Jim McDowall

Thats my point - the widows and orphans should not have standing in the same way as if I drown at the beach or go base jumping. New Zealand has laws to prevent operators of "bungee jumpers" and other extreme activities being sued. As a lobby we could ask the Government to legislate.

What do you mean "Major reason against that is the unruly content on social media over the past decade"? Debate is part of the democratic process and CASA is part of the system - public servants are fully aware that they will become from time to time the target of criticism, deserved or otherwise, just ask the planner at your local council. The purpose of debate such as the discussion we are having here is to test ideas. If the guys with Wheeler Scouts didn't throw around ideas that eventually formed into a campaign that resulted in 95.10 we wouldn't have the recreational aviation we have today. Remember they didn't have internet forums so we aren't aware of individual discussions. I agree forums can sometimes be haunted by disaffected souls who can only see the negative and take pots shots at those trying to evolve ideas but similarly some pretty impressive results have been the result of discussions on forums like this one.

Dont have a problem with third party insurance so long as the injured parties (including their relatives) are not in my aircraft - anyone who gets into a recreational aircraft is presumed to understand the risks - see the various court cases.

Andy justify why these supposed additional costs are required, what they would be and who would they be paid to. Recreational aircraft are typically flown and maintained under various exemptions. How do complying with these exemptions cost? If an experimental aircraft owned and operated by a PPL only requires a schedule 5 annual to be operated why should any other recreational aircraft be any different? As for insurance this is a valid point but only in respect of group purchasing power - there is no CASA requirement to insure aircraft

What was the court case? If recreational aviation was treated like PPL's flying experimental aircraft with dispensations similar to those applying to the smaller end of aviation in Canada it would be cost effective - remember all these organisations pre date the experimental category and LSA. It is time to re-argue the case for them not simply defend the status quo and address the inbuilt conflict in the system. The fact is other jurisdictions are able to manage this without Part 149 organisations.

Its not just aviation Nev - look at the demographics in teaching, nursing and the construction industry to name a few. We are now reaping the benefits in "short termism" bestowed upon us by the economic rationalists, a political elite and a financial system that has no moral compass.

Re: SAAA maintenance course - their website says the courses are operated on a cost recovery basis but then have a discounted schedule of course fees depending on time as a member of SAAA. If it were truly about cost recovery the price would be the same for allcomers irrespective of length of membership. Come to think about it wouldn't you discount it for new members to get them more involved and create networks (which is really what the SAAA was established to do). OF COURSE it is only about the money to keep the organisation afloat at the end of the day.

I suppose Steve Dines (and others) makes a living! Stop thinking terms of organisations and start thinking about function. Remember GA does this in this manner already.

Andy you miss the point. If there are 20 people authorised to do what RA-Aus does now there will be a competitive market. The problem I have with any organisation claiming to represent me is that we are usually presented with outcomes without genuine input from the user base. Part 149 is a case in point. There has not been any public consultation since 2007 but the RAAo's continue to negotiate mostly without feedback to members. But soon we will be presented with an outcome.

I tried the parallel path with gliding. In the end CASA used its "cost recovery" gambit that applies to all who seek C ASA authorisations and I retreated - I was not about to sign a blank cheque. Any who have read CASA's position paper on the Parallel Path would know that it is a hollow concept designed only to meet legal requirements but in reality designed to endorse to position of the existing recreational aviation bodies.

It is not only about money but while we are on the subject to be able to operate a VH registered glider costs about twice that of a VH registered experimental homebuilt if they are maintained commercially. The difference is the GFA membership, gliding club membership (you have to be a member of a club to be a member of the GFA) and their various administrative costs. Also genuine marketplaces (as distinct from the contrived "marketplaces" arising from privatisation of public utilities) serve to moderate greed. Perhaps the airline market demonstrates this well. The point really is that CASA has within its existing structure the ability to enable recreational aviation by delegating to private bodies those tasks undertaken by the RAAO's thereby avoiding the issues I outlined. If the argument is that volunteer organisations are more cost effective - generally the only volunteers are the Board members and the organisations employees really run the show.

