Bill Hamilton

In my view, RAA should have become a Public Company, limited by guarantee, years ago. It is the appropriate form of incorporation for an organisation of this nature, that operates Australia wide. The legal end enforceable responsibilities of directors, and many other provisions of the Corporations Act 2001, such as accounting standards and audit requirements, give much greater guarantees to members than Associations law, which, as a previous poster has rightly said, is for small clubs. The only caution I would make in such a transition, is that the rules for voting at AGM/GM/EGM must be fair to all members, the present method of RAA voting, translated to an ASIC accepted Constitution would fit the bill. Cheers, Bill Hamilton

And why do you think it is "unsafe" ---- just what is safe and unsafe, except for personal opinion. Risk is a different issue, you can measure risk, and if you can measure it, you can manage it. The display crew are well aware of what they are doing, are entitled to voluntarily assume the risks they are taking, and the aviation law (since the Act was amended in late 1990's) and case law better support voluntary assumption of risk now, than when this was filmed. They are nowhere near the crowd, if you wanted to do a display like that now, I think there is a high probability that you could. CASA wouldn't necessarily be the problem, if there was a problem, but public liability insurance would probably be quite hefty. Cheers,

George passed away very suddenly,he had just completed a flight review. I had a call from him only the afternoon before. He was fine the following morning, then the rest, as it is said, is history. I don't think the full accounting for George's contribution to aviation will ever be seen, but it was diverse, and we who knew him well knew that he never gave up. Even the whole story of how AUF came about, including all the aviation politics of the day (and, sadly, it hasn't changed much) has never been properly chronicled, but it nearly didn't happen at all, and would not have happened, if it hadn't been for George and Bill Dinsmore. One of George's lesser know contributions to aviation, and important to any pilot, up to and (especially) airline Captains, came about as a result of the Firefly crash at Camden. In short, George won a long and very expensive case, through the Supreme Court, finally to the the NSW Court of Appeal, (nothing to do with CASA, but critical if CASA takes you to task about a decision as pilot in command) that established the right of the pilot in command to make decisions in an emergency that override any instructions in a manual. He never got the credit for this win for everybody, that was so richly deserved. As mentioned in the obit. in the RAOz magazine, George played an important role in getting the various "Experimental" rules we now have, and just like the formation of the AUF, it needed some serious headbutting with the SAAA. Suffice to say, the 1996 SAAA proposals for an Experimental Category were resolutely opposed by George (and others) on the Program Advisory Panel (PAP) of the CASA Review, which really got rolling in 1997. George well understood the concept of freedom, in the US sense, and he and his supporters were determined to get Experimental categories with the same level of freedom as enjoyed by our counterparts in USA. This did not sit well with those who believed (and still do) that anything aeronautical had to be "approved" by somebody, that individual ideas, desire and initiatives had to boxed in by a set of rules that was anathema to the whole US concept of Experimental. Thanks to George (and other) the whole concept of only being "approved" to build "approved" designs was dumped, and look at what happened, a veritable explosion in amateur building, including some seriously weird and wonderful aircraft ----- just look at the numbers (both VH- and AUF/RAOz) since 1998. What was put in place, in Part 21, was a series of Experimental categories, all strictly US style, and completely devoid of the restrictions amateur builders in Australia had been stuck with, the pre-existing ABAA scheme. Needless to say, all the predictions that such freedoms would be the end of civilization as we know it, with smoking holes in the ground leading to shutting the whole show down were proved groundless. Not long after the new Part 21 went in place in mid-1998, the then AUF President Doug Muir and others convinced CASA that AUF should have an Experimental Amateur Built category, (Part 21 did not apply to AUF) and the 19- registered miraculously appeared. George was a remarkable bloke, the prototype angry ant. Perhaps we should organize a wake, Irish style?? Cheers, Bill Hamilton

---- as long as you were medically fit----- But isn't that the whole point, particularly as current CASA interpretations of the Class 2 (PVT) medical standard seem to become narrower, and the various tests demanded increase in number and expense. Sadly, there are quite a few of my friends who pay annually for tests, the total of which can exceed AUD$1000.00 plus DAME fee of between $150 and $250, to satisfy the CASA requirements ( and which puts the CASA medical fee in the shade). With the proposed medical standard for the RPL, or for RAOz, these onerous tests would not be needed per the National Driver's Licence standard. Last time I noticed, it was SAAA pushing for "self-administration" of the RPL, not RAOz. When for the RPL?? It was supposed to be about now. Cheers,

