Jim McDowall

On 13/12/2020 at 12:28 PM, kgwilson said:

I suspect like most American corporate deals it was all about price over capability.

Or perhaps, political influence? After all it is said that Earl Mountbatten influenced the Australian Govt to purchase the F111 over the TSR2 thus assisting in the killing off of the TSR project. These things happen.

or be open with the council in the negotiation process and get their permission in writing - preferably with a DA which is a condition of the land contract

Put on my old estimators hat, made a few phone calls and the cost (using all subbies) for a 125mm steel fibre reinforced slab with 300Wx 450D edge strip is about $90/m2. This depends on ground conditions, local contracting and concrete rates. A steel fibre reinforced slab is structurally the same as a 150mm traditionally reinforced slab which should be more than sufficient for the job unless you plan on installing compactuses or heavy machinery. BTW steel fibre reinforced slab is what is used on B1 hangars in Georgia.

Instead of traditional steel reo look at using steel or plastic fibres (see https://fibercon.com.au/products/slabs/sfrc-floor-slabs/ for example).

As a rough rule of thumb concrete is about equal to the steel cost.

Maybe the existence of the PL insurance gave rise to the court action.

It is noteworthy that despite the "trauma" the girl experienced she has ridden on ferris wheels again - she was old enough to refuse. Was her brother not traumatised as well? Did he also take action?

This verdict should be appealed by the Council as long run Councils have more to lose.

Also, the damages awarded were against the Council and the pilot - how was it split?

2 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Now what should we make of that?

That he is not myopic and maybe open to change.

CASA is undoubtedly an agency as defined by the Act:

agency means:

                    (c)  a body (whether incorporated or not), or a tribunal, established or appointed for a public purpose by or under a Commonwealth enactment, not being:

                              (i)  an incorporated company, society or association; or

                             (ii)  an organisation that is registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 or a branch of such an organisation; or

                     (d)  a body established or appointed by the Governor‑General, or by a Minister, otherwise than by or under a Commonwealth enactment; or

As to the terms of the contract, as members we have no idea what is in the agreement with CASA but maintaining the aircraft register, administering aviation safety and other legislation etc must surely be undertaking a service on behalf of CASA

1 hour ago, kasper said:

I note that the turnover for the 2018/19 year exceeded $3m

My understanding is that because RAAus has a contractual relationship with CASA, a government agency, there is no minimum turnover threshold. The Privacy Act has always applied. See 

contracted service provider, for a government contract, means:

                     (a)  an organisation that is or was a party to the government contract and that is or was responsible for the provision of services to an agency or a State or Territory authority under the government contract; or

                     (b)  a subcontractor for the government contract.

The agreement with CASA to provide certain services in return for a paltry sum clearly makes RAAus a "contracted service provider"

It used to be "If it ain't Boeing I'm not going", now I'm just no going!

59 minutes ago, Yenn said:

A GA BFR is accepted by RAAus and that is what I use, but unless I have an RAAus pilot certificate and am also a subscriber to RAAus I cannot fly an RAAus reg plane. RAAus also recognise a valid GA medical.

The only requirement of the CAO's is that the person seeking the benefit of the exemptions is a member of RAAus. When you sign up to RAAus you agree to abide by their rules. Members (or if you wish subscribers) can change the rules by a majority of members voting to change the rules (usually at an AGM).

So for example we could propose a motion that requires a change to the Ops Manual so that following a check flight a member who holds a GA licence has all the privileges of a RPC holder including any applicable endorsements. (ie GA=RPC) There maybe a limitation for example, exclusion of low momemtum aircraft (eg 95.10 aircraft) which caused many of the problems for experienced pilots in the early ultralight days.

The issue of membership is more problematic. But already there are different classes of membership, including free trial memberships. All that is needed is a proposal that meets the CAO requirements of membership and RAAus's membership costs.

20 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Out of the 12,000 RAA members, very few would be flying GA, and I would think the same small number in GA

Probably not true. At least 25% of my RAAus acquaintances hold GA licences. Facts are required, not supposition.

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

How do we get to fly GA and RAAus aircraft with less bull. How should the legislation be worded to allow someone to fly both aircraft types.

Al that is required is a change to the operations manual. I believe that a GA BFR is already accepted by RAAus as a valid BFR for their purposes.

9 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

This makes two of you saying this.

 

Just to clear this up, here is the list, taken from the CASA site at 08:55 this morning.

 

 

 

 

Depends what oversight means in reality. Does holding and authorisation constitute oversight? If so, we all are subject to CASA's oversight.

8 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Well you better tell CASA they made a mistake then because CASA specifically list Sport Aircraft Association of Australia as a Self Administering Organisation.

This is the way the legislation works.

A sport aviation body (defined under CASR 202.900 but not defined in CAR 2.1 as claimed in CASR 21.192) may become an ASAO. These and other bodies may become an ASAO by application under CASR 149.

SAAA some time ago declined to become an ASAO.

However, like every other private incorporated body they are by defintion "self administering". This is yet another example of CASA distorting the language to confuse.

8 hours ago, turboplanner said:

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but it does indicate you might be exposed to liability you're not aware of.

This is why well meaning people often find themselves in difficult legal situations trying to "give back" to their communities by participating in the management of associations, particularly those with full time employees. They are often unaware of the legal minefields that apply to all organisations, particularly in the areas of employment law. 

