Dafydd Llewellyn

DafyddTimes have changes. Sheer personal force has worked in the past, I don't see it working anytime soon with the CASA. Dick Smith, to use your example is clearly also a man of Sheer personal force....how well did that work for him in CASA.......

 

Your thoughts on the likelihood of success align with mine and similarly all we can realistically do to try and change things is to try and get members to be aware of the issues......That of course means I (we) have to bang on like an out of control drummer to the obvious annoyance of a lot of people, but there doesn't seem to be anything practical in the very short term that we can do.

 

Come September we hope that there will be enough change on the board that the previous power cartels are broken and proper board governance can be established allowing some refreshing navel gazing and follow on actions to resolve can occur...whether it will be too late remains to be seen.

 

Any written attempts to address the short term issues with CASA have been rebuffed by CASA when raised directly with them outside of RAAus.....so again, ignoring the long term issues of September and coming back to the leaking dyke right now, what metaphorical finger is that we are putting in the dyke and does the finger donor have to die of blood loss so that the finger can be inserted....... Ed's approach to me means that the RAAus body is likely to die of blood loss in order to put a finger in the dyke, case of which is worse dieing of blood loss or drowning slowly.....

 

Andy

DafyddWe can all agree the time for change was in the past, but unfortunately people like you who obviously saw it then weren't telling the rest of us! In fact as is so often said the vast majority of members are probably still unaware of where we are at today, getting their only RAAus related info from the magazine.....

 

I looked up the term "Schlimazel" because it wasn't a term I'd come across before, it would seem to be a pretty extreme word for this discussion.......How would you change the world in a day given that we are merely inept......and as we saw from Feb the 9th any attempt to do so via proxy's will be countered by Middo as he did in a totally at odds to the legislation way....with no consequences......because the vast majority of members no nothing and trust Middo????

 

Andy

It seems pretty clear that the RAA organisation is so encumbered by its corporate structure that there is little liklihood that it can move fast enough to prevent CASA from pulling the rug out from under. You should bear in mind that one of the main objectives of the review of the Australian civil aviation regulations that was started in 1996 by Minister John Sharp (and which is still ongoing, after a fashion), was to eliminate "regulation by exemption" - largely as a result of Dick Smith's booklet "Four years in the aviation hall of doom". Also it sought to get rid of the third-tier of regulations that is constituted by the Civil Aviation Orders, by pulling them back into the Regulations.

CAO 95.55 is both "regulation by exemption" AND part of that third tier. So CASA is just waiting patiently for RAA to make it completely clear to the politicians that it is utterly incapable of doing its job (and a liability to CASA, to boot), so it can get rid of the liability, the element of "regulation by exemption" AND another of the CAOs that it has been trying to replace since 1996 - and RAA is doing exactly that as nicely as anybody could desire. This is the sort of situation one finds in a Pratchett novel; it would be highly amusing if it were fantasy . . .

RAAus has been given incredible latitude by CASA to get its house in order; it has proven to be utterly inept and so ensnarled in self-imposed procedure that I am amazed at CASA's forbearance to date. Carol Smith's case has brought all this to light - and the RAA Executive must have been aware of the implications of the evidence at least two years ago - but did they do anything to address the fundamental issues? No, it seems they were not sufficiently intelligent to even comprehend the message it contained - or maybe they thought that doing anything about it would constitute an admission of guilt? (And don't shoot the messenger; just be thankful that there have not been several more deaths from overweight operations of aircraft invalidly registered by RAAus; Carol has done a great public service, at considerable cost and great personal pain, by causing the rot to be brought to light before things got even worse)

I put considerable effort into the original set-up of the AUF; and I'm sad to see what is happening to it now. But it simply emphasizes to me the quotation that "when men gather together in a common cause, it is a symptom of mediocrity".

