Jim McDowall

Unfortunately, civil aviation regulation has potential criminal sanctions. Delegating policing of those functions to a private, largely volunteer private body is a recipe for disastrous and peverse outcomes. Any reading of CASA's investigation manual demonstrates how careful investigators have to be in assembling an investigation. Having well meaning but ill equipped amateurs carry out investigations, however preliminary, may well prejudice any CASA case that may well end up before the courts BUT more importantly may trample over the individuals rights. Many criminal cases fall over on small but important matters of process. Not everything is about risk, but having said that CASA and others have been complicit in a conspiracy to produce accident rate figures (which I am sure would agree is a measure of the success or otherwise of risk mitigation) that support their desire to hive off administration of recreational aviation. This has been a deliberate strategy over the last twenty years or more. For example, how can the GFA claim the number of hours flown that they report to BITRE when they do not even collect the hours flown from aircraft owners?(and BITRE know this) And there has been plenty of discussion on this forum about the hours flown reported by RAAus. Add to that the lack of uniformity across the ICAO nations in accident rates and classifications let alone hours flown reporting. This creates the perfect scenario where CASA can prove to old adage of "facts, figures and damned lies" to be correct. Unfortunately, no individual will be able to withstand the financial (and thus legal) might of CASA to prove a case of negligence against CASA in the circumstance where CASA's approval of a manual under part 149 (or even the current CAO's) contributed to an accident even if was the case. CASA have too much to lose. Ultimately the self regulation buck stops with the ultimate regulator as with any other form of delegation.

Except for the CASA guys too!

Points taken, but I believe an organisation can approach CASA to be added to the list of approved organisations or an alliance formed with an existing Part 147 organisation. I had forgotten about Part 43 but it seems (like so many reform proposals) CASA has too. I believe it is probable that the MPC will transition to something similar to the repairman certificate in the FAR's in the event that Part 43 becomes a reality. Anyway the silence is deafening!

Is there anyone who is willing to assist me in setting up a MPC course open to all comers for a nominal fee - no memberships just a fee for service probably delivered on-line. This is something that CASA should be doing but if they are unwilling it is up to others to do this work. Perhaps an opening for ELAAA

Bruce, my understanding is that the course is available to non-members at a higher cost. Also have a look at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019N00021

In Swain v Waverley Municipal Council [2005] HCA 4; (2005) 220 CLR 517 at 520 Gleeson CJ said: “In legal formulations of the duty and standard of care, the central concept is reasonableness. The duty is usually expressed in terms of protecting another against unreasonable risk of harm, or of some kind of harm; the standard of conduct necessary to discharge the duty is usually expressed in terms of what would be expected of a reasonable person, both as to foresight of the possibility of harm, and as to taking precautions against such harm. Life is risky. People do not expect, and are not entitled to expect, to live in a risk-free environment. The measure of careful behaviour is reasonableness, not elimination of risk. Where people are subject to a duty of care, they are to some extent their neighbours’ keepers, but they are not their neighbours’ insurers.” Turbs, in the motor racing cases you refer to, were they appealed to the High Court?

Why do you believe that you have to be a member of SAAA to work on the Lancair?

My understanding is that the duty of care can be managed if you take to ameliorate identified risks, hence the warning placard on 95.10 and experimental aircraft. CASA has sought to do this in other instances such as in the Jabiru engine mess a while back. Once a party has been made aware of the risk, a large part of their decision to continue (ie get in the plane) transfers the risk to them eg like boarding a DC10 in late 70's) Anyone can identify a risk, the follow up is how can the risk be managed and I fail to see how "tick and flick" systems can address cultural and training issues.

So that is why we have Royal Commissions into Banks and Trade Unions, Local Government is routinely found to be corrupt, ARL may well be bankrupted by legal action, NRL is in decay with clubs routinely found to be run outside the rules, CFA in Victoria and CFS in SA in conflict with its members, AFL clubs on the brink of bankruptcy, and the RSL fiasco to name a few. Add it up - hands off regulation doesn't work when members have no where to go to get effective assistance without resort to the Courts.

