Keith Page

Were you aware this was going through Parliament Keith?

KP

Court action? That would be expensive I would think. The aero club has just held a wings and wheels there so I expect the council saw a missed opportunity to collect both on landing fees plus parking fees. Will stop a few people flying in if it goes ahead. Will cost a bit to fly in and park up airside for the next wings and wheels. The council may make some money out of the warbirds though. No doubt the council should charge the cars for parking too. In fact that would make them more money than the landing fees

KP..

Only thing I know for shore is that it being kept secret from members whatever is happening! The new “improved” management. BS.

We had to wait for social Edina to tell us *Freedon to Fly, fiasco.

*Barnfield going to CASA then staying for a couple of smokes then leaving.

Just wonder will RAAus take home back?

What I suspicious of, were they keeping it a secret, so Barnfield could go and have a look at the CASA then return to the fold and no one would be wiser.??

KP.

This is unbeloodybelievable.I've been dealing with Darren regarding my MARAP application after I submitted all flight testing paperwork 4 months ago.

Last week he wasn't answering my phone calls or emails and when I finally got on to Jared, it seemed Darren was on annual leave and about to return to work. And once again was told my MARAP had been found and I should have an answer in a week. Sounds to me like there was no handover of work in progress. The implication was that staff of RAA didn't know he was leaving? In fact, staff told me he should already be back at work and they didn't understand why he hadn't undiverted his phone?

 

I get the feeling that RAA is successfully taking the CASA method of (slowly) dealing with members.

 

Not impressed at all.

Anything is possible down there..

'Surveillance'.......unfortunate choice of words.......or Freudian slip indicating punitive policing type attitude?Hopefully what is actually intended is 'monitoring' of the general gitalong.......which would of necessity include compliance???

What I have found -- how aggression shows trough stand out like one never knows what, so it most likely will be there.

KP

How so? Assuming you choose LAME maintenance?

KP

Same situation when Jabs could be registered either way. Schools had one with numbers, you did your RAA cert cheaply, then went to the other end of the desk and booked in to finish your PPL in the VH one.It could work both ways - PPL's converting to RAA and RAA conversion to PPL. Given that C150's are much cheaper than Jabs (and other factory built ultralights), there could be some activity, once word gets around.

KP

Normally the standards and codes are written by the industry or body; if Governments write them they may as well stay with existing and updated Acts, because they will have legal responsibility for the standards. (The 1999 Safety regulations simply made it mandatory to adhere to the Codes of Practice that the Industry had come up with in earlier years, but some people had thought was voluntary.If you don't want to write your standards, where do you see Self Administration starting?

KP

Keith, I think they are trying to quiet the rumblings of the incipient revolt.The Part 149 that has been published bears the hallmarks of a hastily put together piece of regulation in order to meet the boss's deadline. There are any number of shortcomings in it. It isn't in any way "new" it is just a disguised way of cementing in place the existing structures of the GFA and RAAus which are in many ways more onerous than simply being in GA .

 

The only reason sport aviation needs special exemptions from the normal rules is that the normal rules are too stupid.

 

Relax the medical for RPL/PPL(in Australia - overseas you might need a Class 2 to fly) to that used by RAAus, allow more owner maintenance on simple aircraft including annual inspection sign outs, a short section in Part 91 private operations dealing with glider launching and it is all done. Use independent LAMEs again and independent flight instructors as is done in the USA and both business and private/recreational GA will thrive.

So what is the use of the stand alone Part149?

To me it is a CASA look at me, we are doing good things to reform. If they were fair dinkum they would have Part 103 brought in at the same time.

KP.

Why CASA only gets active when the pressure is right on them and aviation is on its knees, now the smart thing would have been start all these things years ago when the faltering started.

Example Part 149.. A manual of standards is being developed and will be available in the second half of 2018 -- well do not hold your breath been around for 4 years to my knowledge, it has always been gunna and the next six months has been the answer.

For Part 149 to operate effectively Part 103 will have to be brought in simultaneously.

I just can not work out why all the stalling.

KP.

Skidmore got set up by one of his underlings to tell an untruth to a Senate inquiry. It is on video. When asked about the Jabiru restrictions and whether some of the alleged engine failures were due to running out of fuel and did they take this into account he said "we would have". Dumb answer and AFAIK, wrong. Best to say I'll check with my minions and get back to you after lunch. Wasn't long after that he left.Yes he was an improvement on McCormick but that would be the easiest thing in the world.

Skidmore was a decent person because he did go and find things out for him self did not accept all advice.

I think there was a bit of skin and hair flying after that question time, and he put it to those above him what should be done and they did not get interested so he decided he was wasting his time. Look who the minister was -- he and his mob were more interested in Latte's.

