Flying_higher

Sorry, I hit 'submit reply' a little too early in my previous post. 🙄

Just to be clear, I would love for there to be an experimental category that does actually permit these types of modifications without the need for a MARAP. This would permit people to take the control of risk back into their own hands, like the AUF days, and also reduce the burden of overly complex and costly compliance, noting it would likely introduce some operational restrictions like no flight over built up areas or flight training, for example. It's my understanding that the RAA have been trying to get CASA to agree to this for years. Hopefully CASA will see the light and allow this so many of us can go back to simple flying.

44 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You  are not just bolting ANY part on your plane.  It's from a recognised Manufacturer. IF that prop is OK'd Once it shouldn't have to have any extra time spent on that matter.  In any case for certain categories you could make your own prop and engine if it came to that. It's NOT Airlines we are dealing with here.  Nev

If there was no R&D performed on that aircraft/engine/prop combination, how are we going to know if there are no adverse effects such as vibration, aerodynamic changes, loading up the crankshaft, or what ever? Therefore in my books it is just bolting any part to the aircraft. Using your analogy I should be able to attached a DC3 prop to my certified Jabiru with no worries at all apart from the prop weighing more than the aircraft!

I'm not suggesting this is the airlines Nev, but it's also not 1950. There still needs to be standards as there is no 'experimental' category for type accepted aircraft and therefore it much either conform with the type certificate or have some other mechanism to provide assurance, in this case its a MARAP. In the VH world this would be an STC or EO. Remember, a type certified aircraft can be used for flight training therefore is it fair that little johny's mum and dad take him to the airfield for flight training thinking that the aircraft meets a standard (no matter how 'loose') and it doesn't? This is why initial training isn't permitted in amateur built aircraft. 

Sorry, but isn't a MARAP like an STC? Doesn't that mean that the RAA or someone has paid for the R&D to enable the part to be put onto the aircraft? Surely we can't just go and bolt any part onto our aircraft.

Given that RAA or someone has paid for it, aren't they entitled to recoup their money for the R&D and any liability?

Don't get me wrong, I think this is unfortunate for F10, given his situation, but if MARAP didn't exist F10 would need to put the original parts back onto the aircraft for it to be compliant.

On 8/6/2023 at 8:11 PM, jackc said:

RAAus wont see it that way,  They would argue no safety, loss of admin control, loss of membership money.  
They would cringe over someone unlicenced, possibly not trained, swooping around at 500-1000 feet in the middle of nowhere.

Flying night VFR at midnight, on a full moon 🙂 

The ‘Catch Me IF You Can Airforce’ That has  a ring to it 🙂 

you do realise that the RAA don’t make the laws don’t you? They just administer a few things on behalf of the law maker (CASA). From my interactions with the staff at RAA, I would say that they just want people to be able to fly their planes. The reality is that with their legal obligations under Part 149 they have the requirement to do what they can to make sure we operate compliantly. 
 

this is supposed to be a fun activity but I have to say reading the tripe on here I wonder why I bother anymore. Get over yourselves and just enjoy what we have. 

Yep, it has to be Unconditional. Has nothing to do with risk, but control. 
 

I am aware that there are many people using a Class 2 with managed sleep apnoea. I wish you luck!

The medical requirements do not change for Group G. They remain totally the same. RAA has said that on numerous occasions. 
 

For more myth busting see here. https://www.raa.asn.au/calendar-of-events/mtow/

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

I can understand all of that; medical professionals are no more immune from mistakes than the rest of us but you're looking at the DAME back to front. The Unlimited Commercial Vehicle equivalent, the Basic Class 2 is for people who know they are healthy and its cheaper because a less authorised Doctor makes the decision, but if he/she finds you have a condition, you're out, whereas the DAME is allowed to manage your condition. It's well worth looking at the Austroads pathways back to work for truck drivers who've blacked out once, or several times, or have high blood pressure. This is where it's better to go for a full Class 2. 

 

 

 

I think you’re being a bit dramatic. All it means if you can’t get and unrestricted commercial Ausroads is that you have to then see a DAME, who yes, may be able to manage your condition. 

Whilst I reckon you’ve done some great comparisons there, one thing you fail to acknowledge is that CAO 95.55 has allowed an ASAO (not just RAA) to apply for increase in MTOW since 2021. The time for debate is done and I think the RAA CEO was just suggesting that even though the rules already exist, CASA still hasn’t approved RAA’s formal application to apply those rules. Pretty fair complaint given it’s April. 

