DonRamsay

I was wondering why there was no fire when the wing got ripped off. Good bit of planning to not have any fuel on board when doing an out landing. I wrote a letter this morning to a Board a Member saying enough with Jab engines! Casually wipes egg off face . . .

Have you spoken with the office or let the Tech Manager or Ops Manager? They'd be keen to get you back in the air.

Closer to 3,500 aircraft registered. There are still plenty of symptoms to show that RA-Aus is not on top of the problem yet. The parlous situation we have now is not the fault of the current Tech Manager who inherited a comprehensive mess made less messy by his immediate predecessor. Nor is it the problem of the new CEO. The current Board Executive are all fairly new to the Board and have been the Executive for about 9 months. The problems we have with Rego originated before any of the current Exec were even on the Board. I'm happy to take the Major's advice that things are about to improve dramatically, He doesn't need to guess.

Definitely not being held up. It is largely a clerical exercise, anyhow. My aircraft is out of rego at the moment (since 25 June) but as I was overseas at the time the renewal didn't go in to RA-Aus until just after the due date. Doesn't make it feel any better that I contributed to the delay as we still can't fly. To be fair we've had some very unfriendly flying weather in recent times but there has been the odd good days like today and yesterday. Nobody is happy about the current cumbersome process that takes so many clerks so long to get through before issuing the renewal. RA-Aus is having a very hard look at it with the aim of order of magnitude improvement in short time. I'm keen to see what can be achieved.

Mike, My apology. Unforgivably, I had Nong's statement in mind. ("This document, I think, is another shot in the Tech Manager's war against us."). And, no, you haven't bagged the Tech Manager and you have put forward reasonable criticisms of the AN's undesirable affects on your operation. And while I have unwittingly offered you the above offence, I have taken none from any of our discussion. Any ""skinny" that I come across is obtained simply by asking. I don't have a special pipeline into RA-Aus. p.s. perhaps it's later than I think :-(

Does sound a bit severe. The AN does require it though: "1.2 Following adjustment . . . . etc."

Mike, In our case, rules can have a very legal and not necessarily happy effect in a court of law. Coroners, Insurers, CASA and RA-Aus would probably disagree with your assertion here. I love what you are doing and had a close look at your work at Natfly a couple of years back. I do understand your frustration and how adversely you are affected. But writing on here is not necessarily going to get any accommodation for you from RA-Aus. I also can't imagine that bagging out the Tech Manager on a public forum is a step in the right direction for achieving a better outcome for yourself and others in your situation. If you want a better outcome, you can only try again with Darren or approach any Board Member and ask them to have a look at your situation. Those are your rights as a member. In aviation, we do live in a kind of Egypt. We have dictators who can rule by decree - within the scope allowed them by the people you send to Canberra (Parliament not Fyshwick). Mriya - just one correction. Despite what the words currently say in the AN, I have personally confirmed with Darren that only ONE independent inspection is required. The person that does the work and one other person who checks the work. As Mike says they do have to have, as a minimum, L1 status.

Nong, last count there were something like 10,000 RA-Aus Pilot Certificate holders who also had a L1. While we've lost a few members and gained some new ones "diminishing pool" would probably sound like a gross overstatement to most. The intent with L1 accreditation is that all Pilot Certificate holders should have little or no difficulty being accredited via an online exam. It is not going to be that big a deal. What it will do is require somebody who has zero previous mechanical experience to learn a bit about the subject before snapping spark plugs off at the stem. You have to remember that the Gen X and Y in particular have lived in a time of very reliable cars that don't need weekly attention to the distributor and spark plugs and are too complex for most people to touch. They've probably never had to service even a lawnmower. Mriya responded to this reasonably and the less said about it the better. Again, Mriya has put this bizarre assertion in its proper perspective. There is no question in my mind that RA-Aus incidents are massively under-reported. Incident reporting actually allows you to draw conclusion using statistical analysis which is pretty useless in looking at statistically rare events like fatalities. But, when there is massive under-reporting, statistical analysis of minor incidents including things like near-misses can be less than helpful and even misleading. I think if you could see the incredible effort Darren and his predecessor put in to helping us and our passengers and the people we fly over to be safer you would regret making a statement like that. These people are not 5 day, 9 to 5 workers - I've often had responses from Darren on weekends including last Sunday morning, hours before he was due on an overseas flight. FFS, what on earth would motivate our Tech Manager to go to war against us?

