Jim McDowall

This new organisation is going to be "more GA" than RAA. Until they disclose more I can only go on what they say on their Facebook page. The intention appears to be the lower end of GA, <1,500 or 7,500kg including helicopters with vague references to ultralights. I doubt they can register anything that CASA or RAA have declined to register.There is a niche market for the minimum aircraft category (mostly 95-10) and their pilots to re-form the old AUF and approach CASA for approval. There's about 200 95-10's left on the RAA register (that figure is out of date). I would suggest the easiest, cheapest way to do this is to not offer training (just recognise the RAA certificate and BFR), little technical (only accept aircraft already accepted on the RAA register), no magazine and all correspondence by electronic means (voting, info, payment), no pilot insurance and staffed by volunteers. The Ops manual can then limit usage to what they want to be restricted to - height, distance, etc.

Part 149 has been coming for nearly 20 years and still no sign of it happening with in the next 12 months. However, it has the potential to make regulation simpler and easier to know. Eliminate the exceptions and give us a firm basis for recreational aviation. Somehow, I think I might have hung up my spurs before Part 149 hits the deck.

The Commonwealth has limited powers to legislate in regard to discrimination and it is left to the States.In Victoria, the EO Act provides protection to club members as follows:

 

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 2010 - SECT 65

 

Discrimination against club members

 

A club, or a member of the committee of management or other governing body of a club, must not discriminate against a member of the club—

 

(a) by refusing, or failing to accept, the member's application for a different category or type of membership; or

 

(b) by denying or limiting access to any benefit provided by the club; or

 

© by varying the terms of membership; or

 

(d) by depriving the member of membership; or

 

(e) by subjecting the member to any other detriment.

 

This covers discrimination occurring in Victoria and it is likely other States and the ACT have similar provisions.

(a) has a licence (other than a temporary limited licence or a major event licence) to supply liquor under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 ; and

(b) operates its facilities wholly or partly from its own funds;

It would seem that this Act has no application.

The Australian Consumer Law doesn't seem to agreeRefusal to supply products or services

 

Kaz

Fee of service is the model adopted by CASA which they have delegated to the various bodies like RA-Aus. Why not another body. The member interest in the recent elections was very low (demonstrated by the number of voting papers returned) which indicates that in actual fact the vast majority of RA-Aus members are really just consumers of services - membership is simply the mode of access to the services. Consequently it would appear that who owns the "service provider" is of little interest to the consumer.In the event of a competitor to RA-Aus evolving the market will operate as any other with consumers making decisions on the basis of the perceived suitability of the "offer" as with any other purchasing decision.

My point is this. We elect members of Parliament and that election carries with it the implication that they represent their electorate. In reality, often less than 50% of the electorate voted for them. Whilst there is a presumption that the views they express are those of the political party they represent this may not always be the case and we all know this.

There have been many cases where people use their office holding to promote themselves, for example, in standing for local government or other elected postion. That they are a member of the Board of RA-Aus is simply a matter of fact. To conflate this with representing Ra-Aus is like saying that Nick Xenophon represents all South Australians.

If the Board were to decide as a group that no member of the Board should use the descriptor "Board Member" in any communication it may be a backward step as it would make them virtually invisible.

Sounds like a hypothetical question and no sensible politician would answer a hypothetical. However, as I'm not a politician, just your 'umble servant, I can advise that the answer lies in reading plain English as plain English.I can't see how starting a competitor RAO to RAAus could ever be bringing RAAus into disrepute - unless you used false statements to slag off RAAus and thereby, literally, bring RAAus into disrepute.

 

A Director of RAAus who formed or even attempted to form a competing RAO might have to look very hard as to how appropriate remaining a Director would be.

 

This is not just a theoretical exercise because a former Board Member of RAAus set out to do just that while on the Board of RAAus. He did voluntarily resign from the Board but it was not in relation to his interest in an alternative RAO.