Ozzie, That's fine if you are a legal resident of the US, not for a visitor. As I have said, what Homeland Security see as "flying", versus the FAA, is where the traps are, and it is Homeland Security regulations that apply, not FAA Part 103 "applicability"---- All I can do is repeat what I have already said; Don't chance your arm, it's simply not worth the risk. There is no common sense, no measure response, the approach taken is really quite frightening, and the cost of lawyers to get out of detention will put a serious hole in your bank account. You will get no help from the Department of Foreign Affairs. You should examine, very carefully, the detailed conditions of your entry to the US, via the Visa Waiver Scheme, or on a visa, if you don't qualify for the waiver, you might find it instructive. It is time consuming, but not difficult, to get the necessary Homeland Security clearances, it is actually a lot easier than a flying visitor to Australia getting an AVID/ASIC. The good old Australia "She'll be right, mate" is not a smart policy response to this situation. It might seem like I am banging on about this, but I do have some experience in the area, including having to sign for deportees being loaded on my aircraft, and the details of why they were in the situation, in which they found themselves. Cheers,

ozzie, I'm not arguing with you, have a look at what I actually said. I didn't bother quoting the un-powered weight limit for Part 103 was simply because my post was about RAOz certificates v the licensing situation with gliders. The area that is "uncertain", to put it mildly, is Homeland Security rules ---- the fact that the applicability of FAR 103 defines a non-aircraft, as far as FAA is concerned, is quite a different issue to the views of Homeland Security as to what is "flying" --- you almost got there yourself. By all means, chance your arm, but knowing the draconian approach Homeland Security operatives take, combined with less than clear and concise rules, the wide degree of discretion given to operatives, take very great care. Remember, FAA and the opinions of FAA types have no bearing on the enforcement of Homeland Security regulations. Further, given my observations on the apparent average IQ of a Homeland Security employee ( seems to me to be about the same as a security screener at an Australian airport ) and a very xenophobic approach to "foreigners", I would be going through the hoops as if I was going to fly a conventional GA aircraft, then I would be as close to being fireproof as you are likely to get. Cheers, Note also that the way we use the term Ultralight in AU is completely different to US usage, as Part 103 make clear. FAR 103 Sec. 103.1 Applicability. This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that: (a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant; (b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only; © Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and (d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or (e) If powered: (1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation; (2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons; (3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and (4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.

poteroo, It is not quite that simple. ICAO recognises gliders, including a Annex I license, and the CASA proposal fixes a long standing problem for glider pilots for an internationally recognised bit of paper, and hence the need to have a second class medical, an ICAO requirement. The lowest ICAO level of license for a powered aircraft is a PPL, and CASA isn't about to turn an RAOz Pilot Certificate into an honorary PPL, for those traveling - even if you do hold a CASA second class medical. To have an RAOz certificate recognized to fly LSA in US would take a bi-lateral agreement, such as exists (outside EASA) between a number of EEC states. Ozzie Re. FAA FAR 103 devices, read carefully, the FAR Part 103 is limited to single seat, max weight 254lb for a powered aircrafts. Also read carefully the US security rules for flying in the US, its applicability seems to me to cover all flying, not just flying what FAA recognises as an aircraft --- which a Part 103 isn't. Cheers,

CASA (Act and Regs) go to great lengths to ensure that a CASA "licence" is a "privilege" and the licence remains the property of CASA, not the person maned on the licence. I have put a detailed explanation, as per the CASA briefing on the RPL, on the other thread on this subject. Cheers,

