DonRamsay

I would suggest you do it at Bankstown; 

I would never choose to fly into Bankstown. Mostly people like me just want to transit safely. Coffs is one of the few controlled airports that I might like to land at - and Coffsis no Bankstown.

 

 

 

Nearest is probably Bankstown- busier than I fancy. Camden less so but ideal would be Coffs Harbour, especially as my daughter lives there. Gets me the training but not the endorsement. That’s still mouldering in the pipeline.

 

as usual, Australia lags behind NZ and the USA and why? . . . a four letter acronym.

 

 

Update your training and fit the required equipment/specification, and problem fixed.

 

We’ve been waiting many years for CASA to give us access to a CTA endorsement. Very happy to be properly equipped and do the training and take the test. Just one barnacle here . . . slow CASA bureaucrats. The promise that the RPL and RPC are equivalents has never been delivered. I suspect malice against RPC by the old hands at CASA. 

 

 

I was in a meeting with CASA, AirServices and the RAAF a couple of years ago when they extended the CTA SW of Williamtown. Initially a TRA, it has since been locked in. At the time everyone agreed that the YWMN airspace was an accident of time and it was declared it would be redesigned from first principles. That could have been 3 years ago but so far no real change. Like most military airspace’s, I suspect the restrictions are bigger and lower than they need to be and kept closed longer than they need to be. Luxury for the military, poverty for taxpayers.

 

The authorities said that a Victor up Stockton Beach was not viable because it was too close to the runway. 

Before they invested a billion dollars getting the base ready for the F35, they should have relocated to Tamworth.

 

 

Looks like they’ve come down in the Southern part of the Ultralight Lane that wraps around the back of Williamtown RAAF base/ Newcastle Airport.

 

Aircraft other than ultralights also use the lane to get between the Hunter Valley and Taree.

 

the Lane is an awful piece of airspace with the controlled airspace at just 1,600 ft AMSL. 

 

It runs through a shallow, narrow valley.

 

on hot and windy days it can be a handful. 

 

 

 

Clearly Don is trying to come up with solutions, why jump down his throat?Don I'd suggest the election of directors and the Calling of meetings and who and when resolutions could be made needs to be clearly defined. I don't think letting the board decide how they get elected is the best option.

Thanks Rhys, that is an area I think needs a hard look. If I ever had a qualm about the whole thing it was that the Board may have just a bit too much latitude.

 

If there is no good reason for the Board to have the absolute say about something then it probably should be written down in the Constitution.

 

Don

 

 

. . .1. Don, you don't represent anyone other than yourself and why should any suggestion get your approval first

Ian, you are of course completely correct on both facts. I am not representing anyone else and nobody needs my or anyone else's approval to draft and present a motion for a Special Resolution to a General Meeting.

All I was saying was that if there is something somebody wanted changed but could use some assistance in getting the change done then I was happy to assist. However, if the motion would be something I would have to vote against, it would be hypocritical for me to assist somebody to draft such a motion. For example, I could never assist somebody to draft a motion to take RAAus back to being an incorporated association.

 

What I was also saying was that I am not the only one of 9,000 pilots who could come up with a good idea to change the Constitution. It is also true that the only changes that have been proposed in the last, at least 6 years, had my signature on them. Nobody else has taken the trouble to put a change to a vote of ordinary members in general meeting.

 

If we look at your history, you supported the prevention of the younger generation learning to fly which thank God was later overturned

That's not quite correct the way you say it. Yes, I was a member of a Board that voted to set a minimum age at which a student could commence flying training. At the time, as you will recall, we had CFIs not acting with due diligence in allowing 9 year olds to take the controls. The Board decision was practical but not, I agree, the correct solution. Better to hold CFIs accountable for their questionable decisions to let 9 year olds take the controls than put on a blanket ban that was not imposed for GA. I accept that I was a part of that mistake and was glad to see it overturned. I am not sure what that has to do with people other than me making suggestions to change the current constitution.