On 12/4/2023 at 7:48 AM, jackc said:

All the while…..these people are being paid a Salary you could only dream of, but its all cool and normal for Govt entities 😞 

I was looking at jobs recently and came across a role at CASA. I don’t know how much you think they earn, but it ain’t that! Wasn’t worth applying. Most of the jobs at CASA align with the public service pay levels, and when you compare that to private industry it’s actually quite poor. Yes there are some perks like job security and 15% super, but this is easily outweighs by cash in the private sector. 
 

Airservices, however, that’s another story…..

Hmmm, interesting thread and lacking a bit of context me thinks. 
 

the CEO also went on and said that this was no cause for alarm, but that these continued things were disappointing, and essentially that we can do better. I don’t disagree actually. 
 

But given the scale of their operations with 10000 members, the numbers aren’t horrifying or alarming. I’d agree that people should take responsibility for getting their sh!t sorted. 2 aircraft not registered in a quarter out of 3500 aircraft is not too bad. At least they know how many aircraft they have on their register unlike CASA who have got zero idea as to how many aircraft are operating in their world. 

On 10/3/2023 at 9:30 AM, kgwilson said:

I don't think much thought was given to it at all. As far as discounts go it is the most pathetic I've seen. When it was first proposed inflation was very low but fees kept on increasing at a greater rate. In 2009 full membership was $160.00. Last year that had increased to $275.00. It was $250.00 from 2019 - 2021 so there was no hedging against inflation if you paid 3 years in advance. Now with inflation at around 8% a 3 year up front payment may net you 6-9% plus the 1.75% discount. It's a gamble though with odds probably about as good as pokies.

Whilst I don't disagree that on the surface the multi-year discount is measly, but with inflation at record highs, by taking a multi year membership you would protect against fee rises during that period. Works the same as getting a fixed interest rate on your home loan. If fees go up 10%, you’re going to save about $30 in year two, and more in year three. And if you think about it from their (RAA) perspective, they don’t want to offer too much of a discount and incentivise too many people to take it up as they’ll lose big time as they won’t be able to make up that short fall to cover their increase in costs. 
 

all in all I think it they’ve made a reasonable decision with the multi year fees. 

8 hours ago, walrus said:

Flying higher, I am not trying to stir people up. I hope RAA (and you) are right about medical matters.

 

My reading of the discussion is that Avmed is still quite capable of perverting the UK and American standards into something worse than useless or worse than the current mess. They did that with the "basic class 2".  Just ask the color blind aviation community about Avmed's capacity for deception..

 

I survived in my career by never assuming that people had my best interests at heart. Any time I hear "don't worry, she'll be right!" my BS detector triggers.

Apologies for giving you some stick.  I must say I thought it was common knowledge that the medical standard doesn’t change from group G. RAA has said it a couple of times. 
 

When it comes to AVMED, I couldn’t agree more to be sceptical which is why I like RAA. Don’t have to worry for a few years yet!

6 hours ago, walrus said:

 

Oh yes, and what happens if you need a medical to drive group G?

 

RAA has already made it clear that the same medical standards will apply for Group G. And given the regulations are already written in 95.55, I would suggest you’ve thrown this comment out there simply to stir people up.  Unnecessary. 

All your sons hours will count towards the issue of his RPC, no matter how long it takes. BUT, when he goes back, if he can’t demonstrate competency he’ll obviously need to re-learn it till he is competent. There is no difference between RAA and CASA in this regards, but he’ll need to become a member again before he re+commences his training. 
so long as the competencies haven’t changed wrt the exams, he’s good to go. Again, no difference to CASA/Part 61. 

Surely that’s like saying Qantas has to do it’s own fatal (hopefully not) accidents because they have an SMS that requires them to analyse all safety reports. 

I think you're right turbo. But I would add that if the government is interested enough to place lots of regulation on RAA, surely they should do this with open eyes and understand if the regulations do good or not. In otherwords, the government can't have its cake and eat it too. And like I said earlier, I'm pretty sure ATSB treat VH- experimental the same as a type certified aircraft operation. This is only because there is a part 61 licence holder at the helm. 

It's all just splitting hairs to me. 

The only reason ATSB are there for VH- registered aircraft is because they wrote the rules (TSI Act) around what their capacity (funding) is. I just can't see why the life of one Australian is more important than another depending upon whether you have numbers or letters on the aircraft. Surely this is about improving aviation safety?

If you look at the midair at Gympie, it could have very easily have been a VH- registered aircraft and therefore ATSB would have investigated and looked at airspace risk. We all operate in the same sky regardless of the licence we hold or the registration of the aircraft. Now, I don't disagree that the self administration allows for aircraft that don't meet airworthiness and design standards but same applies in the VH- experimental world and ATSB still investigate those..... MY mind just boggles with this stuff, it really does, because I just cannot see why they wouldn't investigate.