---- tend not to fly a square circuit. David (and Nev) That is a generalization about jets that simply isn't true , and I strongly object to the continual statements I see that, somehow, having a turbine engine, instead of a turboprop or piston engine, and suddenly it's all different. The only thing that really differentiates "jets" from the rest is how easy the engines (and the aeroplanes) are to operate --- no propellers eliminates lots of problems and potential problems, modern turbine engines with FADEC controls are almost pilot proof. Even in terms of speed, various "jets" are not necessarily all that much faster (if at all) than some of the bigger piston twins and turboprops in the circuit --- even if it is a lot faster than most RAOz registered aircraft. Nev, I have no idea who you are or who you worked for, but my time also goes back to round engines, but only two off, before I went to first generation "jets", but the company also had DC-4 and L-188s, guess what, all square circuits. In each type I have operated, and regardless of whether the aircraft was VH-, G- or N registered , the standard circuit was always a square circuit ( and I have worked for more than one airline in more than one country) , so it seems to me that your experience is not the norm, Indeed, the AU AIP (and the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, and the UK equivalent) standard circuit diagram shows a square circuit, and the only thing that changes the suggested height downwind is the speed of the aircraft ---- no mention of the type of engine ---- and this is as it should be ------ and is generally accepted in every country in which I have operated, and that's quite a few. As to the visual circling segment of an IAP, I fly the height on the chart. All I said was "say 700", some are lower, many much higher for a Cat. C or D aircraft. Cheers,

"BUT I find the lack of knowledge of SOME newly qualified pilots under the RAA rules leaves a lot to be desired." Frank, Not at all surprising, because I have ceased to be surprised at the lack of often quite basic knowledge in interviewing professional pilots for various purposes, either recruitment or audits. When I find an instructor who has never done a full stalling sequence all the way through training, and has never does more than a very tentative approach to the stall, has never done spins and recovery, let alone aerobatics, and transfers his or her fear of more than the most basic maneuvers to the student, is it any wonder we have a standards problem. Look at the handling problems revealed in recent ATSB reports of airline incidents. Our whole approach to the issue in Australia, is the heart of the problem ---- rather than teach an understanding of what the rules are (or should be) for, the conduct of our operations at the least achievable risk, in training the emphasis is on a style of rote learning to pass a style of examination which doesn't really examine knowledge, and after this hoop of fire is left behind, the attitude is very much "I've passed that exam, now I can forget it" ----. and forget it "they" do. One of my favorite general questions is to ask a candidate how they assess VFR conditions --- and I get a recitation of the table in the AIP ---- so I ask the question again in terms of;"OK, that's the numbers, but the question I asked is how do you assess VFR --- how do you apply the numbers?? By contrast, in US, Canada or the UK, source material is all plain text, not the underlying regulations, because the form of the regulations and style of instruction is all practical application of the "rules", not being able to effectively regurgitate actual legislation to answer (I'm talking GA here) very trickily worded multi-choice questions. There is nothing wrong with multi-choice questions as such, but what we do here departs a long, long way from the proper application of the educational theory that underpins multi-choice questions as a method of examination. When the "right" ( or least wrong) answer is only differentiated by the punctuation within the question, that is not a fair and reasonable question. That we generally write rules in the negative doesn't help in easy understanding, I have seen many "show cause" letters from CASA that illustrate that CASA people have as much difficulty with the aviation law as she is writ, as the guys in the industry. We started out re-writing the rules in 1996, plain language, written in the positive, have a look at Part 21, contrast it with the bulk of regulation. By 1998, we had drafts of Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, which were even shorter than FAA Part 91, plus a whole lot more ---- but it all fell by the wayside, as Minister's and CASA senior management changed ---- we still haven't got a Part 91, but the latest draft is a real problem, just in size alone. And that is not the only problem, compared to the 1998 draft Part 91 that was almost ready for making. I simply don't know if it will ever change in Australia, too many efforts have died along the way. Right now there is huge criticism of of (pick your own number) a 20+ year "regulatory reform program", but it has never been one continuous program, but multiple failed programs, as Ministers change, CASA senior management changes, and the influence of "industry" versus "bureaucracy" wax's and wanes. Most of the industry is pre-occupied just with survival, there is little enthusiasm for the idea of real reform, to catch up with what NZ did years ago, Canada more recently. The old Canadian rules were easy to work with, compared to Australia, the new Canadian rules are even easier, and arguably easier to work with than NZ. Sadly, it is not just aviation that is, in Australia, over burdened with "rules", but what is the general public reaction every time there is some kind of kerfuffle?? --- "They should pass a rule against it" ---- and the pollies oblige. How do we change the Australian psyche that sees more rules as the answer to almost every problem??? If "rules" were the answer, shouldn't we have a rule simply making human factors errors a criminal offence, with mandatory custodial sentences for breaches?? After all, ultimately 100% of aircraft accidents are human factors accidents ---- to quote Dan Maurino, long time ICAO safety guru, and co-author, with Professor James Reason, of the most important and influential books on aviation safety yet written. Cheers,