It may be possible to fix RAA (tho I cannot see how, short of winding it up and handing its assets - if any - along to RAA Mk II, if in fact there was sufficient benefit to be had from doing so - which I doubt). I have previously outlined the alternative - and the maintenance issue of that alternative could very probably be resolved along the lines of what the GFA does.

George Markey did not start the AUF by consensus; he did so by sheer personal force. He'd not be turning over in his grave at what is happening now, he'd be rolling on the floor, laughing.

Dafydd: The invitation to self-regulate recreational aviation in Australia was always going to have conditions of compliance attached. Those conditions were known and accepted by the Board of RAAus but unfortunately both RAAus governance and management were not up to speed. It could be argued that the old committee of management model of merging committee members with operations was mostly to blame. If our governance and management systems had been consistent with contemporary good practice then we would not be having this debate. We would not only be complying with CASA's Deed of Agreement but would be contributing to the dialogue that shapes the future of recreational flying in Australia. There is a political dimension to the current situation and if we are to engage at that level we need to be clear and accurate in what is said and written. Andy said his glass was half full at this time....we need to be in charge of the vessel that will top up his glass and chart a way forward. That is the challenge for us all.Pete

No they dont. But they do have a requirement for issue of the initial rating. The reason I would like to see this is not only to adress the spinning issues, but to adress the 'stalling' issues we have.Instructors that dont get near the deep stall (because they have never done it) are only able to teach mild stalls with wing drops etc. So I feel the student gets a watered down version because the Instructor is too 'afraid' to get too close to the unknown. Im not saying that we should let them spin in RAA aeroplanes, just that an instructor that knows where the limit is, and is comfortable having a student on the controls at the 'edge' will be giving a much more thorough stalling education. (IMHO)

Would somebody kindly enlighten me: Is the current excitement over the RAAus accident rate a result of stall/spin accidents? Because if it is, I have some comments/ suggestions to offer.

The founding president (if that's the word) of the AUF, George Markey, was adamant that proper spin training should be part of the AUF training syllabus. He remained so until his death last year. The founding head of Operations, Bill Dinsmore, was equally adamant, and wrote it into the original training syllabus. Bill is still around, and if you ask him, he'll tell you why full spin training is essential. As the founding AUF tech Officer (and also a pilot) I heartily agreed with them; it was in the PPL syllabus when I did my basic training. You can also look at the statistics of stall/spin accidents for the GFA, which insists on all two-seat gliders being certificated for spinning, and requires full spin training.

However, the requirement for the aircraft to be cleared for spinning was omitted from both CAO 101.55 and BCAR Section S at its initial issue (this was corrected in the subsequent issue); I do not know whether this omission extended to the Euro ultralight standard, but it may well have at that time, because I understand it was based on BCAR S. Non watered-down standards identify two levels of certification for spinning: Firstly, for aeroplanes that are placarded "Intentional spins prohibited", the requirement is that they must be shown to recover from a one-turn (or 3 second) spin (including spins with mis-use of controls) by the standard recovery technique, in no more than one additional turn (See FAR 23.221). This is required of ALL GA aeroplanes. Aeroplanes for which intentional spinning is to be allowed, must be tested for a minimum of six turns, with recovery by the standard method in not more than one and a half turns.

Responsible manufacturers such as Skyfox and Jabiru did test their products for the one-turn requirement, despite its omission from the design standard. This was not without its exciting moments; we learned a lot about spin parachute systems in the process, and were lucky on several occasions not to lose an aircraft and/or test pilot.

Testing for the one-turn spin case requires, for each available flap setting, and both left and right turn directions, and power on and power off, the following cases: Ailerons neutral; ailerons against the rudder; ailerons with the rudder. All these must be done for both forward and aft CG. In an aircraft that has a landing and a takeoff flap setting, as well as flaps retracted, this works out as 128 test cases. The aircraft must be fitted with a spin-recovery parachute system for this work, and the pilot must wear a parachute, and there must be a means to jettison the door or canopy. In ultra-light aircraft, spin testing is hazardous, because most of them can hardly be prevented from exceeding their design flight envelope during the recovery; this makes it very difficult to test them as thoroughly as one would wish.

