a car and drive it, get a licence (lessons and tests done by NRMA allowed people), be allowed to do any work on the car and NRMA enforcing and collecting fines for traffic infringements and being able to take away your licence if you voice your displeasure with the system. I know of a couple of people who were threatened with being thrown out of RAAus and one out of the GFA for political statements.

 

All of sport aviation in Australia except for SAAA , up to now is based on the GFA as a model. CASA thinks the GFA does a good job (they certainly have done a good job of placing people inside CASA who push the GFA line) because they uncritically accept that GFA does a good, safe job. With Part 149 they are going to cement in place a State organised compulsion which is designed to benefit the people running these private bodies, however poorly they manage it.

 

Instead we could have a simple extension to current pilot licencing and maintenance in the regulations. An RPL as a start similar to RAAus certificate for under 600Kg with suitable endorsement for over 600Kg aircraft (which may require different medical standard but should not in light of recent changes in the USA and UK), endorsements for different categories of sport aircraft (gliders, rotorcraft etc), controlled airspace endorsement available, PPL as now.

 

Maintenance by a simple short course. USA has 16 hours instruction for LSA to maintain the aircraft. This should be enough for our simple aircraft, gliders etc.

 

Airworthiness certification - anything certified by an ICAO complying country will be acceptable of course but amateur built aircraft aren't required to comply with any standard (nobody designs one without looking at a known standard for loads etc though) and don't seem to be terrible after the initial test flight hours are flown but you aren't allowed to contract someone to build you one, although you can buy a used one from somebody who did it for the first time (I know, I own one of those). Frankly this is ridiculous and the South African authorities have seen the light in this regard. We should do the same and just let manufacturers publish what the designed the aircraft to and the details and results of testing they do and leave it up to the consumer to decide. The popularity of homebuilts in the USA with builder assist and a great deal of the work already done shows that formal certification doesn't feature big in a lot of people's minds. There should also be a relatively simple procedure to get modifications to factory built sporting aircraft approved.

 

The sport aviation bodies can then properly represent their members, lobby politically for minimum sensible regulation, promote their activities and educate in safe operation. Under Part 149 CASA can simply require some new rule or regulation of the organisation and threaten to take away their Part 149 approval if the organisation objects. Total capture. A way to take away beneficial use of your property without due process.

 

Lastly, we have the technology to have a just about a 100% total surveillance society. Does anyone REALLY want this? i.e. your car/aircraft has mobile phone chip reporting your identity, GPS location and speed to a central computer at all times (yeah just like ADSB). Camera facing driver with face recognition software. George Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, let's not use it as a how to manual.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Winner 1
  • More 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When given a direction by someone purporting to have authority to make you do something, get the direction in writing quoting the appropriate article and signed by them in whatever capacity they call them selves.

, then inform them that you will be seeking legal advice using their written direction as evidence. Sorts the wheat from the chaff very quickly......just sayin.

The proper response is "CLEAR PROP".

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a clue on that site: For every other organization it says "... administers".For SAAA it says "... provides support". SAAA don't actually administer anything.

"Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) provides support for aircraft builders through training, test flights and airworthiness administration and approval processes."

 

This first part seems to place SAAA as a group of aircraft builders, test pilots, and then self administration (with support from CASA) for airworthiness and approval processes.

 

That makes some sense, as it places builders of individual designs at arms length from CASA.

 

"The SAAA administers training standards for maintenance training courses."

 

This indicates the Self-Administering Organisation departs from a strictly design, development and approval activity to include managing the maintenance standards of built aircraft in the field.

 

So far that all seems reasonable because it mirrors what a manufacturer does in terms of design, building and training its dealers on maintenance procedures required on its products.

 

"The SAAA has developed an analytical tool, the 'risk profile radar' for guiding identifying and mitigating risk. You can find more information in an article published in the Nov/Dec 2013 edition of Flight Safety Australia or contact the SAAA."

 

This is where it gets interesting; I eventually found it on the Flight Safety Australia site under the name Risk Radar Aviation with a copyrighted acronym, and the story in FSA say it was started four years previously (2009)

 

It mentions:

 

  • Test flying section
     
  • Ongoing flying maintenance
     
  • Routine flying operations
     
  • Annual inspections
     
  • Flight Reviews
     

 

 

If it's in use, this would seem to indicate SAAA is involved in Operations as well, but the wording is certainly murky, one minuteappearing to be in partnership with CASA, and the next being self-administering.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When given a direction by someone purporting to have authority to make you do something, get the direction in writing quoting the appropriate article and signed by them in whatever capacity they call them selves., then inform them that you will be seeking legal advice using their written direction as evidence. Sorts the wheat from the chaff very quickly......just sayin.

That goes without saying, although I don't think you'll see anyone from RAA marching up to you any time soon; this discussion only got going as thread drift from this thread which was a thread jump from RAA's request for 750 kg, CTA and 1500 kg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The SAAA administers training standards for maintenance training courses."This indicates the Self-Administering Organisation departs from a strictly design, development and approval activity to include managing the maintenance standards of built aircraft in the field.