 

I'm a strong believer that competition is a powerful agent for improvement. However, the cost and effort to set up an Administration function the size of RAAus would take, I'd estimate, an absolute minimum of $1 million and 6 months to a year before you could open your doors and accept memberships. Daunting.

"...... having regard to the nature and extent of the kinds of sport and recreational aviation activities currently administered by existing bodies, and

cognisant of the potential safety risks attendant on the approval of more than one RAAO to administer essentially the same activities, it is not unreasonable to expect that, as a matter of safety and consistent with applicable anti-competition laws, CASA

might not properly approve more than one applicant in respect of a particular sphere of activity."

In an environment where regulators should not be seen to be favouring one constituency over another, that is, seen to be facilitating competition and providing equal opportunity to all, it is breathtaking that CASA has sought to embark on this SECRET NPRM process by consulting with the existing participants to the exclusion of all else. Put simply the fox is in charge of the hen house in this process.

To illustrate how ethically and intellectually bankrupt this NPRM is, it only considered three options for consideration and all of them required that the existing RAAO model would be a requirement in future regulation. No consideration would seem to have been considered such as CASA undertaking the tasks currently undertaken by the existing RAAO's or delegations to individuals in same way as the issue of VH experimental certificates is currently done or a consolidated body to take up all the RAAO's regulatory tasks or any other model.

BTW Don, any group of people can form a body to take up memberships to lobby a particular point of view. That is how the AUF got going. The estimate of $1 million has no basis. However, it is interesting that you think that it would take 6-12 months to establish a new RAAO when CASA says in its preamble to its secret NPRM:

"CASA proposes a transition period of 18 months to ensure that industry has sufficient time to transition to these changes. CASA is presently engaged in planning the transition for all expected applicants to become ASAOs from established sport and recreational aviation groups. Expressions of interest and subsequent applications from the wider aviation community will be managed as they arise."

(Note: RAAO's are ASAO's)

Interestingly, prior to this statement CASA said:

Overall, it is CASA’s assessment that the impact of the proposed Part 149 rules will be largely borne by the existing RAAOs, in the first instance, with the requirement to develop a suitable exposition that could range from a few weeks of effort for some organisations to approximately one year for more complex organisations. (

Note: an "exposition" is the set of documents that roughly equate to RA-Aus's Operational and Technical manuals)

It is probable that RA_Aus's documents that have been approved by CASA may not be subject to copyright as they probably exist in the public domain in which case there is nothing to stop a group from using RA-Aus's CASA approved documents as the basis of their exposition to gain approval for a new organisation.

In short this RAAO model is broken for a myriad reasons and it is time CASA, the RAAO's and those who have been mandated to be members of RAAO's woke up to this an began a search for a model which, for example, means that people who are compelled to join that organisation cannot be expelled or otherwise disciplined by a body that cannot legally act as a tribunal to determine guilt or innocence.

YepRAA board member is a role or position. It isnt a title to be used as some think to add value to their name

There was zero input from RAAus and RAAus was unaware of the document until after its release.The RAAus Board Member who signed did so, no doubt meaning well but perhaps without being conscious of the implications of his mentioning that he was a Board Member of RAAus. AOPA have been asked to remove the reference to RAAus Board Member from the Eureka document.

 

The RAAus Board Member who signed the Eureka document is well supported at elections because he is a very able person with more aviation experience than perhaps anyone in Australia still flying.

The Directors will have no role, at any stage of the election process.

Under Clause 34.5, the Directors would be obliged to send that statement back to its author and ask for the statement to be revised to include details of "the skills and experience reasonably required to have oversight of the Company". Under Clause 34.5, the Directors are obliged to ensure that the statement from the candidate addresses these matters as they would have been advised when the Directors invited candidates to be nominated. A potential candidate would disqualify himself/herself if they refused to follow the election process

impression that the Constitution gives the Board the right to can say who can be a Director and who can't. That is simply not the case. Clause 34 sets the requirements and does not give the Board any discretion in the matter.