Because the spin manoeuvre is hazardous, for the above reason, in ultra-light aircraft, especially aerodynamically "clean" ones, I do NOT advocate requiring it to be performed, even as only "incipient" spins, in these aircraft. However such training can be done quite safely in gliders, and that is the sensible way for RAAus to approach this matter. I am not aware of ANY certificated two-seat ultralight that is certificated for full spin training (some of the LSA ones may be).

The purpose of full spin training is to allow the trainee to overcome the initial disorientation (which one does after only a couple of spins), and to become familiar with the spin as a normal part of the aircraft's repertoir, to the point where one can instantly recognise the "feel" of the initial commencement of autororation, and arrest it with a momentary forward stick input, so the aircraft barely starts to turn at all. Glider pilots fly right on the edge of this condition when they are thermalling, and it becomes second nature. One can reach this point after about six flights, in a glider.

The resistance of an aeroplane to inadvertant stall/spin can be greatly improved by certain design features, as can its ability to recover from a full spin - but these features are noticably absent from the majority of RAA aeroplanes, many of which seem to be designed by hair stylists rather than aerodynamicists. Swept-back vertical tails are notoriously bad in this regard. One of the more difficult aspects of aircraft design is the control of the spanwise development of stalling of the wings of an aircraft - and very few designers of RAA aircraft seem to know how to do it. This makes adequate spin training essential for safety in this class of aircraft.

DafyddCASA gives us around $110k per year. Keeping them happy is, as you say, essential. Alone however it does not assure success. Managing the remainder of the $2m+ of revenue and associated costs is still a fairly serious endeavour. In fact I suggest that like 2 part epoxy failing to provide either part will result in failure....

 

Andy

Go to basics: What is the raison d'etre of RAAus? To represent the membership? To allow democratic decision-making via a system of proportional representation by elected representatives? To promote recreational flying? To provide a venue for advertising?

Don't kid yourselves: RAAus exists in order to satisfy the conditions set by CASA for RAAus to administer CAO 95.55, AND FOR NO OTHER REASON. These conditions are set out in various documents and have aspects of airworthiness, registration, training and liccncing, etc.; these documents are the principle rules by which RAA must conduct itself. They override all other considerations, because unless RAAus performs in this regard, CASA will shut it down.

In order to do that it has set up a corporate structure which brings in a raft of other requirements, and also a number of ways of going about its business that allow it to collect monies from and on behalf of its membership. However these are subsidiary to its real reason for existence.

It seems to me that the thing has gone off the rails because the persons actually running the show have insufficient understanding of its true relationship with CASA. There has been, for far too long, far too much preoccupation with froth & bubble issues, with zilch comprehension of what it's really all about. If you do not get to grips with the basics - and you can do so by reading the regulations from which RAAus aeroplanes and pilots are exempt, and then seeing how RAAus has tried to find alternative paths (and WHY it has done so), you haven't a hope. Stop waffling about management principles and start learning the basics.

Actually, if you think about it, the Tech Manager cannot be functioning under an I of A from CASA when he registers an aircraft: Firstly, it would be no use whatever him being a Delegate, because CASA'a powers of delegation relate only to functions that relate to specific regulations. My understanding is that RAAus aircraft are NOT registered under CASR Part 47 (if they were, any appropriately-licenced aircraft could fly them, without being an RAA member - I had that out with CASA several years ago); therefore the TM cannot be applying a delegation in relation to Part 47 when he registers an RAAus aircraft. Similarly, an I of A as an Authorised Person can only be issued where the words "or an Authorised Person" appear in the regulations. He MAY have an I of A in regard to one of the regulations from which RAAus is not exempted, I suppose, but I can't think of a function of the TM that would require that.

