Mike Borgelt

Well done, Turbo! That is about what I translate it as. Don't forget to add "We aren't allowed to tax you so we get you to be required to join private bodies who will effectively do this and of course we still get the fuel taxes you pay, so we get you TWICE. The organisations will be required to get their own liability insurance so we'll get you THREE times." In a country already renowned for badly written, crippling, high cost, aviation regulation, CASA is plumbing new lows. Won't do anything for safety either. People are so busy complying with mostly arbitrary rules that they aren't thinking about what they are doing. I suspect if there were no or very few rules and it was made very clear that YOU are totally responsible, people might be more thoughtful and careful.

It appears to be an official press release justifying a government policy. It is lies.

What a masterful piece of Newspeak and lies. Must set new standards for government lying. New regulation for sport and recreational aviation (Part 149) 16 July 2018 Sport and recreational aviation has received a new level of recognition in Australia, with the making of the first aviation regulation designed for the sector. The regulation formalises co-regulatory arrangements that have existed for many decades with sport and recreational aviation organisations, but previously only in conditional exemptions from the standard aviation rules. CASA has always been quite careful to claim the organisations were "self administering" not "self regulating" so the above is inaccurate The new Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) brings more transparency, flexibility and certainty for the sector. The sector incorporates a range of activities that cover non-standard aircraft types such as balloons, gliders, historic, experimental, ex-military and replica aircraft. Really? What it does is add another layer of complex bureaucracy on to Australia's already Byzantine aviation regulatory system with private individuals and organisations doing public servants' jobs for them. The regulatory change acknowledges the strong history of safe self-administration in sport and recreational aviation, and the popularity of sport and recreational aviation today. It also acknowledges the high performance standards of today's sport and recreational aircraft. A flat out lie. The accident record in RAAus and GFA is nothing to be proud of and as it is, is based on fabricated and grossly exaggerated hours flown. The new Part 149 regulation recognises sport and recreational aviation as a standard sector of aviation in Australia. Whoop de do! It has only been in existence for 85 years or so. If CASA wanted to recognise this sector properly it would simply call it part of private aviation. No separate recognition is required. Next steps To operate under Part 149, sport and recreational organisations need to apply for a Part 149 authorisation. CASA will work with organisations to develop their documentation, which will outline how they will safely carry out important aspects of their safety-related self-administration functions. This could include flying operations, maintenance and training and assessing. If the organisations were smart (they aren't) they would refuse to apply. There are huge onerous liabilities and duties imposed on private individuals and organisations, let alone possible legal conflict with the duties of incorporated associations under State laws. Why do public servants' jobs for them and take on liabilities that belong to CASA? We will have a situation where CASA will impose rules and the organisations will wear the responsibility and liability. CASA will shortly open a consultation on a Part 149 Manual of Standards, which will need to be in place before organisations can operate under the new ruleset. Finalising the Part 149 regulation has been a priority for CASA's regulatory program and has been developed over many years in close consultation with industry. Geez it started in 1998. All it really needed was some small changes to regulations so that they can be complied with by different types of flying vehicles. View CASR Part 149 on the Federal Register of Legislation. What a complete and utter waste of effort and money which hasn't finished yet and will go on in future ad infinitum

This may also be because word of the new EASA maintenance regs for light aircraft and gliders is leaking out. They seem quite reasonable and we are meant to be modelled on EASA rules - the old useless ones is the model we took. Story is that someone higher up in EASA looked at the old rules four or five years ago and fired the team that wrote them for writing impossible requirements. Subsequently they have had a project to make them more reasonable.

kaz, it is my understanding that they offered to do this ca 1996. When the CASA rewrite was started Boyd Munro offered to do it in 3 months. CASA has been at it for 24 years, nowhere near finished and what they have done is worthless. A bunch of totally out of control public servants. We don't need any more legislation than: Australian civil aviation shall be governed by the FARs. We can then chop the ones we don't need at leisure.

Opps sorry. Can you fix Minster to read Minister, please mr Mod? Done! (Mod)

According to a report in The Weekend Australian Minister McCormack will announce that CASA has started work on Regulations to reduce the cost and ease the burden of red tape. Mr Carmody is quoted as saying these will be based on those of leading aviation nations such as the United States We shall see. If CASA works at its usual pace this shouldn't take more than 25 years and any comments on any consultatation will just be ignored. We will end with with "reform" like the new medical non reform. I'm going to write to the Minster to suggest they simply download the applicable FAR's from the FAA website and do a global search and replace of FAR with CASR. Should take a few minutes.