No, it means they administer the standards for the courses. They do not manage anything to do with actual maintenance in the field.

 

the wording is certainly murky

The wording is murky because you are trying to see things that are not there.

 

SAAA provide support for aircraft builders. A number of SAAA members are CASA Authorised Persons who can issue Experimental Certificates of Airworthiness. You do not have to be a member of SAAA to receive a certificate of airworthiness (or to be an Authorised Person). This is a service that is available commercially. However last I looked SAAA offered the service at a significant discount to people who have been members for a number of years.

 

The Authorized Person does not make any determination about the airworthiness of the aircraft. That is solely the responsibility of the builder of the aircraft. Likewise maintenance standards are the responsibility of the owner and the person who signs the documentation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that RAA Aus is trying desperately to take over all recreational aviation in this country, I would be concerned for all the other recreational organisations in the aviation field. Helicopters, gliders, warbirds, SAAA etc. EMPIRE building. procedes apace...

 

Back to topic...this increase in weight, etc presages this I believe.

 

 

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it means they administer the standards for the courses. They do not manage anything to do with actual maintenance in the field.

Who conducts the courses?

 

The wording is murky because you are trying to see things that are not there.

Quite possibly; I'm only looking at the bare words.

 

SAAA provide support for aircraft builders. A number of SAAA members are CASA Authorised Persons who can issue Experimental Certificates of Airworthiness. You do not have to be a member of SAAA to receive a certificate of airworthiness (or to be an Authorised Person). This is a service that is available commercially. However last I looked SAAA offered the service at a significant discount to people who have been members for a number of years.

That links SAAA into the issue of a CofA

 

The Authorized Person does not make any determination about the airworthiness of the aircraft. That is solely the responsibility of the builder of the aircraft. Likewise maintenance standards are the responsibility of the owner and the person who signs the documentation.

That would be a concern to me as a member. If the Authorised Person issues the CofA, but the determination about airworthiness is the responsibility of the builder, why have an authorised person; same with maintenance.

 

I understand that structure is attempting to put the legal responsibility on the owner of the aircraft, but when someone has been injured or killed, and a fault is found in the aircraft's design, or it's maintenance the first thing the plaintoffs go for is the list of who was responsible for authorising the ability to fly with a fault.

 

I personally would go for the authorising person being protected in his duties by insurance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that RAA Aus is trying desperately to take over all recreational aviation in this country, I would be concerned for all the other recreational organisations in the aviation field. Helicopters, gliders, warbirds, SAAA etc. EMPIRE building. procedes apace...Back to topic...this increase in weight, etc presages this I believe.

If that's not what the members want, then the members need to do something about it; more difficult with a Company, but not insurmountable.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbo, its called apathy and its what they are relying on. Most members, in my view, only join RAA Aus because they have to in order to fly. I believe people like me who are annoyed about what is happenning, are in the minority because most other dont care which leaves the field open for exploitation, empire building and other bovine excrement. I agree turbo but apart from a general revolution, I refuse to take it you know where even thought the crowd are doing so. Rant over.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who conducts the courses?

CASA publish a list, currently it is:

 

Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) Maintenance Procedures Course as approved by CASA

 

or

 

A CASR Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation that is approved by CASA to provide category licence training.

 

That links SAAA into the issue of a CofA

You don't have to be a member of SAAA to be an AP. I doubt that t all APs are members of SAAA. You can also apply directly to CASA (and pay accordingly I presume). So there is some link to SAAA but the responsibility is more on the individual AP.

 

That would be a concern to me as a member. If the Authorised Person issues the CofA, but the determination about airworthiness is the responsibility of the builder, why have an authorised person; same with maintenance.

Someone has to actually have the authority to issue the Special C of A. There are a couple of problems if you wanted to make the AP responsible for airworthiness:

 

1) There are no airworthiness standards for Experimental Amateur Built so there is nothing to evaluate against.

 

2) Even if there were, there is really no way to be sure there are no faults unless you were there during the building. That is why certified aircraft have a strict production process.

 

The regulations actually say the AP must issue a certificate of airworthiness if the applicant is eligible. Eligibility does not include an assessment of airworthiness, however the AP can put conditions on the certificate.

 

That really is the underlying principle of Experimental Amateur Built. If you don't like that arrangement, fly certified aircraft.

 

I understand that structure is attempting to put the legal responsibility on the owner of the aircraft, but when someone has been injured or killed, and a fault is found in the aircraft's design, or it's maintenance the first thing the plaintoffs go for is the list of who was responsible for authorising the ability to fly with a fault.

I personally would go for the authorising person being protected in his duties by insurance.

That is a long standing concern with the AP process. However, I don't think insurance solves the problem, it tends to create juicier targets. Have you seen how quickly the PL lawyers move on to the next target if you don't have insurance? I think people tend to fight a lot harder to hold on to their own money, so unless you have a lot of money the lawyers would rather take on an insurance company.

 

On the other hand anyone even peripherally involved covered by insurance is fair game - as your fire marshal found out (since he was sued, I am betting there was insurance coverage).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be a concern to me as a member. If the Authorised Person issues the CofA, but the determination about airworthiness is the responsibility of the builder, why have an authorised person; same with maintenance.