Why the proposed Part 149 organisations are not required History of RAAO’s The first of these bodies was the GFA. It set the benchmark and CASA used the structure as a template for other bodies. Today, the GFA is withering away as it chews itself up in an amateur bureaucratic feast. There is a lesson here for all recreational aviation bodies. Unfortunately, many of those CASA employees who are driving the P149 solution are refugees from the very bodies they seek to regulate and perhaps their minds are closed to the legal constructs associated with them and thus potentially any other solutions. This is aided and abetted by the existing bodies who are concerned with their continued existence as distinct from representing the interests of their members. It may be subtle but interest in the continued existence of a organisation is not necessarily the same as the interests of the members of that organisation. Conversely can you imagine the outcry if all the private pilots of Australia were required to join a national aviation association? Associations as Part 149 organisations We are all required to join a P149 organisation to pursue our chosen field of recreational aviation by virtue of the various CAO’s. If there was not this requirement they would probably not exist. Typically these organisations are associations incorporated under various Sate statutes. The common law and in most cases, statute, the relationship between the members and the Association is that of a contract. The common law has held for centuries that a contract cannot be altered except by the agreement of both parties. This means that the rights and liabilities of the members cannot be altered without the concurrence of the membership. These rights and liabilities cannot be imposed unilaterally by an executive and or board acting alone or by an external third party unless the members delegate that authority. Associations act for the benefit of members, not for its own purpose or for an external third party. What may be good for the third party or the association as a body or its employees may not be of benefit to the members. For example, CASA may command that RA-Aus employ a minimum of 20 staff on a minimum salary of $100,000 per annum to remain a RAAO. This is clearly not beneficial to the members but of benefit to the organisation’s employees and CASA. The Moral Hazard In the main P149 organisation currently receive funding to carry out certain activities on behalf of CASA. Whilst this financial link exists the Board, charged with maintaining a financially liquid organisation whilst meeting the stringencies associated with the funding, will always have regard to this ongoing arrangement in any negotiations with CASA. In this case it is unlikely that a P149 organisation will fearlessly advocate on behalf of members. Conflict of Interest The arrangements imposed by CASA through the various CAO’s and funding agreements place the organisations in a position of conflict between their roles as advocates on behalf of the members and the role required by the CASA arrangements as regulators. For example an agreement between CASA and GFA: “D.CASA has for a number of years provided the Organisation with financial assistance for ensuring that the Members conduct Aviation Activities in accordance with the CASA Approved Procedures. This financial assistance has been limited to certain functions, but has been conditional on the Organisation performing other functions set by CASA as requirements for the continued operation of the CASA Regulatory Exemptions.” Moreover in executing the agreement GFA (“the Organisation”): “The Organisation warrants that no conflict of interest or risk of conflict of interest exists in relation to the performance of its obligations under this Deed.” Can you imagine a trade union or similar body designed to advocate on behalf of its members entering into such a deed? It is self evident that the role of a regulator is naturally conflicted with the role of an advocate, especially when a financial pipeline is attached the regulator role. CASA’s ignorance of other legislation In constructing the P149 paradigm it appears to act as though the only legislation that matters is that which CASA administers. This is not the case. Clearly the various Associations Acts must be taken into account, potentially the Corporations Act in as much as it may govern the activities of large associations acting nationwide and the Human Rights legislation by demanding membership of an organisation (the “freedom to associate” also includes the freedom not to associate) to name a few. A better way? CASA currently delegates many activities to individuals and organisations. AOPA has previously proposed a company to undertake these contracted roles for CASA. I understand that similar ideas are being examined by RA-Aus. The concept has merit. Private bodies and individuals are able to charge fees for service which are in the main determined by the market place. GA exists in this sort of environment. So why cant recreational aviation. Sure, the existing bodies may be casualties but they really only exist as a result of legislative compulsion. They would need to demonstrate their worth in the long run by showing real benefits for members. Summary Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C. S. Lewis English essayist & juvenile novelist (1898 - 1963)