 

You oversaw the greatest reduction in members funds that RAAus members have ever seen.

You are looking at the the outcome not the cause. The eventual run down in financial reserves resulted from Boards and managers (for years before I joined RAAus) allowing maladministration that ended up costing RAAus many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Late in my brief stint on the Board in 2012, the issues were discovered and by the time I got back on the Board in 2015, the money to repair the issues from the maladministration had been largely spent.

 

You pushed through a major change to RAAus which was incorrect in the first place

Ian, that's your view and you are perfectly entitled to it but that view was not supported by the 90% who voted in favour of the change despite your campaigning against the change. All it would have taken was 25% to vote against it and it would have failed.

 

and now you want to try and fix it

What I want to do is have another look and see if a good thing can be made better based on the experience we have had with it in operation through an election and an AGM.

 

Absolutely 100% true. Every single ordinary member of RAAus is entitled to raise a motion for a Special Resolution and have it presented at a General Meeting. My consideration in this case means that If I consider the suggestion is helpful that I will do the leg work to get it presented at a General Meeting. As I have indicated in another post, if my considered view is that a suggested change is not beneficial then I won't do the leg work as I would have to vote against it.

Bull mrramsay ,you have been asked about the four stage inspections in the tech manual and you very slyly have dogded the subject.

Dear Mr Bull,

Your statement is both off-topic here and factually incorrect. Wer were discussing the Constitution not the Tech Manual in this thread and, if I recall correctly, I have written a great number of words on the subject that is off topic and won't be repeating any here.

 

If you have any serious changes you would like to see in the Constitution of RAAus, feel free to express them here or elsewhere.

 

Don

 

 

Don - If you really wanted to know what people thought, go back to the other threads about the problems with the constitution. Given all the feedback provided before the constitution was put to the vote and the vitriol from some it is no wonder people have given up. Why bother when all the feedback gets ignored. We just have to live with the discontent and consequences.

I think I need to communicate better what it is I was trying to do. As an ordinary member of RAAus, I have set out to review the current Constitution to see if it can be improved. Simple as that. I use the word "review" precisely as I have viewed the document many times, in many stages of development, previously.

 

This time, I am looking back on it having had the benefit of the experience of an election and an AGM and a Board Meeting. Now I am operating from the standpoint of a non-board member, with no axe to grind other than to get it as good as it can be.

 

I had hoped that anyone here who still felt strongly about specific issues that they felt had not been taken account of in the version that was approved by about 90% of members who took the trouble to vote, could list them here and, if warranted, I could draft a motion for a special resolution to amend the constitution.

 

I could have looked back through the previous thread on the subject but that was too full of acutely personal insults that I chose not to revisit. Also, I have no way of knowing whether the people who expressed serious objections then still held those views. Reading through hours of posts from people like KP who were secretly busy in the background setting up an organisation to compete with RAAus I saw as unproductive.

 

What I was offering (that nobody to date has taken me up on) was to seriously consider suggestions for changes and frame motions for a special resolution(s) that could be put to the next General Meeting of RAAus to achieve change. I offered that service because It seemed to me that nobody else had any plans to do anything like that.

 

Don

 

 

No, just that nobody wants to be led up the garden path again.

I don't know why you wasted the electrons communicating something as meaningless and unhelpful as that.

 

 

Well, I guess we can wrap this thread up and I can go back to my detailed review.

 

Thanks Col for your helpful suggestion - I will keep it in mind as I complete my review.

 

Considering all the discontent about the current constitution, not one single suggestion for a specific amendment!

 

Just 20 posts in total and most of those off topic.

 

It certainly says to me that the discontent has no substance and any disparaging comments from here on have no credibility.

 

Don

 

 

VH regoed ,,yes but under the same guidelines set down by casa for raa, without the empire building of raa, mr ramsay.........

Good luck with that.

Would you call that a "level playing field"?

 

 

No Don........ The answer is answered in docjel's post.... the post needed to be read to be understood. Not read to make comment.I will write the answer for you.. Just because one goes for a yearly full medical is not a guarantee will they make it through till next year the answer is a big fat "no" as no one can see what is around a corner. All what the post said.