As far as be careful what you wish for, again, I don't disagree with you, but at least it'll be a consistent approach! And perhaps if the ATSB did have the funding it needs the resultant reports would be done in a more timely manner and be more useful.

Anyway, just my take on it, FWIW.

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

 

Actually my comment was not in relation to that. The Coroner, aided by the police investigation on the Coroner's behalf, welcomes any reliable information when conducting an Inquest. The Coroner is seeking factual information and if it comes from experienced sources, all the better.

 

My comment harkens way back to the fundamentals of Management Systems which can be identified in this simple diagram:

An organisation creates a plan or procedure aimed at attaining a result. Then it does (implements) that plan or procedure. After implementation the results are monitored (checked) to see if they match the expectations, and decisions made to keep the status quo, or to modify the plan or procedure and go around the cycle again, again and again until there no more reasonable improvement can be made,or the goal of the plan is reached . Does that sound like Harvard School of Business mumbo-jumbo? Hardley. You did exactly that when you made your cuppa this morning.

 

Failure to be involved in the investigation of incidents breaks the cycle and precludes any further improvement on the one hand, and on the other opens the door to declining standards.

From what RAA said at their AGM, they will continue to help Police where they can. I don't think their aim is to be obstructionist but just make sure they aren't trying to be the ATSB. They also said they'll always analyse what they can with the info they can through their SMS and that CASA were ok with this.

I actually think its odd that the Government (via CASA) issue all these regulations but because the ATSB won't do their job, they (CASA/Govt) have no idea whether the risks they say they're supposedly controlling with the regs work, because the investigation part of the cycle is missing. Does this mean we should ignore the regs too? From my perspective you either do the whole cycle or you don't do any of it!

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Before the Limited Company was formed, members would have raised that with their Committee member.

I'm not sure what the forming of a company has to do with it. Can't you just write to the Chair / Board member / CEO now as well? I've certainly done this and had good success.

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

I don’t know what the problems are but RAAus are not doing for safety by not investigating. CASA gave them the rights to organise recreational aviation, surely that includes safety.

I think you’ll find that their administration functions do not include accident investigation because this is the job of the ATSB. 
 

When ATSB cease an investigation of a VH registered aircraft you don’t see CASA doing it instead. 
 

There are significant legal pitfalls for anyone who tries to do ATSBs job. This is why ATSB have so many protections under the Act. 

I’ve got to say that this is an interesting thread. 
First of all Raa made clear this was not a training video. Secondly, there are many highly experienced aviators interviewed in the video that have way more than the starter of this thread. And you can bet your bottom dollar they wouldn’t be involved in something that has some many errors or nit picks. Could it just be that they’re right and you’re not? Tbh I’m going to go with that rather than taking advice from someone that clearly set out to try and discredit the video. 
I actually think there is some good guidance in the video. The best advice given is to go flying with an instructor or do a course with people like those in the video (strike or UPRT) who have oodles of experience. 
 

A May Day isn’t only for engine failures you know. Regardless, ATC haven’t shared that information publicly so if you’ve got the info appreciate you sharing that with all of us in support of your bold claims. 
 

I understand the aviation safety panel meet on a schedule like boards do. I’m sure there are many issues just as urgent in other peoples eye than self declared medicals for private operators. And remember they only give advice to the CASA CEO and she can do with that advice as she pleases. 
 

also, AOPA has zero pull in Canberra (or with anyone important) so I don’t think you’ll see the aviation panel March to their beat! 

It always gets me that everyone makes their mind up about someone’s views or positions without asking them. On Friday Australian Flying asked the question of RAA and this what the CEO said….
http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/raaus-provides-support-for-self-declared-medicals

1 hour ago, Garfly said:

 

As it happens, there are a couple of Bristells with 'phone-number' regos that regularly operate in and out of YSCB as trainers - so Canberra approach and tower will know precisely what to expect. I've noticed that the preferred RT format there for RAAus craft is the two pairs of numbers - just as you use.

  

Actually mine is 5001 but "fifty, zero-one" sounds awkward to me and, I imagine, hard to mentally process.  So (in CTAF comms, at least) I stick with "five-zero-zero-one".  I believe both are acceptable but if ATC started the transaction in one way, I'd just follow their lead.

 

[I've also heard 0000 operating in and out of Canberra. That's a challenge. "Uh-oh, Uh-oh" would be fun. Not sure what it is.]

 

 

 

 

Take a read of AIP GEN 3.4 regarding call sign requirements, including those for RAAus.