Nobody reads the road legislation. True, but the road rules are not enforced like the aviation rules, either.Nor are they as complex and extensive. There is not something like 9000 pages of mandatory requirements to "maintain" your private motor car (see GA aircraft) When was the last time you were ticketed for parking, and told to produce your "up to date UBD", your car service log, sprung for having a can of oil with the luggage (dangerous goods) and your license and log book very carefully scrutinised, and your license (certificate) will be in your pocket of course, in your flight bag is not good enough --- and so on. For most pilots, a ramp check can be a rather grueling experience, and depending on the approach of the inspector, it is amazingly easy to accumulate a rather big total, both in $$$ and points terms. Sure, it doesn't happen very often, but when it does, you suddenly realise just how detailed and prescriptive aviation regulation actually is, you really should have enough of a grasp of it to comply with the "Rules of the Air", but also to stay out of compliance trouble. Right now, on another bulletin board, there is a discussion as to how close an aircraft in Class G airspace can fly to a control area boundary, for something that should be clear cut, the interpretations of "the rules" vary very considerably. There is not even agreement amongst those who have a detailed and up to date knowledge of "the rules". Just study guides left over from training are not nearly good enough, for a start, they don't have an amendment service. You really should know about the existence of, and have a good working knowledge of all the rules that apply to you and your operation. When (increasingly, not if) you get ramped, ignorance of the law is not only not an excuse, but another black mark ---- leading to the "not a fit and proper person ----" charge. So what should you carry with you ? Even that is not all that east to answer, but there are a few checklists around, anybody got one to post here?? What should you have on board, if you are ramp checked, as many were at NatFly. Cheers,

Folks, The bane of AOC operators is the "informal" CASA requirement to not only have references to the Act, Regs., etc in the company "accepted" Operations Manual, but to virtually paraphrase the whole shooting match and repeat it in the Ops. Manual in a form that "pilots" will understand. Of course, the problem here is whether the "paraphrased" version really means the same thing as the actual legislation. Believe me, you don't want that to happen to the RAOz manual, otherwise it will seriously compromise the useable payload of your aircraft. The "rules" are a huge slog, they are not written for you to understand them (unlike most of the rest of the world's aviation law) but, in the words of a former Head of Legal Counsel at CASA: " Aviation law is for lawyer and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers". Nevertheless, you are struck with them, and you should devote the time and effort to working your way through them, and becoming familiar with what effects your operation ---- there is no easy alternative. In brief, you have to abide by ALL the rules, unless you are exempt, and the RAOz manual give you a good idea of which rules, from which you are exempt. The most important, from which you are not exempt, are the "Rules of the Air" ( to use the old fashioned name) --- the rules of navigation, and these are spread through the Act, Regulations, Orders and the AIP in a most inconvenient fashion, but ignorance, for any reason, is no excuse in law. Australian air law is internationally renowned for being complex, convoluted and contradictory, and a fertile hunting ground for FOIs/AWIs/CASA investigators with attitude, and if you get caught up, for any reason, and don't have deep pockets, you are in real trouble. Many of you will have seen news clips of Campbell Newman at COAG this week, showing over a 1000 pages of legislation, that is the Carbon Tax legislation ---- have I got news for him ---- try the aviation legislation for size, by number of pages or word count, we are the world leader by a large multiple ---- which means we should have the world's best air safety record, doesn't it. Sadly, we are are far from having the best record, so what purpose does much of this ever increasing load of air law have to do with safety --- the inescapable answer is: "Not Much". One example, that, thankfully doesn't apply to RAOz aircraft are the new rules for aircraft maintenance ---- the Australia "rules" to qualify parts and components as not being bogus, is bigger alone, than the whole FAA regulation on aircraft maintenance, FAR Part 43. That nobody really knows what the aviation law really means, results in the law meaning what some CASA functionary thinks it means, and very few people will have the financial means to dispute the many and varied interpretation of the law. This is what is, increasingly, becoming known as "Rule by Law", which is a very different thing to "Rule of Law". You will find some very interesting stuff on the following web site <http://www.ruleoflawaustralia.com.au/Home.aspx> Also well worth a few moments of your time: <http://www.ruleoflawaustralia.com.au/downloads/G0010NoBold.doc>. If this link doesn't work, look up the speech/paper by Robin Speed on 20 Nov. 2009, or cut and paste them into a new tab on your browser. Cheers, (or should that be laments) Bill Hamilton