KP

No to what?

 

Do you mean "No there will be no medical because no one can see what is around a corner"?

 

As your favourite Queenslander says "Please explain?"

 

Don

 

 

. . . I have never had to go to the GP to get assessed for my drivers licence.

That's because you have never been diagnosed with diabetes, ischemic heart disease, stroke, or other serious conditions that would prevent you from being able to declare to the RMS that you are fit to drive a car in NSW. If you did have one of the qualifying conditions then you would be required to get a medical clearance to drive your car.

 

I think that would be a huge backwards step to introduce something like that as mandatory in RAA.

The RAAus health standard is the same as for holding a car drivers licence in in NSW. No medical required as long as you don't have one of the listed conditions.

 

I don't mind if people do it voluntarily but certainly would strongly oppose it otherwise.

Nobody does it voluntarily. Before I had a condition that was on the list I still got a check-up from my GP every year but didn't get him to write to RAAus or the RMS - no need.

 

Having said that you finish with "If you have to do it for your car licence you have to do it for your pilot cert. Simple as that really." Which I assume means that you are Not suggesting mandatory GP visits?

Absolutely not suggesting perfectly healthy RAAus pilots go to a GP to get cleared to drive a car or fly with RAAus.

There is an age

 

The Ops Manual ver 7.1 (latest release) sets out health standards and certification required at section 2.16:

 

"Applicants for the issue of a Certificate are required to have a health standard equivalent to that required for the issue of a private motor vehicle driver licence in Australia"

 

RAAus asks you to supply:

 

"a signed RAAus medical declaration that they meet the health standard, or an RAAus approved equivalent"

 

It does not ask you to go to a GP or other medical practitioner unless:

 

"if an applicant’s medical status includes one of the following conditions,

 

the person must provide RAAus with a statement from their doctor (GP)

 

of meeting the health standard, or provide a copy of a valid motor vehicle or heavy vehicle General Medical Assessment Report from an Australian road and transport authority, whatever called, or provide a copy of the CASA Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate (RAMPC) or higher medical certificate; (my emphasis)

 

(i) Epilepsy; or

 

(ii) Diabetes (Type 1 or 2); or

 

(iii) A heart condition / disease or paralysis; or

 

(iv) Mental illness (medicated or otherwise); or

 

(v) Becoming 75 years of age or older; or

 

(vi) Any other medically significant safety related condition."

 

So, there is no move to change what has just been published in Ver 7.1 of the Ops manual. Nothing has changed and nothing is proposed to be changed regarding RAAus health standard.

 

If anything, the GA medicals for pilots who fly not-for-reward are likely to be amended to look more like the RAAus medical standard than the other way around.

 

Don

 

 

Thank you Docjell, that was a great post that will leave a few looking for answers.As you said - what is around the corner can not predicted with out history, warning signs, could be the answer.

KP

Why would it leave anyone "looking for answers"?

Are you seriously proposing that the E&LAAA will have no requirement for a health standard?

 

I agree with every word of docjell's post but neither he nor I write the laws, pass them through the parliament nor give royal assent nor make the Regulations under the Act.

 

The fact is that there is a laid down medical standard that requires RAAus pilots to self-declare their fitness to fly and, if they have certain conditions, have them assessed (and treated) by a medical practitioner.

 

And while Doctors cannot predict certain outcomes, running a few tests each year (especially as we age) are useful in identifying possible issues and for managing existing conditions.

 

One thing for sure is that without any evidence (like blood and urine test results) a doctor would have no basis on which to manage your health or predict anything.

 

 

Regarding medicals and evidence, in Victoria a holder of a heavy vehicles license with a medical issue is required to have an annual specialists health report to Vic Roads. Such a rule for an RAA license would be a slight imposition for the pilot but it would add an extra layer of insurance and liability risk mitigation. Not to mention confirm health status for the pilot,

I held a Heavy Vehicle licence from 1970 until I gave it up last November - essentially I can't see myself ever driving a truck again.