Dafydd, there are losses all out there that we can't assess yet. Reduction of useable weight is certainly one of them, but the damage to a very active part of the "light' and affordable end of aviation overall, is hard too estimate . Schools can't operate aircraft that are in limbo but I will bet the numbers of interested students/customers will be dwindling too. Older pilots will give up waiting for something sensible to start happening, and do something else.. There has always been more BS in aviation that desirable and it is not looking like getting better. Nev

Nev, what really annoys me about the whole of what I would describe as the "ultralight push" is the incredible stupidity and waste of the whole thing. I do not mean that people were stupid in trying to find a more affordable and less regulation-strewn path to committing aviation; I thoroughly sympathise with that, I wanted it myself; I mean the way that regulatory authorities all over the world have gone about it, and the way their errors have been compounded by organisation like RAA.

The whole thing started on the wrong foot because of the basic argument that was used to create CAO 95.10 - i.e. the "crash momentum" argument - that the aircraft were so light and slow that one falling on the roof was only likely to break a few tiles. Because of this, the powers that be launched off with watered-down design standards for aircraft that were as slow and light as could feasibly be made. This is completely the reverse of what is needed if your aim is, as mine has always been, to broaden the base of the aviation pyramid, i.e. to get more people into grass-roots flying. Instead of flimsy dragonflies with too-small disposable weight, we should have gone for simple, DURABLE aeroplanes that will still be viable when they get to their third owners. Because that is the ONLY way to make aeroplanes more affordable, in the long run. (My apologies to the 95.10 community, but from an overall industry growth viewpoint, 95.10 is a blind alley; go and enjoy it by yourselves; there's no reason why you shouldn't.)

Bill Whitney and I argued this long and hard with CASA - we wanted 750 Kg, without bells and whistles like retractable gear, C/S propellers etc, but using the extra weight to be DURABLE and RELIABLE. However it had already gone the wrong way all over the World. So we have a complete generation of basically impractical aircraft, except for the ones built here where we had a somewhat more realistic MTOW limit (that took some argument, by the way). The Americans eventually woke up and applied (grudgingly) a more realistic weight limit to LSA aircraft, but they are still having problems in that category with people who do not understand what they are trying to do, or who do understand and are trying to cheat. The Euros haven't woken up yet, they're too busy building Airbusses, but their manufacturers have, and are now aiming at the US LSA market. However the first generation of Euro ultralights were all fettered by the 450 Kg limit, and none of them made as good a fist of that as did Jabiru with their original LSA-55.

So it was natural that the importers would do their damndest to rort the system so they could flog the impractical crap resulting from the original Euro rules, to a basically ignorant* market. RAAus has wittingly or unwittingly allowed this to happen, and the inevitable consequence is, yet again, that the whole thing is going sour and will once again turn people away from aviation. We have spent ten years wasting a marvellous opportunity, and some people ought to be shot for that. I've seen this coming for a decade, but I could do nothing against the cloud-cuckoo-land determined collective stupidity that caused it - too many venal people making a quid from too many dedicated fools, and the association that the dedicated fools set up to keep them in their blissful stupidity, compounding the situation. If I could spare any, it would make me tear my hair. I can't afford the blood pressure any more, so I'm going "fishing". But at least people should wake up to how imbecelic they have been, and do not make the same mistakes next time around.

As far as I can see, it's all going to collapse into a heap of rubble, and it will be a question of starting again. This time, please look a little beyond your toes, and see if you can get it right, for a change.

*actually, I think the Hilbilly term "iggernut" applies - "Ignorant" means "don't know". "Iggernut" means "doan' know an' doan' WANNA know"

Dafydd

Vicarious liability of the employer doesn't absolve the employee who has a duty of care...it just allows the victim to remove the contents of the employer's hopefully much larger purse.And the TM certainly has a heightened duty of care because of his qualifiactions and the consequences for people acting in reliance on them irrespective of whether it is accompanied by a statutory duty or not. I don't know if his appointment is by instrument but would expect so.