Mike, I don't know what contact you've had with Darren Barnfield yet but if it is none as it seems from your post then you can't judge him by his predecessors. The situation Adam Finn faced and that faced by Darren Barnfield are very different particularly with regard to the CEO and the Board Executive. Things really have changed a lot even if it is not readily obvious to all just yet. Darren and his predecessor made huge inroads into the mess generated well before their time and Darren is getting much better support from the current Board Executive than was available to Adam or Wayne and CASA are listening to him and agreeing with him - the benefit of which we will see in the new Tech Manual. Rules are made to cover all and can't take into account every individual's particular personal circumstances. If you want to work within RAA rules, then please do talk to Darren when he's back in Australia. Even Tech Managers get a week or two leave each year. Don

I think we are at cross purposes. The requirement for a second inspection by a pilot or more qualified relates to work on primary controls. If that is a problem for any RAA aircraft owner, they should let RAA know the issues that they have and see what can be worked out. It seems highly likely to me that the AN was prompted by things Darren saw in recent fatal accident investigation. The impression I gleaned from the Jab Manual that they required a L2 to work on their engines is a separate matter. If what Jabiru have told you is what they want maintainers to do, they need, I think to make their manual say that.

The one law we are not exempt is gravity. Not trying to be a smart ass here (no need to try) but, if your flight controls fail in flight most of us would rapidly end our flying career, painfully. Having another pilot take at look at your work does not seem to me to be a big price to pay. I understand that that can be difficult for many RAA pilots who live remotely and/or are lucky enough to fly from home. It means that some prior planning may be required before attacking primary flight controls. I know I haven't tried landing an aircraft with trim and rudder and I'm guessing few others of us who've only ever flown RA have either.

For a 912ULS in a LSA not used for training, I'm guessing the only requirement is not to change it in any way - without the approval of the manufacturer. Can't think why you'd need an L2 to change, e.g. the spark plugs, oil or filters. An overhaul is a different matter altogether. But, I'm way out of my depth here. I don't touch my aircraft (maintenance), all done by a L2 and we're very happy with that approach.

I'd agree with the "way more to loose if their aircraft are no longer able to be self maintained and others were". There does seem to be an indication that L2 is required though from the Manual: Inspections, maintenance, repairs and overhauls must only be carried out by an approved person. Depending on the country and the category of the aircraft this may be a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, an RA-Aus Level 2 or equivalent. The responsibility for determining what qualifications are necessary to carry out an overhaul belongs to the person carrying out the work. Perhaps a customer of Jabiru could have a word to them and find out what exactly is their intention/requirement? Then we can all stop guessing.

Lucky indeed to have somebody of Keith Rule's capability and we would be stuffed if he were not around. The 2nd inspector does not have to be an L2 it can be a Pilot. I know Darren has talked to jabiru and that he has not always been happy with their responses but that is between those parties. Potentially, Jabiru has a lot to gain by requiring L2 maintainers especially if they believe that much of the unreliability attributed to their engines is due to poor maintenance - as they frequently argue. Not sure exactly but Steve Tizzard was engaged by RAA to work on the rewrite some 5 or 6 years ago to my knowledge. He achieved very little and was then "too busy" once he was gifted the CEO position. Must be getting close to publication now.

Deborah, I don't think it is different. What was meant even if not clear in the AN is that the pilot does the work and is checked by one other person being a pilot or L2, etc.

Thanks Frank. That was as I recalled and what I do and now I know I'm doing it as per the book.

Let's make sure we don't have crossed wires here. The 2nd sign off can be done by a person with a Pilot Cert or a L2, L3 or L4. Only two people are required to be involved - the person that does the work and one other being a Pilot Cert holder OR one of the other L2, L3 or L4. Currently RA-Aus does not require anything in this regard that is not required for GA. OK? Any speculation of mine as to what may happen down the track is just that - speculation.

I don't think L1 is going to be too difficult to get.

Where's the PC police when you need them. Some very funny stuff - cracked me up completely. Didn't know you blokes were so clever. I do have a mate who's been married three times and none of his wives were over 21 at the time. Got to admire his endurance.

Far too generous, Oscar. I couldn't go any better than at least a decade earlier than that.

