TK58

This is a recent directive from CASA, that pilots wishing to perform owner maintenance must pass a test to qualify for a L1 maintenance authority - which previously was automatic. Most members I'm sure would agree that our basic pilot training is not adequate preparation on its own for aircraft owners to perform whatever maintenance their aircraft may require. So on that basis this is a sensible move. There are several groups of RA-Aus pilots when it comes to maintenance. The majority don't own an aircraft and don't need an L1 maintenance authority. A second group don't want to maintain their aircraft themselves and are happy to pay an L2 to do it - they also don't need an L1 maintenance authority. A third group do want to maintain their aircraft, have the necessary expertise and do it just fine. This group will need an L1 maintenance authority and it should be a formality to get one - just pass an online test. The fourth group want to maintain their aircraft but don't have the expertise. Some of them also don't recognise this. This is the group we need to target and the only way to identify them is to test everyone who wants to do owner maintenance. Note the distinction between owner maintenance and pilot maintenance. All pilots will continue to have the authority to perform pilot maintenance - the same tasks GA pilots can perform including topping up fluids, fixing a flat tyre, etc. An L1 authority (or higher) will be required to perform owner maintenance - which could include changing the prop, engine repairs, airframe repairs, electrical work, etc. Note also that all maintenance authorities (L1, L2, etc.) are limited to those tasks for which the authority holder is competent. For example, if you have an L1 but you don't know what a torque wrench is, you are not authorised to pull the heads off your engine since a torque wrench is an essential tool for that task. Once you learn what a torque wrench is and how to use one, you may be authorised provided you are competent in all the other steps involved in the task. Determining competency to that degree is up to the individual, and the responsibility will be on the individual if anything goes wrong. Final note, nothing has changed in relation to aircraft used for flight training or hire. Those aircraft still must be maintained by the holder of an L2 (or higher) maintenance authority.

Transparency was not the reason. Wayne told me early in June that the reason the reports didn't include the total backlog count was that he actually had no idea how big the backlog was without actually counting the piles of files, which he was too busy to do. Your comment that "the management is out to misrepresent the situation so blatantly" is definitely not true. There may have been a desire by past Execs to downplay the issue - my own view is that the Exec (and Board) was in denial from November (possibly earlier) until at least the February General Meeting. But that certainly is not true now.

No, the employer is RAAus, an incorporated association in the ACT. The members are, if you like, the owners of RAAus, but the members are not the employer. The legal entity that is RAAus is the employer. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be pretty confident the Privacy Act, the Fair Work Act and any number of other Acts, Regulations, etc. trump the members' right to know all the gory details in instances like this.

One of the things an employer in the Australian legal context cannot do is disclose details of its dealings with its employees. Employees however don't have this constraint. Consequently, in a forum like this, only one side of the story will ever be heard. Since the employer is legally constrained from putting its side of the story, it has to take a black eye from its critics. An unfortunate reality and a setback on the path to improvement.

Mogas on field is definitely on the list. It wasn't available this year. I agree about the entertainment. I found the evening entertainment (and atmosphere) better at NORRAAus than at NatFly. The list is growing. This is good.

Thanks Steve. I'll see make sure the ladies program gets some attention. Thanks Col. Good idea.

With you on that one and it's already on the list. The handout maps this year left much to be desired (colour for one thing) and signage was limited. For next year the plan is to do a decent map in colour and have a whole bunch of signs pointing to the forum locations, toilets, etc.

Sure. I'm not arguing against multiple events, although we do need to be careful not to spread our resources too thin. NatFly roughly breaks even (although about half its budget comes from RAAus, so not sure if that's really breaking even), but NORRAAus incurred a significant loss. Not sure about WestFly, I haven't seen its budget. In any event, my focus at present, and the reason for this thread, is to make NatFly the best it can be in 2014. Providing an alternative flyin isn't going to achieve that, regardless of the merits of the idea. Sounds like you're supportive of the idea that NatFly should be more of a social occasion rather than an exhibition? Is ther a reason it can't be both?

Some good suggestions there, thanks DWF. Keep 'em coming folks.

Now that's the kind of input I was hoping for. Thanks Ian.

I'm keen. When is it on?

That's why NORRAAus was invented. But double the events means double the cost and double (maybe not quite) the effort. And my task is to run NatFly 2014. If they can do a single national flyin in the US (Oshkosh) - which is about the same geographic size as Australia, why can't it work here? One suggestion I've received is to make NatFly more of a social flyin, as apparently it used to be, and leave all the razzamatazz to AUSFLY. Any thoughts on that?