 

There are several conditions like heart disease, diabetes, stroke etc. that can make you unfit to drive or fly. These are listed on the form that calls for your self declaration each time your pilot cert is renewed. This is not new.

 

I get a GP to do the assessment for me each year and he then writes a note for me and I use that as my health declaration statement for RAAus and for the Drivers Licence declaration. Not that difficult nor expensive. If you have to do it for your car licence you have to do it for your pilot cert. Simple as that really.

 

 

The problem is that once a "Guide" is in place, before long it becomes more than just guidelines: it will morph into a strict "Policy".Does anyone on the Forum think that this rumoured (or proposed) increased medical standard for RA-Aus is linked to the increases in Maximum Take Off Weights? We're up to 600 kg. In my opinion, it this becomes heavier, we will get heavier medical requirements.

Firstly, there is no move to increase health standard requirements for RAAus.

 

Secondly, there is absolutely no suggestion in the papers being put to CASA to get equality with the RPL in MTOW. The RPL minimum health standard is supposed to be a Drivers Licence medical - but It simply isn't. As we all know most RAAus pilots could get a Class 2 easier than an RPL medical (RAMPC).

 

RAAus already has a "strict policy" regarding the RAAus Health Standard and how the declaration can be made and who needs a note from a doctor to say they pass rather than just self declare. There is no proposal to change that legal requirement.

 

I would be prepared to put money on the fact that more than one car driver of a certain age does not report to their car driver licensing authority (RTA/RMS/VicRoads, etc.) that they no longer meet the health standard required. They of course risk severe financial loss if they have an accident and their insurer declines their claim and the other drivers claim. I think it would be as safe a bet that some RAAus pilots either deliberately or inadvertently do the same thing with regard to not reporting a significant change in their health standard to RAAus. We probably all know somebody with a GA licence who has pushed that envelope for as long as they can get away with it.

 

Don

 

 

(edited...mod) ,you really want to fly under the Sydney harbour bridge don,t you,,,,is all this drive to turn raa into ga , just so you can cross another item off your bucket list? AND whilst talking about the death of RAA ,,,I really don't think he is talking about casa doing the killing,,,more like a better fairer cheaper way forward {ELAAA] Has come into being and if raa keep going GA with regulation/rules/costs, etc example the recent email from RAA about medical review ,,,WHY under the present system no attributable accidents caused by medical incapacitation are happening everday,,,SO why the need ,no cause /no regs[your Quote there] ..Will see so many jumping ship so quick the rats will feel very lonely very quickly and RAA will not be able to pay the bar bill after all ah Mr Ramsay...................lol

Mr BULL,

Firstly, I had nothing to do with RAAus wanting to look at how they can help their members make their health standard declaration.

 

Secondly, Aren't the aircraft in the E&LAAA going to be VH registered?

 

Can there be anything more GA than that?

 

 

I had my prop balanced by Keith Baker using some fancy gear but not sure what it was. My prop was not bad but it was brilliant by the time he finished.

 

While it's good for a Rotax it is even more important for a Jab as it balances the entire drive train - engine & prop. It can identify issues with the engine if the prop can't be balanced.

 

 

Rather than more forms or regulations, how about some education? Some decent online training material would be a good start.

From my reading of the newsletter that is exactly what they are looking at doing.

 

 

. . . However, the path to CTA seems to exist already - convert RAA certificate to RPL and get the CTA endorsement. Surely that covers the requirements?

When CASA created the RPL, they proposed it as an alternative form of recreational flying licensing but one that was equal to the RPC. What RAAus is up to is getting CASA to put their money where their mouth is. If the RPL = RPC then they should have the same rights (not "privileges").

 

This I don't agree with. What Don is describing already exists: the PPL and CPL. If that's the environment you want it is available to you.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one for the reasons I state above. If you have a PPL but no CPL or ATPL you are, in ordinary English words a recreational pilot. With a PPL you have had more training hours than for an RPL or RPC and you have been tested on more skills. But, you are still flying not for reward and that means flying for fun (i.e. recreation).

