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

123 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. ICAO rules on registration would enable VH-R???, VH-X??? etc - we are not stuck with 3 letters following the VH. I think also South Africa has: ZS-AAA to ZS-ZZZ (type certified aircraft) ZT-RAA to ZT-RZZ (type certified rotorcraft) and ZT-TAA to ZT-TZZ (civil RPAS)[18] ZU ZU-AAA to ZU-ZZZ (non-type certified aircraft). From 1921 to 1929, G-UA. but Germany does it this way: D-AAAA to D-AZZZ for aircraft with more than 20 t MTOW D-AUAA to D-AZZZ (test registrations) for aircraft manufactured by Airbus at Finkenwerder D-BAAA to D-BZZZ for aircraft with 14–20 t MTOW D-CAAA to D-CZZZ for aircraft with 5.7–14 t MTOW D-EAAA to D-EZZZ for single-engine aircraft up to 2 t MTOW D-FAAA to D-FZZZ for single-engine aircraft from to 2–5.7 t MTOW D-GAAA to D-GZZZ for multi-engine aircraft up to 2 t MTOW D-HAAA to D-HZZZ for rotorcraft D-IAAA to D-IZZZ for multi-engine aircraft from 2–5.7 t MTOW D-KAAA to D-KZZZ for powered gliders D-LAAA to D-LZZZ for airships D-MAAA to D-MZZZ for powered ultralight aircraft D-NAAA to D-NZZZ for non-powered ultralight aircraft D-OAAA to D-OZZZ for manned free balloons D-0001 to D-9999 for gliders.
  2. Why not issue VH to RAAus - no valid reason not to - registration has nothing to do with airworthiness
  3. From Helicopter Crashes in City | Dictionary of Sydney HOME.DICTIONARYOFSYDNEY.ORG This week on 2SER Breakfast, Dictionary special guest Dr Peter Hobbins talked to Tess about a terrible accident in the centre of the city in 1966 when a helicopter crashed onto Gold Fields House at… Maybe this is the source of the regulation idea? "While the investigation into the accident had consequences for the helicopter’s American manufacturers Bell, who faced litigation that went on into the 1970s, another long term outcome was that single-engined aircraft, like small planes and helicopters, could no longer fly over built up areas like the city, which is why today you see them flying along Sydney’s waterways like the harbour or rivers. "
  4. Jim McDowall

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    Yes. Under the Deed of Agreement with CASA, RAAus receives in excess of $100,000 from CASA. The link on the website to this agreement seems to be broken. It is uncertain if RAAus will receive any funds from CASA under the Part 149 arrangements due to the operation of Sec 97AB of the Act which CASA has been ignoring for years.
  5. Try this link: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774750/asd_53_nov_67.pdf
  6. 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.
  7. Jim McDowall

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    As usual Turbs you missed the point
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. Jim McDowall

    Alternate organisation...deafening silence

    Actually the Government can put a genie back in the bottle - remember ATSIC?
  12. 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.
  13. Does anyone know if CASA was actually called back before the committee as foreshadowed towards the end of their Nov 19 appearance?
  14. 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?
  15. 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......................