The Directors will have no role, at any stage of the election process. The rules for the process will be crystal clear and it will be the Public Officer / Company Secretary who runs the election on the rules proscribed in the By-Laws - just as happens now.

Both of those "programs" were introduced before he took the reins. Unscrambling the Jabiru omelet is going to take some very clever legal brains. And you can add the "wisdom" of the rollout of ADSB years before the USA to the list of imponderables.

He could start unscambling the omelete by repealing the current operating restrictions.

There is no member who could claim to be unreasonably refused candidacy if all they have to do is make an accurate declaration of their suitability to be a Director under the Corporations Act.

There are no statutory academic, business or other qualifications to be appointed as a director of an Australian company, either public or

proprietary. The only legal requirement is that a director must be at least 18 years of age to be appointed (sec.201B).

It is usual for a company’s constitution to state that a director need not be a shareholder,but in some companies this is a prerequisite.

Also, a constitution may specify certain other requirements to be a director.

A person can, however, be disqualified from being a director unless ASIC or the Court consents (eg an undischarged bankrupt or have been convicted of various offences such as fraud or offences under company law, such as a breach of duties as a director or insolvent trading)

Even major public companies do not have the proposed rules. Instead much reliance is placed on the commonsense of the shareholders that vote. Some despotic "democracies" have similar vetting arrangements for elections (eg Iran). Perhaps it is elitist to presume that people without formal qualifications (like Bill Gates) may not be suitable as directors.

The outgoing board should not have any role in the conduct of elections from the time nominations are called. This democracy in action and how we end up with the governance (Governments?) we deserve.

If Mr Skidmore is smart enough to recognise the conflict of interest inherent in his membership of AOPA and his position at CASA maybe some board members of CASA should resign from other organisations such as GFA (Anita Taylor) and Jeff Boyd (Regional Aviation Association of Australia and a Director of Jetfast Aviation Pty Ltd). If you want to extend this thought pattern to other areas of governance maybe most of the Reserve Bank Board should resign. The conflict of interest argument is hollow at best UNLESS you know what is in the Project Eureka document (is it a publicly available?). Clearly the document's content and public knowledge of its existence upset Mr Skidmore to the point where he felt he could no longer be a member of AOPA .

appropriateness of the DAS/CEO at CASA being a member of an organisation whose reason for being is to represent its members in opposing CASA.

Being an advocate organiation like SAAA does not necessarily equate to opposing CASA. Lobbying is about representing your clients best interests which may or may not be congruent with CASA's. In my experience if you take this sort of attitude into a discussion with a regulator you will not do as well as you might if you adopt a less passionate position.

It's the same reason you are allowed to fry recreationally.

Time to think ... How would a person spoiling for a fight look at this?

Yenn, no one is suggesting that TIF's are a problem. No one is suggesting that pilots will jump from one discipline to another without appropriate instruction. What is under discussion is the requirement to become a member of an organisation to enjoy the benefits of the relevant CAO when the regulations do not make it a requirement. See my earlier posts. I know of no other pursuit where it is compulsory to join an organisation to enjoy the benefits of government regulation eg engineers can certify structures as compliant if they are eligible for membership (ie they do not have to be members) of Engineers Australia, GP's do not have to be a member of a professional organisation to get a prescriber number and so on.

This is not anti RAAus or any other organisation it is anti CASA approving operations manuals that make it a requirement which is probably "ultra vires".

When RAAus is more an advocate and not a regulator I will probably be a more satisfied member. The EAA in the US has prospered by maintaining this position.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/drone-regulations-relaxed-for-commercial-drone-pilots-20160331-gnvqrn.htmlThere are serious issues privacy here. Being legal to overfly neighbours at 30 m or less is not ok

 

Plenty going on on farm which isnt free for all to view.