The USA doesn't use maintenance releases either. They just use the logbook, which isn't the large cumbersome thing it is here.

There is a perfectly good CASA maintenance release. Is there a good reason to re-invent the wheel at the expense of the RAAus members? The GFA has done it too with their maintenance release.

Once again, having multiple systems of general aviation is so stupid it defies understanding.

My goodness, the oxygen thieves are busy keeping themselves in jobs aren't they?

How many of the 3344 aircraft are active? There are approximately 1200 gliders and motorgliders on the register and only 700 of those undergo annual inspections each year.

I note this thing expires in 2021. This useless oxygen thieves don;t even have the wit to write regs that are indefinite until replaced by one that supercedes it. Talk about job creation as they re-issue it.

How about giving the passenger a little card that say "If you don't know how to land this thing you are likely to die. Fly at own risk." One DAME I went to said after passing me: "Now don't think you won't drop dead going out through reception."

If you have had a class 2 with any condition noted that doesn't give you an unconditional Ausroads medical. Also check the fine print. CASA put a bunch of other things on the DAMPC and I can't see them doing away with them. I think the DAMPC will go away to be replaced by Basic med.

The CASA medical has not actually changed AT ALL. Basic Med also has the completely unwarranted restriction of piston engine as if that has anything to do with medical fitness particularly in light of coming electric/jet/turboprop engines and aircraft becoming available. Of course driving a vehicle of any kind on the roads puts innocent third parties and other road users at far higher risk than flying a small aircraft does in the air. Totally irrational risk analysis and a complete lack of any rational cost/benefit analysis. In other news, the Pope IS a Catholic, the sun did rise in the east this morning and bears DO go potty in the woods. Also while CASA agonises with RAAus over weight increase to 760 Kg, gliders and motorgliders which weigh up to 850 Kg , aren't necessarily maintained in an approved workshop (even for flight training), are being flown by pilots on a self declaration medical including in Class C,D and E airspace and even above 10,000 feet. I'd say the weight increase experiment has been done, as has the experiment as to whether it is a good idea to run multiple GA regulatory systems (it isn't). It doesn't matter who administers the rules, it matters what they are. .

I thought the US ultralight reg was FAR 103. It seems to work but is probably a little restrictive although you need no form of licence or training. Here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_103-7.pdf Alternatives to this would be 95.10 but without limits on kits, factory built, homebuilt etc or the UK deregulated class where the gross weight is limited to 300 Kg and the wing loading to 35 kg/sq m. The UK requires pilot training which perhaps isn't a terrible thing. Those who want to fly 95.10 type aircraft need to push for this. NO you do not need a separate organisation or any formal organisation beyond one that lobbies for reasonable rules as above. Those who wish to fly two seaters more in line with GA aircraft would be better off to push for more reasonable GA rules for aircraft below a certain weight and circumstance. No need for RAAus or GFA beyond education and encouragement. At present CASA has managed to effectively tax ultralights and gliders by requiring membership of an organisation which collects fees and memberships and may be re-imbursed by CASA for carrying out CASA functions (anyone know for sure whether RAAus and GFA get CASA funding currently? Or is this a secret?). The above arrangement could possibly be construed as a conspiracy to circumvent the law and extend CASA's reach where it has no authority.

He needs an CASA Approved Person to issue the Experimental Airworthiness Certificate not a LAME. Last time I asked CASA for a list of CASA approved parachute riggers they told me they couldn't tell me because of privacy laws. Clearly CASA are trying to make it impossible to aviate legally because not having legislative backing or indeed conflicting with other Australian laws hasn't stopped them in the past or present. This whole RAAus thing with weight increases/controlled airspace access is utter nonsense. CASA needs only to change a couple of regulations or CAOs to ease certain requirements for aircraft below a certain weight under certain conditions and the whole issue goes away

Via pprune, this is one blokes take on RAAus: "P.S. The rumor of CASA allegedly proposing to free light aircraft from the rules by consigning them to the tender ministrations of RAAOz, if true, is the most vicious proposal I have heard for a long time. It is akin to a cornered serial killer with a cellar full of captives proposing to release one of his victims in return for being allowed to kill the rest." The man surely has a way with words.

"The sooner the tech manager manages to transition to CASA the better. And the sooner the CEO considers his stint with us is long enough in his CV to move to a bigger charity the better." If be bends over far enough for CASA he might even get a position on the CASA Board. Which body has been conspicuous for its invisibility and lack of actually doing anything. I mentioned earlier that a serving GFA President went straight to the CASA Board upon resignation.