Eugene is a very pleasant fellow - a gentleman in my experience - and I have nothing personal against him. He's been involved in RA-Aus for something like 25 years and much if not all of that at Board level. That represents a massive commitment of time to the betterment of RA-Aus. While I don't doubt that during that time he has had the best interests of RA-Aus at heart, the results have been regrettable. An example of the sort of thing that convinced me that Tasmania could do a lot better for the Boardroom is the episode that resulted in Steve Tizzard being appointed to the role of CEO. Lee Ungermann gave substantial notice to the Board that he would be moving on and the Board, to their credit, undertook a formal search and recruitment exercise. Unanimous result of that was the appointment of Robbie Costmeyer to the role of CEO. Eugene is on record in the Recreational Aviation magazine as President of the time as saying there were a number of excellent candidates interviewed but Robbie Costmeyer was preferred. Within a few weeks, not even a month, Costmeyer was gone and Tizzard appointed. This was before my time on the Board but I did take the time to investigate to find out what went wrong. Seems Costmeyer was unhappy with the way the Board got involved in management activities effectively subverting management. Costmeyer judged, correctly in my view, that RA-Aus was doing a great deal of CASA's work with very poor monetary compensation for that work. He also disturbed a few of the old hands in the Office when he announced that a great deal had to change. None of these are valid reasons for him to move on. Next thing that happened was that, without going back to the "excellent candidates" on the short list and choosing one of them, Tizzard was appointed by Eugene with, I believe some encouragement from Middleton. To my way of thinking this was nepotism, "jobs for the boys" and Eugene was at the heart of it. Subsequently the Board ratified the actions of Eugene something they should never have done when there was no due diligence nor proper process. And look how "well" that turned out. After I left the Board, Eugene campaigned to be elected to the Executive and was successful. I would judge him to be probably the second worst Treasurer RA-Aus has ever had. As I was departing, I had offered to Eugene to do the work of Treasurer for him and he could present it as his own but he caved in to Runciman who, Eugene told me at Queanbeyan, was instructed by Runciman not to accept my assistance. Eugene's performance as President at the Meeting of Members at Temora a few years back was seen by many as just awful and embarrassing. His performance at the AGM in 2012 was equally embarrassing and failed dismally to meet the requirements put on the Treasurer by the Constitution. Next public appearance was at the extraordinary General Meeting held in Queanbeyan in 2013. At least after making a mess of the financial reports again he resigned from the Board Executive-. Eugene would tell you that we all owe him a great debt for his part in getting altitude restrictions lifted and MTOW increases. That may well be the case, hard to know his part in it. But he is certainly responsible for the parlous state RA-Aus found itself in in 2013. This was due to, in my view, four years of his mate Tizzard at the helm and decades of poor management from the Board of which he was a leading member. I could go on . . . but let's give Eugene the credit he deserves for the time, effort and goodwill but allow him to be part of the early days of RA-Aus and not part of the future. We really don't need the people who got us into this mess having any influence on the future of RA-Aus.

I thought you're not obliged to fly hemispheres until above 5,000 ft. I do fly hemis all the time above 5,000 and most of the time below 5,000 but below 5,000 it is just an advisory?

They were pretty dark days on a Board with some mega egos with scant regard to the constitution, good governance. Couldn't run a p??? up in a brewery. It wasn't hard to sound like a lone voice in the wilderness most of the time. The contrast with the present Board is night and day and will be even stronger after the elections and retirements. How good would it be to get some real talent out of Tasmania? I do hope Tasmanians are all voting - surely we don't have to put up with another 25 years of the same rep from Tassie?

Just a clarification . . . the AN reads like you need "two independent inspectors" whereas in fact Darren has confirmed to me that the intent is the person who did the work as one inspector and an independent "approved" person as the other. "Approved" means an L2 or better or a pilot with an L1 (in future all pilots will not be gifted an L1 but have to earn it as an endorsement).

Thanks Ian. I understand both your keen interest and frustration on this. Fact is there has never been enough attention given to the RA-Aus website. It was at the February 2012 Board Meeting that the Board approved the re-working of the website. As had happened in the past it took forever and while improved was still way below par. Content accuracy and currentness continues to be an issue. From the little I hear of the new CEO he is very keen to do a lot of things much better than they have been done in the past and is for once getting majority support from the Board to make the changes that are long overdue. The note from CASA is both illuminating and authoritative. That a non-LSA (RA-Aus) aircraft may be exempt from an AD is not going to affect the laws of physics when it comes to aircraft falling from the sky. Anyone who felt they were exempt would have to be pretty "brave" not to act on it. Don