About the same time a senior police friend told me about the breach of integrity of their undercover operations when a drone was noticed hovering outside (from inside) the building in which the operations were managed.

Imagine your response if you looked out your bedroom window only to see a drone!

Ag Pilots going to love thishttp://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-01/new-drone-regulations-to-benefit-farmers/7293392

Is it CASA avoiding actual management or responsibility by exemption?

I cant agree that currency doesnt aid proficiency

Golf clubs don't administer football, basketball or hockey either, and they are all ball sports.The problem with casual activity is that it's hard to administer out in the field, and it will usually harbour those of least recency and highest risk, so the potential risk costs are expected to be paid for by the committed regulars.

Also are you suggesting that someone save us from ourselves? Some of us will be highly proficient, many of us will be average and a very small number will be reckless. As the Hempel case demonstrated amply no amount of regulation will save us from the reckless.

Nick, gliding is a good example of how organisations forget what their real role is and end up pissing a lot of people off. In fact in the early days of RA most of the members were pissed off ex-GFA members. GFA is a dying organisation - visit any gliding club and get an idea of the age profile which tells the story - there is no renewal. And then there is there endless rule making - talk to any commercial glider maintainer to get an idea of how erratic and confused their maintenance regulation is.

I am a member of the EAA in the US and it has regularly refused to get involved in the regulatory aspect of aviation, figuring that it can only be a fierce advocate for recreational aviation by not sullying its reputation by being a hand maiden of the FAA. BTW there is no Part 149 in the FAA regs and our regs are supposed to be harmonised with the US FAA.

RAAus is not the problem - the problem is a model of regulation that diffuses responsibility and that is really regulation on the cheap.

A better solution would be if all the sports aviation bodies owned an organisation that sold services (ie everything that RAAus does now) to individuals, those individuals choosing if membership of the body that is free to advocate on that branch of aviation that most interests them.

In other aspects of life most of us oppose compulsory unionism - why would you not oppose compulsory membership in this instance? Why has union membership fallen to historic lows? The recent Royal Commission has shown why people have marched away from the unions. They grew fat, greedy, lazy and forgot who they were supposed to represent.

Perhaps the Commonwealth Ombudsman can be of assistance.

The ONLY requirement that prevents complete stand alone operation in compliance with the CAR for non-RAAus members is that 1 subparagraph in the OPS manual itself.

So the point is the CAOs do NOT require membership of the RAAus ... the RAAus Ops manual does.

"4.

Do these organisations have oversight of all participants in the activity (for example,does the Gliding Federation of Australia have oversight of all gliding participants)? Do they also have oversight of non-members?

There is no legislative requirement that every person wishing to participate in an activity currently overseen by an RAAO must do so under the auspices of that RAAO. Any person who is able and willing to comply with all of the otherwise applicable provisions of the civil aviation legislation governing those activities (i.e,, those provisions of the regulations from which persons affiliated with an RAAO are exempted from complying) may do so. Alternatively, a person (or a group of persons) who is (are) able to satisfy CASA that they are capable of exercising, in respect of themselves, the full range of safety-related oversight an existing RAAO is able to provide, may qualify for recognition as a self-administering entity, along the lines reflected in the CAO Part 95-series of exemptions. In addition, CASA must be satisfied that the co-existence of two or more such ‘organisations’ (even if the latter might constitute an organisation of one person) does not of itself pose unacceptable safety risks."

There is in fact a legislative requirement for every person wishing to participate in an activity currently overseen by an RAAO must do so under the auspices of that RAAO. The CASR's provide that, in general, ultralight aircraft are “unregistered”. (If an aircraft is exempt from the CASR's then the provisions of the CASR relating to aircraft registration – Part 47- do not apply.)