 

Kaz

 

I don't know the details of the TM's approval, but I would expect it would be similar to the approvals given to LAME's, FOI's etc

Kaz, I doubt you are correct about the statutory authority aspect. I suggest you look at CAAP ADMIN 1. These statutory authorities were issued by Instrument of Appointment under CAR 6, and CAR 6 applies where the term "Authorised Person" appears in the regulations. They are not "delegations" in the sense that there exists a schedule of delegations that defines the limits of the authority of all CASA employees - and uniquely, also for certain positions in the GFA. I don't think there is one, for RAAus. The GFA definitely works under a schedule of delegations; however way back, CASA decided it was not going to use that approach for the other recreational aviation authorities, because such delegates are in effect agents of CASA. (American DERs are "agents of the Administrator" in a similar way). CASA does have a liability for the activities of individuals who have Instruments of Appointment, and it did not want to increase that liability. So I think you will find that the GFA is the ONLY RecAv organisation that works that way, and it does so, I may venture, under some duress from CASA.

Re vicarious liability, I simply don't know. However there is a NSW Act (I do not have it to hand to give you the precise reference) that makes the employer liable for "good faith" errors on the part of his employees, short of criminal negligence. I would expect there to be parallel legislation in other States, but once again, I do not know. This argument was of considerable concern to CASA employees in the late 1980s, and I was involved in it, being an I of A holder myself at the time.

My understanding is that the RAAus TM is an emloyee of RAAus and his authority comes from that fact, not from an I of A issued by CASA. If, as I believe, this is the case, then under the NSW Act he would definitely, to my understanding, be protected from the consequences of errors made in good faith - the liability for these would pass to his employer. Once again, I do not know whether that applies to an employee of a non-profit organisation under ACT legislation.

All this says nothing about the liability of the RAA elected representatives; on that subject I am quite in the dark.

If a person gets into a plane that is therefore overloaded and it crashes (not due to the overloading) it seems a long shot to claim the breach of the rules caused the death because the observance of them would have precluded that person boarding. Surely the real causes should be of much more significance ? If someone stole a car to transport the passenger to the airport would he/she be joined to the action as well? Nev

Nev, it would seem probable that, if you are talking about a recreational aircraft, the precedent set by Echin v Southern Tablelands Gliding Club - [2013] NSWSC 516; BC201302763 (i.e. that getting into such an aircraft is a dangerous recreational activity, like bungee jumping etc) would be employed regardless of the technical argument. So don't try being logical; go and paint the message "Abandon Hope all Ye Who Enter Here" on your aircraft.

This has nothing to do with the loss of utility and resale value suffered by aircraft owners who have had their MTOW reduced from 544 Kg (or whatever) to 450 / 472.5 Kg.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to export the aircraft back to the countries where they are at the regulation weight limit and presumably they have value?...

D'you really think they'd accept them after having flown overweight for years?

A person who is given a statutory authority has an independent discretion and a duty to discharge their duty according to the authority and within the law.They cannot absolve themselves from that duty by claiming they acted in contravention of it because they were ordered to.

 

One could argue that the delegated duty from CASA would render such a hypothetical act a malfeasance of public duty.

 

Kaz

Does the Technical Manager have a statutory authority (i.e. presumably issued by an Instrument of Appointment from CASA); or are his duties solely defined by the RAAus Procedures manual? The two situations would seem chalk and cheese; in the latter case I would expect an employers liability act to absolve the TM except in a case of criminal negligence (i.e. acting not in accordance with his instructions).

Firstly their $100,000 aircraft have been used, so it's market value they might get, and lets say that was in the present post GFC days $45,000.00. During the case there would have been a vigorous forensic examination of what the owners knew of the process they used to get these aircraft registered, and that may knock out some of this, and of course there's no commercial loss since these are purely recreational aircraft, with the possible exception of a few trainers, but let's say it's $45,000.00 x 100 owners = $4.5 million.RAA could settle for that without incurring major legal costs, apply an extraordinary one-time levee on members of $450.00, and put the matter behind them.

