Jim McDowall

CASA claims as to the number of participants is overblown and can only be accounted for by including a guess as to the number of model aircraft flyers who are not allowed to operate near airfields - but then they cant be counting aeromodellers as if that was the case there would be more aircraft. Leaving aside warbirds as they are VH registered aircraft not operated under the 95 series of CAO's you would be lucky to have 20,000 participants, let alone ACTIVE participants.(In the same way all the members of your local footy club don't play football). As to the claim of 360,000 parachute jumps - simply fantasy. ATSB knows that hours flown by GFA and RAAus aircraft that they report are fictitious but it suits the cosy little game that CASA, ATSB and the ASAO organisations play to support each of their agendas. No one is talking about "commercial airspace" as the majority of us fly VFR and have no desire to fly in controlled airspace. As to interacting with IFR aircraft we already do that outside of controlled airspace. This is not a REAL issue in the regulation (de-regulation?) of recreational aviation discussion.

Apparently an STC was raised for LSA55 to install 912. see https://www.casa.gov.au/files/208-1pdf

I have had my time in Canberra and am liking my life now! CASA has destroyed the aspirations of many who thought they could clean out the cupboards - just ask Dick Smith.

That's the BS that CASA perpetuates. How is it that the USA can have the multitude of operations WITHOUT anything resembling Part 149 organisations, with a higher density of operations, worse climatic extremes and a generally more challenging terrain? And they are not alone! All airspace users have to play by the same set of rules, CASA has an effective delegation system and it is not beyond the wit of a regulator to rationalise the sports and private ops arrangements. The only real challenge CASA has is its snail paced approach to aviation regulation. If they had been running the COVID response they would still be writing the NPRM on defining the disease!

Owner maintenance is now permissible in EASA land on private ops aircraft up to 2760kg. I wonder if CASA made a submission in the rule making process as all NAA's are invited to respond. If they did I wonder what it said. Mike Borgelt's point about keeping the various organisations apart is well made and typical of many bureaucratic approaches to problem solving - keep the interested parties apart to stop them presenting a unified position that may have political clout. Some may talk about liability as an issue but the CASR's already contain a provision in relation to experimental and limited category aircraft saying that "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." If it can be done for those aircraft categories it can be done for aircraft under 600, 760 or 850kg. On medicals, despite all the evidence CASA has ignored the approaches taken in the US and UK to wind back the medical requirements that have their roots in the military of days gone by. On the subject of Licencing, aside from examination of the basis principals of navigation, examination of navigation/flight planning skills should reflect the technology of the day by testing the use of Avplan or Ozrunways. Afterall, when was the last time you purchased paper maps and other required docs?

My Hummel Ultracruiser (U/L version of Hummelbird) is quite roomy and as comfortable as any glider I have flown. I am not small. Access is not as easy as a high wing aircraft can be but technique is everything.

Given that it took 30 years to bring CASR 149 to fruition don't hold your breath.

If CASA people are working from home the only weight increase is likely to be theirs!

Wasn't there a service bulletin out on Rotax motors a few years ago about Bing carby floats sinking?

I wonder what the long run experience of the SDS EFI on Jabiru engines is? see http://www.sdsefi.com/jabiru.htm

And millions of vehicles have used EFI for billions of kilometers travelled with a very low failure rate probably far better than that experienced with Bing carbys on Jabiru engines albeit when electronics stop they stop whereas carbys may just lower performance.

Well actually its the Democratic Party approach. They are the ones that want mail in voting - Trump is dead against it.

I voted - did you? However can hardly be described as a secret ballot. Here's why. The RAA process requires you to markup the ballot paper. You then place the ballot paper in an envelope and are required to write your membership number on the back of the envelope to make a valid vote. In other words it is possible to identify how a member voted - hardly a secret ballot! The correct process is to place the ballot paper into an envelope (usually marked Ballot Paper) with no distinguishing features and then place that envelope into postage envelope that identifies the voter so it can be marked off the membership roll. Then when the ballot papers arrive at the counting office the membership roll is checked, the envelope containing the ballot paper place in the ballot box and at the appointed time all the ballots are opened and counted.