 

I understand that structure is attempting to put the legal responsibility on the owner of the aircraft, but when someone has been injured or killed, and a fault is found in the aircraft's design, or it's maintenance the first thing the plaintoffs go for is the list of who was responsible for authorising the ability to fly with a fault.

 

I personally would go for the authorising person being protected in his duties by insurance.

The AP is acting as CASA's representative. The AP enjoys the same legal protection that an employee of CASA would have in doing their job. This means that if anyone starts suing them the the resources of CASA kick in and defend.....

 

CASA tried to change this a year or so ago but backed down, they are concerned about CASA's liability. If the proposed part 149 goes through then SAAA may be given the right to issue CofA but that will mean that the APs non longer have the CASA protection.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The AP is acting as CASA's representative. The AP enjoys the same legal protection that an employee of CASA would have in doing their job. This means that if anyone starts suing them the the resources of CASA kick in and defend.....

CASA tried to change this a year or so ago but backed down, they are concerned about CASA's liability. If the proposed part 149 goes through then SAAA may be given the right to issue CofA but that will mean that the APs non longer have the CASA protection.

Perhaps the following has application:

 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 201.003

 

Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases

 

Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things.

 

So if the Commonwealth and CASA are not liable then the buck stops with the AP which from memory is an issue to be sorted out when Part 149 (and accompanying legislative changes) are implemented.

 

Adoption of the US FAR's en globo could sort out this entire mess.

 

 

  • More 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps the following has application: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 201.003

 

Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases

 

Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things.

 

So if the Commonwealth and CASA are not liable then the buck stops with the AP which from memory is an issue to be sorted out when Part 149 (and accompanying legislative changes) are implemented.

 

Adoption of the US FAR's en globo could sort out this entire mess.

At the moment the AP is CASA and so benefits from that clause. When part 149 comes along there is a risk that the APs will be on their own and have to carry their own insurance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just so happened to be speaking to someone from CASA last weekend. MTOW and CTA are not even on the radar now due to "other" issues..read into this as it is all too hard. These issues are to do all with the way the whole system here in Australia has been put together over the years and years as a add here and a add there to the point where in the UK and USA their part61 is 4 inches high and ours is 2 ft high. So now before even anything can be done Part 149 will be the future. This wont fix the issue for RAAA but what it does apparently will make organisations like RAAA or any other similar responsible for legislation orientated stuff in what all the processes to control and monitor...how this works for MTOW and CTA I have no idea or even for the other stuff it will do but I got the impression it wont do anything for that process.

 

I couldnt speak too long about it as I had to do other stuff with some other people but basically the paperwork is catostrophic to walk through.

 

I know I came away with my head spinning because everything is so convoluted. Its like the monster has become so big...and the system is so broken to the point that it can not be fixed very easily. You cant throw the lot out and start again. So I am none the wiser about the intricisies of all of this and I doubt very much anyone here would even have a grasp on what the real problems and issues actually are. I certainly didnt come away with any sort of warm or fuzzy feeling. Only a very grim outlook for a very very long wait

 

I am going to do some more reading on the Part 149 proposal as from all the stuff I have seen quoted on these threads is most likely not what it actually is and means

 

Mark

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally unrelated to the conversation at hand, but can I ask what RAAA stands for Kyle? Or really more what the third A stands for? You consistently name it that so Ive been wondering if its some joke that this simple minded pilot has missed?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow mark you draw some interesting conclusions. You can read into it that it’s all to hard, or you could read into it that CASA feel there is already a licence that covers CTA and a higher MTOW and probably don’t see a reasonable reason to change anything at the moment.

 

As for your part 61 is it printed on cardboard or something? Mine is about 2 inches thick and quite easy to understand, don’t know how yours ended up 2ft thick.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow mark you draw some interesting conclusions. You can read into it that it’s all to hard, or you could read into it that CASA feel there is already a licence that covers CTA and a higher MTOW and probably don’t see a reasonable reason to change anything at the moment.

As for your part 61 is it printed on cardboard or something? Mine is about 2 inches thick and quite easy to understand, don’t know how yours ended up 2ft thick.

You should work for CASA because they themselves have had all sorts of trouble understanding Pt 61.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should work for CASA because they themselves have had all sorts of trouble understanding Pt 61.

Should try giving it a read. Works fine when you do that.

 

 

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow mark you draw some interesting conclusions. You can read into it that it’s all to hard, or you could read into it that CASA feel there is already a licence that covers CTA and a higher MTOW and probably don’t see a reasonable reason to change anything at the moment.

As for your part 61 is it printed on cardboard or something? Mine is about 2 inches thick and quite easy to understand, don’t know how yours ended up 2ft thick.

Well that was the comparison he gave me regarding the difference between ours and their versions of Part 61

 

Regarding the the CTA and MTOW it was more like there are no processes to be able to do it due to ICAO commitments etc etc. You will have to read into that whatever that is. I would have liked to have a much longer and deeper conversation at the time to understand it more completely but I couldnt. But we will catch up again.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...