Thanks, now we're getting to the nitty-gritty part. First question: Just how many aircraft are affected - and what does the actual number do to the size of the levy? Second question: How do the members feel about such a levy? These are the answers that RAAus is being coy about.

To clarify comments about rolling into AOPA or SAAA . . . It was in the situation where RA-Aus had collapsed or was imminently about to collapse. If the rego and licensing functions were stripped and everyone was in the CASA/RPL system, there would only be left one role for the remnant RA-Aus - advocacy (+ cheap stuff). That could easily fit into either AOPA or SAAA. We probably have more affinity with SAAA except for a few of the old guard who loathe and despise with a passion the SAAA. You would roll into another organisation because you still had some of the $2.75 million net assets left and didn't want to leave them behind for the ambulance chasers to gobble up.

How many owners are about to find their $100K + aircraft is now a single-seater? Maybe 100 owners? The math is simple - $100K x 100 owners = $10 million. That $2.75 million will go just far enough to temp a lawyer, no further.

My reading of CASR 61 is that it explicitly says an RAAus pilot certificate and any endorsements (e.g. Cross country, tailwheel, etc.) are directly transferrable to RPL provided you have a certificate from a GP that says you met the fitness standard to drive a car and you don't have any reportable conditions. Same limitations as RAAus in terms of where and when you can fly, but more choices in terms of what you can fly. If you can get someone to rent you a 182 (or anything else up to 1,500 kg - early 206 anyone?), an RPL will let you take a group to wherever you might have taken your RAAus 2 seater.This will appeal to some and could be viewed as a threat to RAAus.

And if you do have a reportable condition?

Please point out where the coroner said the above.I looked at the 10 or so recomendations and its not there.

Maybe somewhere else?

I agree it's not in the Coroner's Report. Can somebody shed light on this, please - it's important to have our facts correct.

Dafydd the RPL is useless. I was involved with the push from mainly SAAA for this and it is impossible to get it unless you can just tick every item with no issues whatever. The CASA even say the only redress from a problem with the RPL is to go the class one/two road and deal with avmed. The RPL doesn't go near avmed it is either ticked fully or it doesn't happen/ if it is ticked it just gets filed hence the cost doesn't apply. It has NOTHING to do with the requirements of a car licence.Having access to secondary airports was considered an essential part of it ( To service their aeroplanes),and they wanted no redress if something went wrong with introducing something new. So.... VERY disappointing!!! after so much hope. Nev

What you describe is entirely consistent with AVMED's approach to CASA's liability under S 8.2 of the Civil Aviation Act - a liability that the FAA does not have. A great deal of what CASA is doing these days is fairly obviously related to minimising their liability. This is the root cause of most of the malaise that affects our aviation industry. The RPL case needs to be documented and used as evidence that CASA is primarily interested in avoiding liability, and only secondarily interested in safety regulation - it uses the latter as an excuse for the former. This ain't going to improve whilst S 8.2 remains in the Act. If I were 20 years younger, I'd by looking at land prices in NZ.

DafyddI have RAAus pilot training and I own a J230. I'm a type 1 diabetic under very good sugar control. I cant do what you suggest. GA medicals wont let me fly my 19 registered J230 as VH.

 

For me to do as you suggest I want (not need) acceptance of prior learning...My J230 wont change if it has VH on the back so why do I have to sit for a PPL?personally I don't want CTA access, I would like hopefully more G class lanes of entry through CTA around some dangerous places in Au such as Coffs to the west.....

 

I need the medical to reflect that if I was Ok to fly before (>15 years of flying while Type 1 no issues) and nothings changed medically then its Ok to continue... Its why I desperately want RAAus to succeed!

 

Andy

Have you looked at http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/dame/diabetes_type1.pdf

DafyddI have RAAus pilot training and I own a J230. I'm a type 1 diabetic under very good sugar control. I cant do what you suggest. GA medicals wont let me fly my 19 registered J230 as VH.

