Jump to content

Jim McDowall

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jim McDowall last won the day on September 22

Jim McDowall had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

120 Excellent

About Jim McDowall

  • Rank
    Well-Known Member

More Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jim McDowall

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    My point is this - RAAus is a company - when does variation of the rights of an individual member become a fraud on a minority? Similarly, the GFA's policies do not meet the requirements of the Victorian Association law - nor do the respective policies mirror the CASA MOS for enforcement. These corporate structures were not designed for this purpose. Governments of all types deals with public liability in the ordinary course of business. For example, your local council does not stop people playing football on a council oval just because someone may be hurt. The CASR's specifically take CASA of the hook in respect of experimental aircraft (CASR 201.003) - 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. Solution is make every RAAus aircraft an experimental aircraft! Telling me to come to grips with an administrative position is not how democracy works - just watch how GetUp and Greenpeace work and the public/politician response. Turbs, I know your are hung up on liability but when was the last incident involving a member of the public who was not in the RAAus aircraft? As you will know courts have determined that if you get into a glider or RAAus aircraft you know that you are undertaking a potentially dangerous activity and no one else is to blame but you if it all goes pear shaped.
  2. Jim McDowall

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    As usual Turbs you missed the point
  3. Jim McDowall

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    The problem with the whole Part 149 thing is that at no stage has the legal capacity of the SAO's to play the role that CASA and some of the SAO's want to play ever been properly examined, particularly in respect of modification of members rights, either individually or as a group by the organisation concerned. BTW from April 1 next year the South African CAA will have absorbed the South African equivalent of RAAus back into its structure and within its absolute control.
  4. Jim McDowall

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    The liability argument is an absolute furphy! CASA is not at arms length from government in legal liability terms. Any decent legal attack on CASA would prove that once and for all.
  5. Jim McDowall

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    Have a look at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG and jog your memory AND the biggy - the infamous Defence Materiel Organisation that presided over the waste of billions of taxpayer dollars
  6. Jim McDowall

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    Actually the Government can put a genie back in the bottle - remember ATSIC?
  7. Jim McDowall

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    Plain fact of the matter is that they (CASA) do not want more than one SAO for each rec aviation sector - see discussion docs as part of Part 149 NPRM. This has been policy since about 2004. Watch the video of CASA at the RRaT hearing a few weeks ago and see how they proposed to suck AOPA into this vortex of doom.
  8. Does anyone know if CASA was actually called back before the committee as foreshadowed towards the end of their Nov 19 appearance?
  9. In any event CASA may have been outside its powers for the registration audit. The CAO says that an aircraft must be registered with RAAus. The agreement of the day gave no audit powers to CASA so how was it that RAAus let them conduct the audit? Remember RAAus is a private body holding no delegations etc so where did CASA get its power to audit apart from a bureaucratic over-reach?
  10. Were the audit failures about the registered characteristics of the subject aircraft or actual defects picked up on inspection of the aircraft? My recollection was that the audit turned up RAAus system failures not actual airworthiness issues. But I could be wrong......................
  11. In the US holders with sport pilot licences (RAAus equivalent ie drivers licence medical) with appropriate endorsements can fly in properly equipped aircraft in Class B airspace which includes the airspace around all the major international airports like LAX (which has 5 VFR transit routes that I understand do not require ATC clearance below 10,000 feet). It may also be that US training is more rigorous. That given, the argument about collisions would seem to baseless)
  12. Pardon my ignorance but what is the role of RAAus in the management and operation of CTA? The pilots who want a CTA endorsement will pay for it just like every other endorsement.
  13. Jim McDowall

    Small Flying Schools

    Isn't it amazing the number of grass fires started by "angle grinders" or people who are unaware of their surroundings!
  14. Jim McDowall

    Small Flying Schools

    I am reading the graph correctly? It seems that Mining and Public administration and safety experience roughly the same proportion of worker fatalities. Clearly the safety business aint safe!
  15. Jim McDowall

    RAAus to disclose member details

    As a "contracted service provider" to the Commonwealth, Raaus is quite possibly in breach of the Privacy Act The RAAus Privacy Policy say: 5.3.Use and disclosure of personal information RAAus will only use and/or disclose personal information for the purposes for which it was collected (the primary purpose), unless an individual has consented to another use [APP 6]. There are certain limited circumstances in which RAAus may use or disclose information for a different purpose (a secondary purpose) without consent, such as where the secondary purpose is: • directly related to the primary purpose for which the information was collected • required or authorised under an Australian law or has been ordered by a court or tribunal • necessary to lessen or prevent an immediate and serious threat to the life, safety of air navigation, health or safety of any individual, or public health or safety • to facilitate the investigation of an occurrence involving an RAAus registered aircraft and the death or serious injury of one or more persons • a permitted general situation or health situation, as defined by the Privacy Act; or •an enforcement related activity and the use or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary. If RAAus uses or discloses personal information for a purpose other than what it was originally collected for, RAAus will keep a written notice of that use or disclosure as required by the APPs. Clearly the "primary Purpose" is the purpose for which it was originally collected and the envisaged "secondary use does not include passing it on to a third party private company without specific consent.