Actually, like any company, members are effectively powerless to bring the administration or board to account. ASIC are no help - the only way is to effect accountability is the courts on a issue by issue basis; and who cares that much?. Associations are the same. This is no way to administer aviation law.

Turbs, if CASA was playing by the ICAO rules completely all aircraft would be registered as VH. The only reason RAAus exists in this form is by way of it being recognised as a "sports aviation body" in the legislation and CASRs. Being on the VH register is unlikely to incur any liability unless the aircraft moves and then all of the rules apply, (except the CASR's from which RAAus aircraft are exempted) apart from those which the various CAO's exempt RAAus aircraft. Using liability as an excuse for not doing anything is a little bit like the current trend of labelling people as "racist" for holding a view which is different to yours. Once the flag is waved is it is hard to take it down.

Most non-corporate activities in Australia undertaking "self administration" activities do not involve potential criminal sanctions. BTW self administration has worked well in the construction industry; witness the cladding fiasco, cracking arpartment buildings and unlicensed subbies. South Africa shows the failure of "self administration" in aviation and the US demonstrates that you do not need these bodies as there is no FAA equivalent to Part 149.

Old adage which is proved consistently true: "When someone from the Government lads on your doorstep and says 'I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you' the first thing you should do is hide your wallet" Have a look at the 90 page Part 149 exposition that the NZ Aero Club prepared and tell me that it did not cost a mozza to produce (paid for by the members) and a mozza to maintain (audits etc). What is so different about the relationship between RAAus etc and CASA that requires this mountain of BS.? There is no demonstrated safety case or evidence that the paper mountain will do anything other than increase the cost to members. Remember that the current CASA subsidy to carry out their administrative functions will not be continuing - immediately cost $120,000. BTW have a look at RAANZ's safety policy - one paragraph and no mandatory dedicated safety manager is required. The inconsistency in our Part 149 is that an individual can hold a Part 149 certificate but cannot be the safety manager. Part 149 will ultimately spell the end of recreational aviation - uncontrolled recurrent cost doom any organisation to eventual failure.

It empties the organisation's bank accounts, increases costs to members, increases CASA's staff and ultimately dooms recreational aviation through greater regulation delivered by proxy and cost.

Witness the Parafield TAFE aviation saga of a year or so ago. I believe candidates had to be re-examined due to the "tick and flick" culture endemic in the TAFE system.

Turbs, surprisingly I agree with you that focusing members on an election is hard work whether its RAAus or any other assemblage which is why we have the parliaments we have today - most of the voters only vote because they have to, the rest of the time they will only whinge to their mates (or "friends on social media"). I have have previously put my hand up for election in RAAus - have you? And I offered to nominate Kasper. As for re-inventing the wheel, passive acceptance of CASA edicts has gotten Oz aviation to where it is today and I will not resile from arguing the point that recreational aviation can no longer be organised in the way is proposed under Part 149 at every opportunity.

Dont you really mean "dont let the facts get in the way of a good argument"

RAA is neither an advocate for members [Agreed as it demonstrably advocates for itself] nor a regulator of laws of the Commonwealth [bS Any reading of Part 149 and particularly the current Draft AC149 which is out for consultation clearly details enforcement. As CASA can only approve the Operations Manual if it is consistent with the laws of the Commonwealth (eg Day VFR) the Ops manual becomes subordinate legislation.] It's structure is spelled out by CASA in writing; it is a Self Administering Organization. [bS the structure is ordained by the incorporating legislation (the Corporations Act) and the rules of the organisation registered with ASIC - CASA issues a Part 149 certificate to the ASAO on the basis of an exposition that details its key personnel capacities, policies and procedures, ie its operations and technical standards. see AC149 page : "Chapter 6 - ASAO aviation administration and enforcement rules Chapter 6, comprising section 36, defines, for the purposes of regulation 149.290 of CASR, further requirements for ASAO aviation administration and enforcement rules. The requirements relate to the inclusion, in an ASAO's exposition, of processes to report to CASA7 on the: • management of safety risks arising from the overriding of a safety decision of a member of the ASAO's key personnel • notification of CASA by the ASAO, of an ASAO authorisation holder affected by an enforcement decision of the ASAO of the holder's review rights • inclusion in an ASAO's exposition of processes to notify CASA in relation to the exercise of enforcement powers and preventive, corrective, remedial or disciplinary actions taken by the ASAO." CASA does the regulating giving RAA some exemptions in return for RAA managing its [aviation related] affairs. The clause you quoted about liability is necessary in relation to the activities you mentioned because CASA administers the categories mentioned. [You missed the point - I was proposing that CASA should take over the aviation administration aspects of RAAus as has happened in South Africa] RAA is still comfortably outside that control, and so does not need to be listed in the liability statement, and the only reason more exciting developments haven't occurred is the fault of its leaders who for some years have virtually announced no new policies and have ignored the old ones like developing rag and tube and running successful fly ins. [perhaps you actually agree that RAAus should get out of the regulation business]