To a large extent, you make your own luck in aviation. The better you do it , the luckier you become. Folks, A man for whom I have great respect, and long time ICAO Air Safety guru, Captain Dan Maurino, [Captain Dan Maurino. Coordinator, Flight Safety and Human Factors Programme - ICAO] has been heard to say, again and again: "All accidents are human factors accidents" In short, all accidents have a cause, and there will be a human input that caused, or could have prevented, the event called an accident. Remember, "Air Safety is No Accident". Cheers, Bill Hamilton

Folks, During training, you are made aware of the existence of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and Regulations and Order, and all relevant apply, except the ones from which RAA is specifically exempt, and that is in the Ops. manual. And--- they are all on the CASA web site, a big slog to work out what applies ---- but a necessary slog. The AIP is on the Airservices web site. Get yourself an iPad, and an OzRunways subscription, and you will have made a big dent in the above, and almost all you need to carry with you. Cheers, Bill Hamilton

Derby, For cost sharing on a private operation, six total is the limit, including pilot(s), but that has nothing to do with other private operations, of the "privileges" of a PPL. If somebody told you different, you can go back and update their aviation knowledge base for them. Cheers, PS: Head In The Clouds, Sorry about that, I'll be more careful in the future.

Head In The Clouds, Maybe it's the lack of oxygen up there in the clouds. On a PPL, you can fly any aircraft on which you are endorsed. If you have enough money, you can always buy an endorsement on an A-380, as, apparently, several pilots ( not in Australia) have so done. Don't confuse the limits on cost sharing on private flights with limitations on a PPL, two different animals. Cheers,

Folks, There are a lot of misconceptions in many of these posts, mostly as a result of people not being up to speed on what is going on. For the full story, call Peter John or Marilyn Anderson at CASA, 131757, for the unadulterated facts, Peter is responsible for the project, which is supposed to hit the book "real soon now". Firstly, the concept of a "Recreational Pilots License" ( a sub-ICAO Annex I license) has been around since the mid-1990s, and the form it takes right now is very similar to the license proposed to the CASA Review/Program Advisory Panel in 1996, it is NOT really a parallel path to the RAOz pilot certificate, it will not entitle you to fly RAOz aircraft without being a member and conforming to all the requirements of RAOz. It is not intended to replace the RAOz "Pilot Certificate", but, as a license, it will definitely compliment and compete with the RAOz certificate. Interestingly, while it will have some limitations, it will be far less limiting than the FAA RPL, let alone the FAA Sports Pilot License. It will apply to VH- registered aeroplanes, and in no way changes anything about the airworthiness requirements for a VH- aircraft, including increasingly bureaucratic and expensive maintenance. The pilot standards (except for the medical) will be the same as the PPL. The biggest change will be the medical standard, which will be the national drivers license standard, but it will NOT be self certification with limitations, as per RAOz, but will require you visit a GP and get some form of certification that you do meet the said national standard. About the only aircraft limitation, as I recall the CASA presentation, at YSBK several months ago ( I didn't take notes), was single engine, max gross 1500kg, two persons, even if it was a four seat aircraft. No speed limits, VP prop or retractable undercarriage limits. I don't recall if it was limited to VFR. There will be no airspace class restriction as such, the rules will be as per the PPL. Cheers, Bill Hamilton PS: The reason the original FAA RPL effectively failed, is that the FAA proposal for using the US national drivers license was defeated by the US equivalent of DAMEs lobbying DoT and politicians, and FAA was forced to maintain the same medical certificate as for the FAA PPL. It has taken all the years since (15 years plus) for the FAA/US to catch up with Australia and RAOz, ne AUF.