If you are stuck with 45 knot stall they are all the wrong plane. Higher wing loading aircraft are definitely easier to fly in gusty conditions. Limited weight classes are likely to be more fragile and less fatigue resistant than where the weight isn't restricted. The whole ultralight thing is unfortunate. It started with a few people flying things like single seat Skycraft Scouts (a modern re-invention of the Santos Dumont Demoiselle) south west of Sydney, quite illegally. They were mainly a danger to themselves of course but the Regulator, for whatever reason, didn't prosecute or stop the activity and so there were numerous deaths and injuries with the 300 foot height limit and in many cases zero proper flight training, construction or maintenance. I knew people who died. The Regulator has blood on its hands and many deaths on its non existent conscience, all the while sanctimoniously bleating about "safety". The alternative would have been to bring in US style Experimental which had been working well for over 20 years there and a simplified basic pilot licence with an upgrade path to a full PPL so that participants were properly exposed to the body of aviation knowledge that had been written in blood over more than 70 years.

Super Cub, there is a large difference between the USA and Australia when someone gets sued. In Australia you sue and lose and you get to pay the other party's costs. Not so much of the time in the USA. Even when ambulance chasing scumbags like Sleazoid and Grabbit say they will sue on a no win no fee basis you will find if you lose you must pay costs of the other party. If they don't offer this the first thing the they do is ask for $50,000 up front to get things going and they'll want more as required. This is a pretty powerful disincentive. The way for RAAus and GFA to avoid being sued is to not have assets or insurance up for grabs. No money here, nobody will sue. Unlikely anyway as court decisions in the last few years have gone against the plaintiffs in both gliding and powered aviation to the point that the GFA's BBL (Broad Based Liability) insurance premium went down as gliding was recognised as a dangerous sport (nobody is asking about the decades of official lies about it being safe). It sure is, as is RAAus flying and to a lesser extent, GA.

Exactly. If GFA, RAAus etc were smart they would say to CASA that we're not doing your work for you any more. You have accepted certain standards, now YOU administer them. There are advantages to all of PRIVATE aviation ( why the split of private and recreational? - it is our business WHY we fly, nobody else's.) being administered by one body with ONE consistent set of rulesand a clear chain of responsibility. This doesn't prevent slightly modified rules/airworthiness/maintenance/medical for different weight/performance categories of aircraft. Among other advantages the various branches of aviation would be able to interact more without people being forced to "join" several different administrative bodies (something that should never happen in Australia. I know it happened in Germany ca. 1933 -1945 but that isn't an example we should want to emulate). Ultralight pilots could benefit by doing spin training in GA aircraft or gliders (got be a temporary member of GFA though so that GFA's instructors can let you TOUCH THE CONTROLS otherwise this is apparently unsafe), glider pilots could benefit by doing some initial flight training in hour long chunks in a powered aircraft either GA or ultralight and safety information can be easily made available to all participants. I have a suspicion that people are being killed by the divisions created and quite a few people may want to participate in more than branch but are put off by up front costs. The bodies such as RAAus can then get on with being lobby groups, educational and promotional organisations. They might even combine into something like the United States EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) which has done a sterling job of government lobbying and safety promotion over the last 65 years and has various branches including Warbirds, aerobatics, IFR etc. I certainly don't see any great in fighting or jealousy of other groups inside the EAA.

There is nothing to stop anyone from building a Hummelbird as E-AB and VH registering it. Run the radio (and transponder if fitted) from a battery just as is done in gliders. You'll need an RPL or PPL though.

Thanks, kasper. Given that the pilot of a single engined aircraft has to be aware that the thing can turn into a not very good glider at any moment, the coroner failed to establish that the pilot was not up to carrying out a forced landing properly. Even if a little fast, while going uphill you will come to touch down a stop quickly. No need to force it on the ground. The Rotax 912 series engines are all built on the same production line I'm told by the Australian agent. The only difference is paperwork between the UL and the certified engine. So the Coroner is wrong again. Frankly there ought to be a placard in every small aircraft and glider similar to the one in Experimental AB "Abandon hope all ye who enter" or something like that. Surely having continuing vibration problems ought to be a clue something is wrong. A proper vibration survey usually done when a new type of prop is put on a known engine. Experimental AB explicitly says the operator is solely responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. CASA explicitly takes no responsibility. This ought to be extended to all recreational one and two seat aircraft and gliders along with the warning placard. Having tech manuals that are effectively law and explicit in every detail is a bad idea. They should be recommendations only of known and established safe practices.