 

AUF/RAA came about because people wanted simpler qualifications, cheaper aircraft and maintenance and to be able to fly without a medical certificate. In return for this lighter regulation, restrictions on the size and weight of the aircraft were implemented, primarily to reduce the risk to other people:

• No more than 1 passenger
   
   
  
• A maximum weight limit
   
   
  
• A maximum stall speed in the landing configuration
   
   
  
• Limits on where you can fly e.g. OCTA, <5000 ft.
   
   
  

 

 

These are specifically designed to mitigate the risks from relaxing the other regulations.

Agree with the above with the exception of the Altitude limit now 10,000 ft and below (9,500 in practice because of the need to fly hemispheres above 5,000 ft)

 

There is a very real risk that in return for increased privileges, other regulations would be reintroduced e.g. if you have the same privileges, why would you have a different medical standard for RPL and RAA? If the RPL driver license medical is introduced for RAA, RAA is in big trouble.

Currently, if you fly in Class G you need instruments calibrated only every 2 years. If you fly in CTA they need to be calibrated every year. Why would that rule need to change for pilots who do not wish to enter CTA? On the same basis, there could be an argument to apply the RPL medical or even PPL medical standard to those who fly in CTA but why would that need to be extended to those who continue to only operate in Class G? Reality is that with Part 149 CASA is hinting at the demise of the RPL (no need for a "parallel path").

Use of the word "privileges" is a big con by CASA to make you think that they are doing you a huge favour every time they remove a restriction on your flying rights. We really need to look at flying as a right not a privilege. This is the same for Free Speech. We all see free speech as a right not a privilege. That right has some reasonable restrictions put on it like not yelling "fire"in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

 

Same for flying and driving a car - it is a right that has reasonable restrictions placed on it so that you don't harm yourself or others while exercising that right. It is reasonable to restrict a would be pilot from flying without an instructor beside them as PIC until the student has demonstrated a level of knowledge and skill that convinces the instructor that the student is safe to allow to go solo.

 

Our right to fly in CTA is currently restricted until we can demonstrate the knowledge and skill to be able to do it safely. I have no problem with that. My big problem with the CTA issue is that even if our aircraft meets the required specs and you have demonstrated the knowledge and skill required (like pilots that learn to fly at Coffs in CTA) you still face an unreasonable restriction on your rights to fly.

 

If you wanted to create a step by step plan to kill off RAA you could do worse than:

1. Place restrictions on the aircraft used by flying schools to make them uneconomic
    
    
   
2. Place restrictions on owner maintenance privileges
    
    
   
3. Implement the driver license medical standard for RAA
    
    
   
4. Provide an easy path from RAA to a GA qualification
    
    
   
5. Allow LSA aircraft to be registered under GA (i.e. without recurring registration fees)
    
    
   
6. Allow for owner maintenance of LSA aircraft under GA, using the USA as a model.
    
    
   

 

 

#6 is the only one that seems unlikely, and that only due to certain attitudes within CASA.

If CASA killed off RAAus as a SASAO, it would be faced with having to administer another 9,000 very angry pilots and 3,000 aircraft. They would also have sent 180 small businesses bankrupt. They would need to go to the Minister and ask for an extra $30 million per annum (Vs the $100,000 it currently costs them). Do you think any Minister for Aviation or Federal Treasurer would thank the CASA CEO for such a FUBB?

 

Reality is CASA needs RAAus to save it a great deal of money and annoyance - they don't like GA and find it a distraction from running the airlines into the ground and imagine how little desire there is at the top of CASA to take on RA?

 

 

Don I don't mind the idea of having a "guide" form with info on it BUT if changing our standards to more align with a drivers license standards (isn't that what our declaration already is?) has us ending up with anything similar to the rpl one it will be a disaster.

I know of no move to change the RAAus medical standard.