 

For me to do as you suggest I want (not need) acceptance of prior learning...My J230 wont change if it has VH on the back so why do I have to sit for a PPL?personally I don't want CTA access, I would like hopefully more G class lanes of entry through CTA around some dangerous places in Au such as Coffs to the west.....

 

I need the medical to reflect that if I was Ok to fly before (>15 years of flying while Type 1 no issues) and nothings changed medically then its Ok to continue... Its why I desperately want RAAus to succeed!

 

Andy

Andy, I can only sympathise; there will be people who cannot make this change. Have you researched the recreational pilot licence? I agree that the transfer from an RAA pilot certificate to an RPL should be automatic, no questions asked. I do not know whether this is as yet the case. I suspect that RAA's turning its back on this has done persons like yourself no service whatsoever. I'd like to know, too, because I'm not sure how much longer I will be able to qualify for a Class 2 medical certificate; it happens to us all eventually, and eventually is getting pretty close for me.

This is one of the aspects that the present danger of RAA collapsing, should spur negotiations with CASA - and I doubt that has to be done by RAA. It is questions like this that need answers right now; that's what I have been trying to get across in my contributions to this thread. I think this is an area where group of concerned pilot individuals could ask these questions just as effectively as any formal body.

What people need is a set of answers to these questions, so they will be forearmed with real knowledge, not propaganda.

Good luck,

Dafydd

Having put up with DCA D0T "yibbita yibbita, CASA (getting worse unless I'm wrong) since forever. I'm no sure it is worth it. I've got plenty of mates in the game in all areas and they are all "unimpressed". by what is going on generally. One needs some assurance that there is a workable tomorrow. It's NOT there. Nobody cares about anything below airlines and they are supposed to look after themselves Ha Ha.! Nev

No argument about CASA's performance. However Part 91 is still being argued about, and in the meantime, people like SAAA etc are still operating under CARs 1988. The exemptions in CAO 95.55 almost all refer to CARs 1988. I'd need to research it, but I think there would be no effective difference to actually flying a RecAv aeroplane under CAO 95.55 or directly under the CARs - the same airspace limitations and requirements apply. The difference is in the maintenance areas; firstly, the maintenance system would become Schedule 5 of the CARs (and a Log Book Statement to that effect would have to go into the log book). The CAO 95.55 exemptions to Parts 4 and 4A of the CARS would cease to apply, so the aircraft would require Certificates of Airworthiness (which fact will go a long way to stopping the importers from rorting the system) and Maintenance Releases; and at present the L2 system does not fit here - this would be the principal area in which negotiations would be needed with CASA. However if you wait until RAAus is on the point of collapse to start such negotiations, the answer may well be, stiff cheese.

There's no guarantee of a workable tomorrow for anybody; what opportunities you get will have to be of your own making. Waiting for somebody else to do it won't get you anywhere. It's your choice. I became so disgusted with RAAus that I let my membership lapse about 18 months ago. I'll be operating under CASR Part 191, via GFA, so "I'm all right, Jack". Sleepers, awake; at least check that the back door isn't locked.

Dafydd, while that may be a possibility for some . It is miles away from what most of the RAAus ex AUF etc people here want. Surely we are NOT at that stage yet. A few years ago I thought we in australia were getting to a good position vis a vis the rest of the world. How quickly it can turn to $#it.!!!Don't give up yet. You deserve a scene where minimum aircraft of simple design and low cost, carrying max of one ' aware " pax can operate without undue complexity of rules. Nev

Two points: Firstly, do people not want it because of fear of the unknown? If so, I suggest that the option is not as bad as you may dread. It's a good time to learn the facts about this option.

Secondly, do not lose sight of the fact that CAO 95.55 is written explicitly for RAAus; if RAAus becomes insolvent, I think CASA will have no alternative but to cancel CAO 95.55, and if that happens you really will be at that stage overnight. No, you're not there yet; but I would not bet anything on it staying that way. I think it's the height of stupidity to float along assuming "she'll be right". Stupidity is punishable in nature by death, and that law hasn't been repealed as yet.