It is not a matter of out thinking them or trapping them it is about democracy in action. Democracy requires a certain tension between the executive, bureaucracy, judiciary and the population in order to work. To allow one of these to act without the oversight of the others can only result in a form of anarchy. So it behooves us as participants in the process to do our part and point out inadequacies, inconsistencies, poor regulation and mismanagement when we observe it. As the saying goes: "Bad things happen when good men do nothing."

So why did the FAA report that the Canadian owner maintenance system did not produce worse outcomes than "licensed" maintenance?

No they don't. SAO's are administered by officials elected by members and their minions. The corporate entity of the SAO makes no difference to the SAO's relationship with CASA. Associations were not designed for multi-jurisdictional, large membership "controlling" bodies. And what is wrong with prescriptive legislation. As I read the CASR's etc they are prescriptive and they have real penalties. That is not to be confused with management of those prescriptions which is the enforcement policy enunciated in the Ministerial Direction of several years ago. The only problem with prescriptive regulation is that we all know where we stand, the alternative is differential enforcement of the law which is open to allegations of corruption, or locational bias (ie different enforcement according to location).

Actually it says " as in force on 1 January 1997 ". ICAO has no interest in private GA within country borders. EASA has recently recognised this by relaxing SMS requirement for GA. By using ICAO as an excuse for its (in)actions is commonly a smokescreen for its own agendas. For example, the regulations in respect of motor gliders are counter to Annex 7 of ICAO and in part are noted as exceptions in the annex. They can do stuff if they want. The carve out for motor gliders was simply to endorse the power of the GFA.

Well actually I'm talking about the law. RAA aircraft are deemed to be unregistered. 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 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. So RPC holders fly unregistered aircraft. OK but what do the Sports Aviation Branch people actually do? After several years they still haven't determined the ELAAA application and took over 3 decades to produce the piece of crap that is CASR 149.

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 1.003 Harmonisation with FARs

Licences are issued by governments or their delegates. RPC's are not issued by CASA or anybody holding a CASA delegation. Another example, I may been trained to use earthmoving equipment and issued a certificate of competence by the vendor of the equipment but unless I have the little piece of plastic issued by a government authority or its delegate and have an accident on a worksite I and my employer are done for. RAA aircraft are on a register held by RAAus. They are not on the Australian Register of Aircraft and thus, at law, they are not registered. Regional airlines operate out of many airports that are used by RAA aircraft. Have a look at the ATSB occurrence register to see the occasional interactions I doubt that this claim can be substantiated. Did you know that SA has never had a High Court Judge? Maybe SA's legal fraternity are not thought of highly enough. I hope I am not around to see this piece of bureaucratic legal thinking prove wrong in a significant case. Remember when CASA approves documents it assumes liability to some extent. GA has Compliance and Enforcement people and most of 600+kg fliers never interact with them. As for the claim that risk of collisions of aircraft will be exponentially higher without RAA type organisations, there is simply no basis for the claim.

It matters not one bit who owns the company, what matters is that the credentials it hands out meet the required standards. One only has to look at TAFE in SA to see how, despite public ownership, its aviation training credentials were suspect to say the least, as proved by CASA's actions. I would gladly pay a private company to issue my RPC in the same way as a private organisation now issues RPL/PPL's. But for some reason CASA refuses to institute the same system for RPC's. Maybe just to protect the interests of the incumbent SAO's? Maybe it is time to ask what is it that the dozen or so people in CASA's Sport Aviation Branch actually do? The question of CASA that should be asked by our parliamentarians is "why are CASA letting unlicenced pilots flying unregistered planes fly in the same airspace as our airliners?" before a mid-air between a regional airliner carrying 20 constituents and SAO registered aircraft. CASA's response to that question would be interesting and I bet it won't be "liability".

The apathy of the membership is relied upon by CASA in its SAO arrangements. It makes it easier for CASA to heavy the organisations as the they (the organisations) know that if push comes to shove and they make a stand they may find that they have no support. I find it incredible that a country with 12 times the population (USA) with magnitudes more aviation activity and a wider variety of challenges (terrain, weather etc) can have a regulatory system that does not require membership of any organisation. It is even more incredible when you discover that our regulatory system is supposed to be harmonised with the US FAA system by LAW!

And also the AT-802 L Longsword.