It doesnt matter what sort of vehicle is used (company, association etc) it will be less than suitable for the purpose for as long as it is required to be both an advocate for members and a regulator of laws of the Commonwealth ( I can spot the conflict, can anybody else?), especially when those laws may potentially have criminal sanctions. I often wonder how much CASA spends on regulating private VH aviation compared to the total cost to the community that is subject to Part 149 organisations. I suspect it is less. The RAA functions could easily be accommodated into the CASRs if under 600kg (760?) aircraft were incorporated into CASR 201.003 (my addition in red) "Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft, privately operated recreational aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things. " Together with some tweaking of maintenance regs (similar to what is now happening in Europe for aircraft upto 2700kg) and the pilot licensing similar to the UK and the need for RAAus as a regulator goes away and it can get on with advocacy and education largely free of the constraint of doing CASA's work.

This is the sort of democracy practiced in places like Iran. The editing of election statements is an abomination of process UNLESS it contains statements that if published could result in an action against RAAus (similar to the idea that Google can be sued as a publisher) in which case they should simply decline to publish. Kasper, are you prepared to publish the statement on this site?

It is incumbent ofn RAAus to produce their own online free course. The syllabus is in the regs and there is enough course material around that already meets CASA's requirements to assist in the development.

What is the choice RAA or ELAAA? Part 149 (as administered by CASA) is demonstrably anti-choice. Choice has nothing to do with safety in the case of the different treatment of EAB VH-reg and RAA aircraft. RAA (and CASA) should not be putting place requirements that are not consistent with the legislation, irrespective of how desirable it may be from an (RAA)organisation point of view. Another inconsistency. GFA VH sailplanes can be flown in controlled airspace by unlicenced pilots, any other category requires PPL or better AND can have a MTOW of 850kg with no visible means of support (ie gravity and the atmospheric movements are the only motive forces). And another; Basic med pilots have to inform passengers that they are not "medically qualified" by Avmed and yet CASA is quite happy for passengers to be lured into gliders for joy flights (thinly disguised as TIF's) with generally unlicenced personnel as PIC with no disclosure about medical certification status (which is concerning given the aged demography of the glider movement).

My point is this; bureaucracy can take a simple three letter word that everybody can understand and turn it into three words that have very little meaning that very few people understand. This is only to the benefit of those who are "in the know" and to make some simple seem complex which to my mind sums up aviation. This is why we are all parked in silos depending on aircraft categories with blatant inconsistencies across the spectrum. Nowhere is this more evident to the different treatment of EAB VH-reg and RAA aircraft when it comes to maintenance and construction.

Hey Turbs, do you know what a “motorized attendance module” is?

Here's the thing. You can build an aircraft, VH reg it as "experimental", do the SAAA MCP which is mostly about getting the paperwork right and do your own maintenance. And we all know there are many RV's are supposedly built by the people who are recorded as the builder, but in reality the watched it being built by contractors. It would seem that the real distinction in owner maintencance is the paperwork not the competentcy. The Canadian experience is that owner maintained aircraft are at least as safe as traditionally maintained aircraft - this was confirmed by the FAA. Most people are smart enough to know where capacity ends and foolhardiness begins. The level of education of the population is generally much better than regulators give people credit for. In addition if it (owner maintenance) is lawful, practitioners will be more open to seek support and advice.