Jim McDowall

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.

I had a look over the Parafield Master plan and the majority of the noise above "permissible" levels is over the airport and the industrial area to the east. If any houses are affected they are probably in an industrial zone and those poor bastards are probably copping complaints as well. Some people are never satisfied - even though they end up sitting on their front verandah in their bogan couches complaining that there are no jobs.

The good news is that aircraft noise is specifically exempted from the South Australian Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016.

In the liberated stated of South Australia flying was never illegal, unlike that place called Danistan

From SA EPA fact sheet: Noise from domestic premises can include music and party noise, band and drum practice, trail bikes, revving motor vehicles, hammering, and other non-mechanical construction noise. When it interferes with the enjoyment of an area by any person living in or otherwise using it, the noise becomes environmental harm. Due to the nature of these incidents they do not require a noise measurement and can be subjectively assessed by an authorised officer taking into account the time of day and background noise level. SA Police are authorised officers for the purpose of making subjective assessments and in many instances, subject to work priorities, can make this assessment especially if the noise is occurring during the evening, night or early morning. If the complaint is about a machine for which maximum permissible noise levels and times for use have been set, noise levels will need to be measured by an authorised officer. The SA Police will only undertake subjective noise assessments. Clearly un-enforced

I live on the eastern flight path into Parafield and the lack of traffic has been really noticeable since March. My late mother in law lived on the western approach and enjoyed seeing the aircraft fly over, particularly at night - she found it somehow comforting that all was well in the air (world).

NZ is different because it is so small they are probably all related!

Same problem exists in SA's Country Fire Service which is top heavy with ex-defence types - lots of new toys and tech to play firefighter with, but no attention paid to the basics - ignition + fuel = fire. Roadside vegetation must be sacred as nothing is ever done to reduce fuel load on roadsides but this is where 50% of the fires start.

As their (CASA's) primary focus is safety and safety is such an indefinite term - it can mean different things to different people - any regulation can be made and justified on the basis of "safety". Just look at the way OHS has invaded our schools in ways that my childhood pursuits would be unrecognisable to todays schoolchildren. Ball sports on asphalt - banned, teachers unwilling to run afterschool sports because of the "risks" - to them , not the kids. Question is "how safe is safe?" and when the people making the rules are rarely practitioners or think making rules will solve a perceived problem, we get what we've got.

Most VH private fliers have very little or no contact with CASA. They pay no annual licence or membership fees and annuals can be modest. Granted the maintenance concessions(?) may have to carried over but EASA now has owner maintenance for private ops aircraft upto 2760kg and the Canadians have had owner maintenance for a couple of decades without any identifiable issues. The drivers licence medical is still an issue but the international evidence is that a Class 2 medical proves nothing - they have room to move - they have to explain to Avmed and their accredited practitioners that they are no longer needed, at least not for Class 2 meds. It is important to remember that we all fly in the same airspace and that the majority of the aircraft operated under RAAus are as capable as any bottom end VH aircraft (eg C150,172, PA140/160 etc.). RAAus flight training has been recognised as sufficient to enable RAAus pilots to transition to a RPL licence with a flight review and take their endorsements with the transition. It is also true that CASA approves the operations, technical and other manuals. These manuals are a distillation of the aviation law as it applies to RAAus operators and aircraft. In effect they are CASA's manuals. The truth is that CASA uses RAAus as its proxy and imposes an un-necessary cost burden on the members of RAAus.

Lets face it RAAus would not exist without the CAO requirement that we have to be members of RAAus to fly. Time to follow the South Africans and bring recreational flying back under CASA's control. As Jonathon Aleck said in the RRAT estimates hearing on Tuesday, CASA can direct RAAus to do things which means that the facade of RAAus is just administration by CASA - RAAus directors cannot act unfettered if CASA can tell them what to do.

No one is saying that these organisations do not represent professional competent people. But the organisations are formed to represent the interests of their members like any other union or business group. As a result they highlight issues that favour their members interests, for example EA regularly produces reports highlighting the chronic underspend on infrastructure. The obvious direct beneficiaries of any increase in infrastructure spending are engineers in the first instance. Anybody with half a brain who moves outside their immediate comfort zone knows that there has been an underspend on infrastructure for over half a century - it hardly needs EA to produce a report to quantify the estimated value of the underspend. This may have the effect of making the pollies go down their burrows and look for cheaper, softer social spends that may keep their constituents away from their doors. They dont like people complaining about the state of the roads etc as individually the pollies are mostly powerless.

It seems that the announcement was poorly written. I (as did our friend tillmanr) read it and thought that there were 606 valid votes out of 1159 cast. Two things arise - if there were two votes per ballot how is it that there were 53 less votes than 606 x 2? And why is there no statement as to the number of ballots received and number of informals? Plus it was not a secret vote - but that's another story.

I think an analysis of the reasons for invalid votes should be presented to members so that this level of invalidity can hopefully be avoided in the future.

After watching CASA at the RRAT Estimates Committee hearing yesterday, the smug attitude of Carmody and Aleck towards the committee would seem to indicate that they think that CASA is not in crisis apart from constantly complaining that their fuel tax revenue was drastically down - no doubt a pitch for a bail out.

Where is it written that we have to display the rego certificate? I have checked the Ops and Tech manuals and could not find the requirement.

It seems that Airbus is looking for a new way to crash aircraft. Their track record on complex systems is not great. That said, interesting concept - maybe I will try it on the Jab!

Cabin width M20J 43.5" Cabin width Comanche 250 45" Cabin width C182 42"

I think the video fish eye view gives a distorted idea as to the cockpit. I believe Electroair has an STC for electronic ignition.

Why has no-one mentioned a Mooney?

Not at all. Involving CASA staff in the re-organisation or revitalisation of CASA may just be like letting the foxes run the hen house. It has shown itself to be resistant to change over the decades, and much of this is due to the lack of inertia within the organisation. You can't lay all the blame at the feet of the executives if their hands are tied by the industrial relations framework they have to work with. As long as GA (in all its forms) is regarded as a poor cousin of the airline industry by those within CASA because it is not as sexy and there is no real potential of migrating your career to a high paying stable job in GA, GA - especially private ops - will always be left at the bottom of the IN tray. Witness the two decades that it took the promulgate Part 149, Part 91, the Part 61 debacle...........

No more than any other union or "peak" body. The line on the bottom of page 10 of the report says it all: "This publication is for non-commercial use within Professionals Australia and its members." In other words, it is a marketing document designed to garner support membership within CASA's staff.

Professionals Australia is just another union seeking to enhance the pay and number of jobs for its members. From its website: Welcome to Professionals Australia We are a network of 25,000 Australian professionals working together for a better future for all our members. We want to make sure Australian professionals get the respect, recognition and reward we deserve. Engineers Australia rolls out the same sort of stuff regularly highlighting the infrastructure underspend. Such a document should be disregarded as the organisation is clearly batting for its members and seeking to recruit new members through its advocacy. A report commissioned by Government and authored by a properly credentialed firm would have more credibility.

It is my understanding that ATSB sometimes investigates GA accidents and makes recommendations to CASA for their consideration. This arrangement diffuses responsibility and keeps the blood of CASA's hands (so to speak). So the question is what do 900 employees actually do? especially those in the sports aviation branch.