Yes, it is the same standard as you need to drive a car in, in our case, NSW.

 

I guess we will have to wait and see what they come up with but like you, I have no knowledge of it being a problem.

 

I could be wrong but I'm thinking that some Pilot Cert holders make the health declaration without even knowing exactly what the standard is and may deliberately not ask their GP for fear of being given the wrong answer. I know of people who make a declaration to the NSW RMS (drivers licensing office) so that they can continue to drive either knowing that they might not meet the standard. If you have a 5 year licence and you have any material change in your health standard during the 5 years you are obliged to "self-report". Plenty of people do not do that.

 

Like you, I agree a guide would help RAAus members be better informed when making the declaration. I could see it coming out as one of the new fangled RAAPs.

 

 

Don I don't think you really appreciate what CAN happen in CTA. Just transit it and get out or have special VFR procedures to get into your chosen RPT airports. I believe you are opening up a tin of worms. Most of my flying has been in CTA and I know a few who have gotten into trouble in small planes . I'm not approaching it from a theoretical aspect either. It's based on real events.Nev

Nev, you are quite correct that I don't know all about the risks of flying VFR in CTA but surely that is the purpose of the training? I recently flew to Sth Aus and back and all in Class G. In that 2500 kms I saw only one other aircraft in the air and from the radio, I had no indication of other aircraft in my proximity. I had no need to go into CTA. But, running up and down the East coast of Aus it could be very useful.

Incidentally, I have no desire or perceived need to fly into any of the former GAAP airports. But Coffs, Broome, Williamtown, Nowra, Sale, come to mind as possible.

 

Don

 

 

Short answer is that the intent of RAAus looking at health standards is to assist members to make an informed medical declaration. If you mak a false or careless declaration and are, subsequent to an incident, seen to have had a medical issue that should have been taken into account in making your declaration you risk issues with your insurer and CASA. RAAus will be the very least of your problems. Considering you probably carry liability insurance of $10 million or more, you need to be prepared to cough up a sum as large as that if you make a false or negligent declaration.

 

There is no need nor desire to change the Pilot Cert medical standard.

 

Every year I go to my GP for a thorough examination. Anyone over 55 who does not do that might consider the wisdom of their health care strategy. As one of the by-products of that examination, my GP consults the checklist for the issue of an ordinary drivers licence in NSW. He then provides me with a statement of meeting the standard required for issue of a drivers licence in NSW. I submit a copy to RAAus. Out of respect for the well being of myself and my passengers, I am very happy to go through that process.

 

 

Don unfortunately I don't agree with the way you are going with this. Just because you have been into Tamworth (not a particularly simple thing don't get the idea that is all there is in flying in CTA.)You cant expect to mix it with the expensive stuff and not be required to upgrade in many ways. you won't be VFR always either and you have to cruise where you are cleared. Give amended ETA's, know radio fail procedures and much more A lot of CTA is over rough country, you will need adsb shortly. Its a different world. All WE ned is transit rights and procedures across /through airspace and into specific aerodromes which would be better done with "special VFR" procedures. Like Victor one. Nev

Nev, accessing CTA is just a skill that something like 700 RAAus pilots who trained for their Pilot Cert in CTA have achieved. Of course, once they have achieved their Pilot Cert they are no longer allowed access to CTA regardless of demonstrated skill or compliant aircraft. That is just nuts!

And then there are the thousands of average 17 year olds who obtain a PPL with CTA endorsement.

 

I'm not saying it is a trivial exercise but it is not something that is beyond the ability of the average RAAus Pilot Cert holder to learn.

 

Of course it is not for every RA pilot. You wouldn't go to the expense or bother unless you had a pressing need like living at Coffs Harbour.

 

There is no additional expense to anyone other than the individual who chooses to seek CTA endorsement.

 

In al likelihood, all I would really need is transit CTA but others in RAAus have the demonstrable skill and need for full CTA rights and that right is currently, unreasonably denied when it is not denied in comparable jurisdictions like NZ, USA, UK.