KP

facthunter have a good read of DAS01/2015.. To me -- that is why Skidmore was moved a few would have had some tough questions to answer, he was turning the heat up on the CASA structure.

Just as he lit the heaters he was gone and all was back to what it was, none of the recommendations in DAS 01/2015 were addressed.

Who would lean on him to leave would not have a clue.

KP.

Turbo -- that DAS directive was signed off by Skidmore in 2016 nothing has been done since 2015.

Who has been keeping quiet about that one? 2018 now.

KP

That's about my take on the current industry Octave and I'm looking forward to being able to hire brand new GA aircraft like we used to be able to do. When you look at the Moorabbin figures I quoted, that location just needs a couple of entrepreneurs like Bib Stillwell and Arthur Schutt and it will start to buzz again.I'm not sure we aren't just being trolled away from the subject matter of this thread.

AND there are more regulations on the way. So what hope has it..

Even there are road blocks for Part149.. Just mention Part103 they shudder.

Part149 and Part103 should be brought into being simultaneously.

To have Part149 working without Part103 will be a bit of a dogs breakfast.

KP

Read this link, something is not fitting together.

KP.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-22/airline-passengers-facing-perfect-storm-as-pilot-shortage-bites/10012624

Have a read of this?

Who is dragging the chain?

KP.

DAS DIRECTIVE

Records Manager - D15/462765

01/2016

DAS Directive No. 1/2015 1 of 3

DAS DIRECTIVE – 01/2015

Development and Application of Risk- Based and

Cost- Effective Aviation Safety Regulations

Date of Directive: 29 May 2015

Directive No: 01/2015

Issue No: 2

Date Revised: 28 January 2016

Directive

This Directive reaffirms CASA’s commitment to ensure that regulatory changes are justified

on the basis of safety risk and do not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder

participation in aviation and its capacity for growth.

It also extends the principles underlying this commitment to the application and

administration of the regulations by CASA, to the fullest practicable extent consistent with the

interests of safety.

DAS Directives

01/2015

DAS DIRECTIVE

Records Manager – D15/462765

01/2016

DAS Directive No. 1/2015 2 of 3

Guiding Principles

Development of Aviation Safety Regulations

• Aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary. They are to be

developed with a view to addressing known or likely safety risks that cannot be

addressed effectively by non-regulatory means alone.

• Consistent with CASA’s obligations under the Civil Aviation Act and other

Commonwealth laws and Government policies, every proposed regulation must be

assessed against the contribution it will make to aviation safety, having particular

regard to the safety of passengers and other persons affected or likely to be affected

by the activity involved.

• If a regulation can be justified on safety-risk grounds, it must be made in a form that

provides for the most efficient allocation of industry and CASA resources.

Regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder levels of

participation in aviation and its capacity for growth.

• Aviation safety regulations should conform to the framework for the classification of

aircraft operations, and align with other standards and practices, adopted by the

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), unless differences are necessary to

address particular features peculiar to the Australian aviation environment and

those differences can be justified on safety-risk grounds. On the same basis, the

aviation safety regulations should be consistent with international best practice, as

reflected in the standards and practices of other leading aviation countries.

• Recognising that international standards and practices vary, CASA will align its

regulations with those that effectively address identified safety risks in the most costeffective

manner.

• Where it is appropriate to do so, aviation safety regulations are to be drafted to

specify intended safety outcomes. Where known or likely safety risks cannot be

addressed effectively utilising an outcome-based approach (in whole or in part), more

prescriptive requirements will be specified.

• In developing aviation safety regulations, CASA must consult appropriately with

industry in an open and transparent manner ensuring that all communication is clear,

timely and effective.

• Subject to the applicable drafting requirements, CASA will strive to ensure aviation

safety regulations are drafted as clearly and concisely as possible.

• Where practicable, aviation safety regulations should be developed within a three-tier

framework, comprising the Civil Aviation Act, the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations

and Manuals of Standards.

• Supportive advisory and guidance materials, including other acceptable means of

compliance with regulatory requirements, will be promulgated and disseminated in

conjunction with new and amended regulations, having regard to the time when

compliance with new or amended regulations will be required.

DAS Directives

01/2015

DAS DIRECTIVE

Records Manager – D15/462765

01/2016

DAS Directive No. 1/2015 3 of 3

Application of Aviation Safety Regulations

• In accordance with the Civil Aviation Act, the safety of air navigation is the most

important consideration for CASA in performing its functions and exercising its

powers.

• Consistent with that obligation, the principle of legality and the explicit requirements of

the civil aviation legislation in any particular case, CASA must always have regard to

all relevant considerations when exercising discretionary powers, including the cost

and other burdens involved in the application of regulatory requirements.