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 200.025

Flying unregistered aircraft

For paragraph 20AB(1)(a) of the Act, a person is taken to hold a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform a duty that is essential to the operation of an unregistered Australian aircraft during flight time if:

(a) the person holds a pilot certificate granted by a

sport aviation body

that administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

(b) the person operates the aircraft in accordance with the

sport aviation body's

operations manual.

And further:

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 200.030

Flying unregistered aircraft--offence

A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person pilots an unregistered Australian aircraft; and

(b) a

sport aviation body

administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

© the person does not:

(i) hold a pilot certificate granted by the

sport aviation body

; and

(ii) operate the aircraft in accordance with the

sport aviation body's

operations manual.

It is not possible, for example, to hold a valid pilot certificate issued by RAA_Aus under their Operations Manual approved by CASA (see para 2.01 of the manual) without being a member of RA_Aus. (This is common to all such Manuals).

This raises an important question. If the Regulations say :

(1) the person holds a pilot certificate granted by a sport aviation body that administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

(2) the person operates the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body's operations manual.

this does not create a requirement to be a member of that organisation. The CAO's reflect this position. As such how can CASA approve an operations manual that goes beyond the requirements of the law? In effect, the CASA is permitting private organisations to make law, something no parliament should do and our parliament has not done.

Note also that the term “sports aviation body” is used. Nowhere in the legislation will you find the term Recreational Aviation Administrative Organisations (ie RAAO's). The legislation defines “sports aviation bodies” as defined in Civil Aviation Regulation 2:

"sport aviation body "

means:

(a) Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.; or

(b) the Australian Ballooning Federation Ltd; or

© the Gliding Federation of Australia; or

(d) the Hang-gliding Federation of Australia; or

(e) the Australian Parachute Federation; or

(ea) the Australian Sports Rotorcraft Association Inc; or

(f) a body established in a Contracting State to administer sport aviation in that State.

The term Recreational Aviation Administrative Organisations (ie RAAO's) is an invention of CASA without legislative support. The proposition of Alecks that CASA could approve a new RAAO neglects to mention that this will require a change in the regulations. This amplifies the scant regard that CASA has for the law. Regulations are not made by CASA.

It is worth noting the special position of the Gliding Federation Of Australia as its aircraft fleet is VH registered – in other words on the Australian Aircraft Register and the exemptions of CASR 200 have no application to gliders.

Alecks statement that “There is no legislative requirement that every person wishing to participate in an activity currently overseen by an RAAO must do so under the auspices of that RAAO.” only has application to the gliders as the exemptions (and related strictures) of CASR 200 do not apply to gliders.

Aleck is correct to this extent. CAO 95.4 contains a get out clause (5(a)(ii)) that is, in practical terms, in-operable:

5

General conditions

5.1 An aircraft to which this Order applies must not be operated except:

(a) by an individual:

(i) who is a member of the GFA; or

(ii) who has been given written approval by CASA to operate that aircraft; and

(b) in accordance with:

(i) in the case of an individual referred to in sub-subparagraph 5.1 (a) (i) — the rules, orders, directions, standards, maintenance and operational procedures contained in the GFA Operational Regulations and other applicable manuals and written directives of the GFA; or

(ii) in the case of an individual who has been given a written approval under sub-subparagraph 5.1 (a) (ii) — the conditions included in that approval; and

© by a pilot who:

(i) in the case of an individual referred to in sub-subparagraph 5.1 (a) (i) — is qualified in accordance with the standards specified in the GFA Operational Regulations, subject to the limitations which are specified in the GFA Operational Regulations as being appropriate to the qualification held by the pilot; or

(ii) in the case of an individual who has been given a written approval under sub-subparagraph 5.1 (a) (ii) — is a pilot qualified as mentioned in the approval, subject to the limitations which are specified in the approval.

I tried to get an approval from CASA. They outlined the provisions of an approval that they would give but required me to make a formal application and pay an in determinant fee. I did not proceed as their initial indication of the conditions that would be attached to an approval would have been impossible to comply with.

Tell us what you really think Mike.