Facthunter, Don't know where you got this "fact" from, it just ain't so, any certified aircraft must be controllable throughout it flight envelope, and then some, to the criteria laid down in the certification standards, in this case FAR/JAR 25. There are a lot of other comments on this thread that don't have much to do with actual behavior of aircraft in high altitude, high subsonic speed flight. In fact, the "recover" techniques employed by the AF 447 crew were those for low speed, low altitude recovery. Indeed, CASA "policy" ( but not the law) in an IFR renewal requires you to demonstrate a recover with power with zero loss of height, any height loss is a fail, at at least one district office. The poor bastards on AF 447 had some other "unhelpful" issues to contend with, peculiar to Airbus. Reading the latest accident update, and thinking about "policy" for recovery from a stall leads to some really scary thoughts about what would happen here, in identical or similar circumstances of low speed, "normal" indicated attitude (v. angle of attack in a high rate of descent) and a badly out of trim (nose up) aircraft. Cheers,

Facthunter, The DC-3s were DC-2s, first used by Marshall Airways pre-WW11, in Papua and New Guinea. Marshall Airways was a pioneer of the use of the DC-2 in this part of the world. Occasionally, in the '50's you would see one of a Sunday afternoon, doing joyrides from the southwest corner of the Aerodrome, where you now have an Aldi and a bunch of takeaway food joints. Apart from his hangar/museum, from the bar of the old RACNSW you could see a Spitfire fuselage in his backyard. The story of the Bf-109 he had is "interesting", there was lots of wonderful stuff in the hangar. Cheers,

Ozzie, That is exactly what every other country (that I have ever dealt with) requires. At the time the "return to service" document (in our case, a Maintenance Release) is signed, the signatory is certifying that the aircraft meets the type certification standards, as in the (FAA) Type Certification Data Sheet, plus any ADs and STCs applicable. Once out the hangar door, all bets are off. Speaking of defects, there are some interesting defects in the new maintenance regulations, and the only reason they don't apply to GA is a couple of savings clauses. The new rules move Australia even further away from ICAO and the rest of the world than previous. Even the definition of maintenance (carried over from the old regulations, and it was intended to rectify it, but it didn't happen) is different to ICAO/CA/NZ/FAA/EASA. Regards,

CFICARE,Don't even start me on what "required" means in a legal sense, particularly in view of the terms of Schedule 5 of the Civil Aviation Regulations, which contain a provision impossible with which to comply, and unknown anywhere else in the aviation world. See Schedule 5, para. 2.7 2.7 Unless otherwise indicated in the table, where the table requires a thing to be inspected, the inspection is to be a thorough check made to determine whether the thing will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection. Nowhere else that I have ever come across, is the LAME required by law to be clairvoyant, on pain of criminal sanction, if said required clairvoyance is defective. The cases are instructive, as is the cost of hangar keepers insurance. This imposes an impossible burden on a LAME ---- making them responsible for what happens to an aircraft long after it has been signed out ---- and also provides some unscrupulous LAMEs with an avenue to demand work be done that need not be done. Regards,

Folks, Any of you who put in a reply to DP1006AS by the CASA on line system, they all got lost somewhere in the electronic never never. and you need to resubmit by early February, see the CASA web site, if you haven't been contacted directly. Regards,

Y Strange how different countries get wound up about different things. The Canadian approach to owner maintenance of standard category aircraft is enlightened, mention that in Australia and the LAME union (and its airworthiness inspector members in CASA) go into meltdown. I see lots of owner maintained aircraft in far better overall condition than many GA "LAME" maintained aircraft ---- because, at anything up to $180 per hour, most owners can only afford to have the minimum work done. There has been an FAA protocol to fly up to PPL with diabetes for years, after CASA refused to recognize this for years, a successful Administrative Appeals Tribunal case now means you can hold a PPL with diabetes, provided you carefully follow the protocol, which is not onerous. Regards,