• This cannot and does not mean that CASA must demonstrate that, in exercising its

discretionary powers under the regulations in any given case, it has adopted or will

adopt a course of action involving the lowest cost to, or least adverse impact on, the

person or persons affected by that action.

• What it does mean is that, where a person who is or will be affected by CASA’s

exercise of discretionary powers under the regulations convincingly demonstrates,

on evidence, that:

- the same safety outcome contemplated by the applicable regulatory

requirement can be achieved on another, more cost-effective and/or otherwise

less onerous basis;

- the person is able and willing to adopt and give meaningful effect to that

alternative approach to compliance;

- the alternative approach proposed can be implemented fully and effectively in

a timely fashion, having regard to the interests of safety;

- the adoption and implementation of such an alternative approach by CASA

would not involve unreasonable additional oversight or administrative

responsibilities on CASA’s part; and

- no other persons would be adversely or unfairly affected by the adoption of

that alternative approach,

CASA will entertain a reasonable proposal for the adoption of another approach and,

in the absence of good reason not to do so, CASA will adopt such an alternative

approach.

Signed

Mark Skidmore AM

Director of Aviation Safety

Date: 28 January 2016

Same situation when Jabs could be registered either way. Schools had one with numbers, you did your RAA cert cheaply, then went to the other end of the desk and booked in to finish your PPL in the VH one.It could work both ways - PPL's converting to RAA and RAA conversion to PPL. Given that C150's are much cheaper than Jabs (and other factory built ultralights), there could be some activity, once word gets around.

....BUT....Take the 150 for example. Say it is registered RAA it will still need a registered organisation to maintain it..

To me this exercise will be more costly to own this aircraft.

Where is the cost benefit.?

KP

I don't think the full details are in the Briefing. Remember this is a kind of "press release" to the industry and public. The message is - don't stress; we're making things better - no loss of business etc. They also have to consult and propose rule changes. There's a distance to go.The benefits I see for the over 600kg planes:

 

- no need to upgrade to PPL or RPL and therefore no need to keep RAA & PPL

 

- no need to keep finding a DAME for Class 2 medicals (that's getting very expensive)

 

- can fly a heavier MTOW and take two hefty blokes & luggage

 

- can access a wider range of kit, factory built heavier aircraft

 

- do your own maintenance (proposed by RAA for non training/hire aircraft)

 

- access to a lot of cheaper Cessna & Piper type aircraft

 

In the 1990's I knew a number of graziers in Western Qld who had a C172 or C150 used for commuting to town to shop & do business. Fail the Class 2 for even a minor issue (sometimes just being pushed to get specialist reports - again & again - when those reports said nothing to worry about ...) and they could not fly. The risk was low - they were also flying a long way from RPTs, controlled airspace, traffic etc. Ultralights were Drifters etc and unsuitable for what they did. This has been an issue that has been poorly addressed for decades. If this route had been available they would have signed up with the AUF, brought the C150 over and kept their LAME busy.

 

As I have pointed out before - this weight increase was on the AUF / CASA table back in 1991, but the AUF was struggling with other issues and it didn't get taken up.

KP.

Yeah I noticed that too. Im sure if we had some more of that then we would see alot more younger and older people join in the fun and even if they didnt we would be enjoying it!I guess it woukd need to take place on a private airstrip and be organised by the owner

KP

So what are the benefits of having an aircraft weighing 601-760kg on the register?

Having the aircraft on the RAAus register will be useless as the benefits of RAAus registration are null and void because of the need to be serviced by a licensed

organisation -- PLUS -- things will be worse as there will be a yearly registration as opposed to a life long registration.

KP

I haven't seen anything from ELAAA supporting this grass roots sector.As I have said many times when we are up and trading you will have everything in the written word.

If we display the written word or mention anything at the moment -- just imagine the noise and the potential to change is ever present.

 

KP

Well just go along to your regional board manager and get him to stop it.

Yep, years ago I put a ProNav 100 GPS (Garmin 100) in me ultralight and had the VH drivers looking in wonder at the thing. For a short time I were the only light aircraft about with one of them newfangled GPS thingys. Easy to do when your not worried about certification or radio tech costs.

 

.

KP

Well you’ve put your finger on one cause which puts some builds outside the reach of the amateur builder. If the intent is to save this sector from permanent loss, you need to refocus on very simple aircraft, and, as I previously mentioned, plug and play for any complex sub assemblies.

KP

There are more design components, more systems, and more complexities in a GA size aircraft than, say, a Thruster, and the expectations and flight applications are wider and more complex. Does RAA have the same builder support level as SAAA?

KP