Cost.

Yes. As far as I can see, by far the simplest and lowest-cost option, for anybody who has a PPL or an RPL and either a TC or LSA aircraft, is to transfer to VH registration (see http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/acrprocs/form029i.pdf ) and apply for a c of A under CASR 21.175 ~ 21.186, as appropriate to the details of your aircraft.

If you do not have either a PPL or an RPL, you will need to get one or the other before you do anything else, which will also provide you with an Aviation Reference Number (ARN) which you will need to transfer the registration of your aircraft.

You will presumably have to go to an approved aircraft maintenance shop to get your initial Maintenance Release. This will cost something, because your aircraft will have to be brought into compliance with requirements such as instrument calibrations, radio checks etc.

Once you have a maintenance release, you can go flying, under the normal regulations for VFR flight, and subject to whatever limitations arise from the equipment fit in your aircraft.

If you have an amateur-built or kit-built aircraft, you will need to make enquiries as to the procedures for it to be accepted under CASR 21.191; I can't advise there. zThis is something that needs to be explored by a suitable committee of aircraft owners, I would suggest - and I also suggest you do that ASAP.

My 2 bobs worth :I agree that that would be better than AOPA,

 

But , saaa doesn't administer licenses or rego (I think ?)(any one know for sure?),it's back to casa handling that aspect .

 

We would only be moving our problems and giving it to them ,

 

I wouldn't imagine them to be that interested ,and I think their are some old grudges ,but it's better than it was .

 

I for one have been a member for 3 years

 

Chapter 25 , great bunch

 

Only my thoughts

 

If this goes the way it seems to be going we will all end up their any way one way or another

Look at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Browse/Results/ByTitle/LegislativeInstruments/Current/Ci/37/civil%20aviation%20order%2095/ - do you see any 95 series CAO that covers the SAAA activity? If there isn't one, that means the SAAA functions directly under the CASRs; their aircraft are built under CASR 21.190 or 21.191 (see CASA AC 21.4 & 21.11) and registered under CASR Part 47, and their C of A is issued under CASR 21.175 - 21.186.

You can find all these answers by going to www.casa.gov.au and looking up the advisory circulars, orders, or regulations. Take a deep breath and give it a try; it's not really all that difficult.

Anybody with a type-certificated aircraft or an LSA aircraft can do likewise; you do not need to be a member of anything to do so. Similarly if you are building an aircraft to be registered under RAAus -19 registration, you can also do so under CASR 21.191, but look at CASA AC 21.4 first - there are some prerequisites that you have to meet. The SAAA would be a big help if you are building one of these.

I would predict that SAAA will be of enormous help to the kit or amateur scratch builders, but does not really have anything to offer the owners of TC or LSA aircraft.

Although it has its own issues ,what's wrong with RAA ending up back in the SAAA, that's where it started and although there are always problems in any organisation at least the SAAA seems to be able to read the regs and stick to them. As a lobby group they're doing well for the experimental flyers and really I reckon we have more in common with them than AOPA ,the only dramas would be getting over very old grudges, having to learn the regs ( and not break them) and hopefully an influx of pilots wouldn't destroy what seems to be a strong organisationCheers Matty

Although George Markey was highly averse to SAAA back in '82, I doubt he's roll over in his grave at this concept. It would work.

Organising a collective voice amongst 10,000 individuals is a hell of a lot harder than having a lobby group that does it for you. That's why lobby groups exist...

All right, looks as though we share a common view of this Coroner's recommendation that persons under 17 be banned from riding in experiental (read across to "dangerous recreational activity") aircraft. So, Airsick, here's a job for your lobby group - see if you can stir them up to make a useful complaint to the State Ombudsman about this recommendation. Let's see if it works, eh?