10 hours ago, jackc said:

 Jeez....all this, all I wanted was a rego card for my plane 🙂. 

But you do not need to have one - RAAus says so.

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

other than the difference between phoning RAA or ATSB

They phone the ATSB who calls in the RAA which is well down the line from "first response" which is to assist victims the secure the site.

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

That could have also been a reason, but in what I posted, I was directly involved, our Federal Administrator was based in Adelaide, and I was speaking directly to the Victorian minister for Sport, and he was the one who had just returned from a national conference, I think in Perth, and he was the one who told me about the kindergarten and how he was offloading risk in his Department, and the the Victorian Department of Labour and Industry was about to be shut down and replaced by self administration.

 

Ministers in my experience are more keenly tuned to political risk than, financial or long run legal risk. 

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

They could be if they were negligent then

Negligence in an administrative act is hard to prove and very costly to litigate. Govenments are very adept at losing critical pieces of evidence, delaying procedures and generally frustrating litigants.

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

If Transponders, or other identifiers are fitted to all aircraft I would agree,

However, at the present time, if an incident is noticed the first responder clearly knows it's a Recreational Aircraft or GA Aircraft for contact purposes.

None of that has anything to do with registration. It makes not a bit difference to a "first responder"  on whose register the aircraft is noted.

32 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

They could if there's a mistake was made.

There needs to be negligence, not merely a "mistake".

24 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

thereby removing themselves as soft targets

No, the reason they got into de-regulation was to minimise the growth of the public service, and their ever growing unfunded superannuation commitment. The world has moved on since the Hillmer report and many of its promised benefits has un-intended consequences that we are all living with today.

27 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

VH Registration is just a number.

My point exactly which is why ALL aircraft should be on the one, central register.

13 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Personally, if I owned a Drifter or Thruster or other low performance aircraft I would be getting alarmed at some of the more recent discussions which seem to be aimed at supporting heavier, faster aircraft or somehow movingg into CASA.

Actually I built and still own a 95.10 aircraft and would have no problem with CASA doing the work parliament gave it the powers and resources to do, and removing the un-necessary intermediary. CASA can do everything that RAAus does within its existing systems (delegations and authorisations) whilst maintaining the informality of the sector. Isn't that what ELAAA were trying to achieve?

14 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

You're still, after all this time looking at this from the inside of the tennis ball.

NO! I'm reading the regulation:

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 201.003

Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases

             (1)  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 or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things.

             (2)  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, CASA exercising powers to conduct tests under regulation 139.135, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to those powers.

15 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

You can't deny liability for something you administer

It seems as though they have so long as the act or omission of CASA IS done or made in good faith. (IS added)

Also in a number cases concerning the operation of ASAO aircraft, CASA has been found to have no liability for negligence.

If the Government was at all concerned about liability in these matters it would not allow VH registered gliders, maintained by unlicenced people to be flown by un-licenced pilots.

As a corollary, isn't it true that motor vehicles today are manufactured by firms to a standard, independently(?) certified by engineers not required to be members of any organisation? Thousands of people are killed and maimed on Australian roads each year and yet no one attaches any liability to the government for its administration of the ADR's.

19 hours ago, kasper said:

I doubt CASA want to move the VH-XXXX to allow up to 450,000

Germany has a system that registers gliders as D-9999, and we already make radio calls as Jabiru 9999, I can't see any issue with VH-9999.

19 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Not going to happen because CASA would be nuts to take on public liability for 12,000 people and their 3500 sub-spec# aircraft with sub - spec# training,

CASA already denies liability for experimental and limited category aircraft (CASR 200.???). Most of the 3500 aircraft are designed to a spec (CS-VLA, ATSM etc) which are generally manufactured in some sort of approved facility. The 1700 or so experimental aircraft on the VH register could also be considered "sub spec" on your basis Turbs.

And don't forget CASA approves the ops and tech manuals. If they were considered "sub standard" or produce sub standard outcomes CASA would be negligent to approve them. In reality, RPC's are really licences that CASA does not want to administer.

This whole "outside the CASA system" is really a piece of bureaucratic mythology. If it wasn't, you would not be able to migrate from a RPC to a RPL with  only a flight review and take all the RPC endorsements with you to the RPL.

It beggars belief that ALL Australian aircraft are not recorded on the Australian Aircraft Register operated by CASA. Registration is not an airworthiness indicator. The CAO requires that RAA aircraft are recorded on a register. This happens once and is only changed when ownership changes or is removed from the register (does this happen?). A few keystrokes by a low paid employee.

This annual registration scam is a hangover from the model created by/for GFA and only illustrates in a small way why CASA should be instructed by parliament to treat ALL aircraft in the same way and to stop subcontracting THEIR aviation administration to private, volunteer bodies that pass on the costs to their members who are forced by law to be members in order to conduct aviation activities within the law.

It is time that CASA realised that the population at large is better educated than they were in WW2, and will act responsibly (as the majority of VH people do) if allowed to; they do not need to be "managed" by well meaning amateurs. The "ultralight/microlight" movement has evolved since the days of the Wheeler Scout and Thruster. The majority of our aircraft are as capable as the smaller Cessna or Pipers and built to known standards.

After all about 10% of the VH register were not built to type certificates - the experimental "homebuilts". 

There is no good reason that RAAus aircraft should not be on the CASA register on the same terms as VH aircraft as they are in most of the civilised world.