Thanks Tom. I'll certainly take that suggestion on board. This year was a definite improvement on 2011 (the only other Temora event I have personal experience of) in that regard. Sadly, in part at least, I think that's because 2013 was a much smaller event than 2011. Nonetheless, I will put some effort into making the layout as compact as possible. One of the challenges with that is there doesn't seem to be a straightforward way to know beforehand how many will be there. This makes all sorts of things more complicated, including the layout, the catering, etc. Anyone got any ideas on how we can get a reasonable idea of numbers (say within 30%) before the event?

Thanks Sue. I've wondered myself why the event seems to wrap up on Saturday. It's been suggested that some people prefer it that way so they can go to NatFly and still spend a couple of days with the family. On the other hand for people like you who travel a long way to be there, being able to travel down on Friday without missing a major part of the event is a consideration. At the moment the dates are 18 - 20 April (Friday to Sunday). I'm thinking to schedule something more interesting than departures on the Sunday.

Couldn't agree more. I flew my 95.10 aircraft (single ignition 2 stroke, 55kt cruise, 2 1/2 hour no reserve endurance) from Gatton to Temora this year and loved every minute of it. I flew past Narromine on the way down (went through Orange and Gunnedah on the way back). I think Temora was about 2 hours further, but that just meant an extra 2 hours in each direction doing what I love doing - flying. I'm a relative newbie (reached 200 hours on the NatFly trip) and the flying there and back is a big part of why I go to flyins. Some of the comments here make me worried that might change as I get more experienced. I hope not.

Temora is the venue for the next 2 years at least. Each time the location for NatFly has been tendered it has been for a 3 year deal. The current deal goes until 2015. Like it or not, it is what it is and my task is to make it the best it can be. Can we get over the location for now and get some ideas to make this event all it can be?

I'm the NatFly Coordinator for 2014. I've just created a thread under Trips/Events/Spare Seats to solicit feedback and ideas to make NatFly 2014 an event that those who attend are glad they did and those who don't wish they had. I look forward to hearing from you.

The Board of RAAus has appointed me as NatFly Coordinator for 2014. I've been to two NatFlys at Temora (2011 and 2013) and two at Narromine (2002 and 2008) and have a few ideas myself, but I'm very interested in the views of others about previous events - what was good, what should be dropped, what hasn't been done before that might be worthwhile, what should be done differently, etc. NatFly appears to have been in decline for a couple of years now. There are probably multiple factors in that, but we need to turn it around. Please keep suggestions and feedback constructive if you want to be taken seriously. Ian, if this is not an appropriate forum please let me know.

Windorah looks the go for anyone headed to Birdsville for the races (from coastal Qld at least). Can't see the justification for an extra 85 cents per litre for the extra 400km transport to Birdsville.

Sounds good Graham, but I've got to go to Ausfly that weekend.

As I understand it, you can only maintain a VH Experimental aircraft if you built it and you've done the SAAA MPC course. If you bought it (as opposed to building it), it's the same as any other VH aircraft - you can't maintain it unles you're a LAME with the appropriate authorisations. Given the majority of RAAus members are buyers rather than builders, the pros of the RPL would be offset by the cons around maintenance.

If you look at what Crezzi said, he refers to accidents per flying hour. You may be correct that the number of hours flown was lower in those years, but that has no effect on the rate per flying hour. Accidents per flying hour is independent of how many hours are flown. Regardless of the rate per hour, basic arithmetic says more hours equals more accidents, but that is not the point Crezzi was making. Total number of accidents is not the right metric to determine whether things are improving. The effectiveness of any training declines over time unless it's continually reinforced and HF is no exception. There has been no reinforcement of the HF training so it should be no surprise if accident rates are increasing. Agree 110% that the lack of information about the findings of accident investigations is a safety issue for all of us.

Call me cynical but it seems to me the fact they're suing Boeing and not Asiana could be because Boeing is a US corporation (no question of jurisdiction of US courts over foreign corporations) and likely has much deeper pockets than Asiana.

RAAus used to publish accident reports quite similar to ATSB initial findings reports. ASRA still does. Why did we stop? I agree with Maj, we need to find a way to do this. Kaz may be right that negotiating an arrangement with ATSB might be the best way, but whatever the solution is, as an incoming Board member I will be working to progress this issue..

I've long wondered why back issues at least, if not the current issue, aren't on the portal (or somewhere else). If other organisations (e.g.SAAA) can do it there must be a way. Electronic distribution has become the norm. Time for RAAus to move with the times. At the very least this needs to be on the agenda next time the magazine contract comes up for renewal. I agree with Tiger that both options need to be available.