kaz3g Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 What a load of codswollop this was a raa trained pilot in an ultralight aircraft registed or not of cource it should be investigated and acted apon by raa, just because they changed the name does not change the fact that this was an ultralight aircraft.Licence or not he should be made face the laws of our sport [remember when raa was called :shock horror: Australian ultralight federation you know ULTRALIGHTS not cheap regulation dodging plastic cessnas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hi Bull I have no doubt whatsoever that he will have to answer for any offences that are supported by the evidence which appears compelling on its face. If you go back over the earlier posts on this topic I think you will find that the question of jurisdiction has already been discussed. In a nutshell, the primary investigators on this occasion are the police who will consider common law and criminal code offences, and the CASA invstigations people who will consider offences under the CAA and Regs. If the reports are correct, the pilot had no licence and the aircraft wasn't registered... those are matters where CASA and the Commonwealth DPP will make the decision as to prosecution. kaz 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 So how is he can fly around unregistered/unlicenced and no one says anything? Hi FT No-one has checked my rego in the last 4 years that I know of and neither has anyone actually checked my licence. I haven't had to produce it for my BFR/AFR's as the notations are made in my logbook. But I guess I haven't done anything to attract untoward attention to myself, either. Frankly, I don't want to have CASA "police" hassling me at checkpoints, etc and taking up my time that I'd rather spend enjoying myself. But, if I became aware of someone flying around unregistered/unlicensed you can be sure I'd both know who to call and that I would make that call. I value the privilege too much to put it at risk because of the actions of some bunny who might be occupying the same airspace as me. kaz 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMcK Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Possibly because no one else new.Alan. Hi Alan, We are aware we had a problem here. Apart from deliberate action to not register, we also had issues with unintended lapse of registration. People change address and don't inform the office, occasionally AP loses mail, and sometimes people get the renewal and the follow up, but just forget. To help overcome these issues we introduced car type rego. stickers that are dated and must be displayed in a position viewable from outside the aircraft. But just as some people drive around in unregistered cars, and without a licence, there will be those who do similar actions in aviation. That is life. Thankfully it is much rarer in Aviation. Cheers John McK 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Thanks John. I know you and a dedicated group are in there trying to keep the show on the road . To some of the others I say it is dead easy to sit there and think you have all of the good ideas and never actually take any responsibility for what happens, and just criticise. If you think your wisdom is of value communicate it to your reps instead of sitting in judgement of what they do on your behalf. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 John Thanks for being engaged, I agree with your positions stated. Can I ask however, a claim made above relating to the rise and rise of the faster heavier aircraft that a lot of RAA time and expense has been spent chasing the:- 1) increase in MTOW 2) Access to CTA, 3) pressumably administering a more diverse fleet My Question of you is, has a great deal of time and expense been incurred on 1) and 2), and I can see that 3) must add to the cost, but then the cost is aportioned across a much larger fleet recovery basis. So, has 1) 2) and 3) on balance made life for the early rag and tube brigade more costly and expensive as inferred? Secondly has the rag and tube aviator lost anything as a result of the evolution of RAA to cover a much larger membership base and a more diverse fleet that you are aware of? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I can't believe that no one checks on anything, I am not in favour of CASA police force but it seems like a giant honour box is open to a lot of abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 mybe something like a rego board at active raa fields to remind people of due times and allow others to see who is and isnt legal??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMcK Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 JohnThanks for being engaged, I agree with your positions stated. Can I ask however, a claim made above relating to the rise and rise of the faster heavier aircraft that a lot of RAA time and expense has been spent chasing the:- 1) increase in MTOW 2) Access to CTA, 3) pressumably administering a more diverse fleet My Question of you is, has a great deal of time and expense been incurred on 1) and 2), and I can see that 3) must add to the cost, but then the cost is aportioned across a much larger fleet recovery basis. So, has 1) 2) and 3) on balance made life for the early rag and tube brigade more costly and expensive as inferred? Secondly has the rag and tube aviator lost anything as a result of the evolution of RAA to cover a much larger membership base and a more diverse fleet that you are aware of? Andy Andy there are 13 Board members each with different views, sometimes there is an imbalance, (from memory, at one time 10 of the 13 were instructors.) Currently there appears to be a good balance. But you are the guys who elect us. You guys, the general membership, choose the composition of the Board. If the majority of the Board fly expensive plastic there will naturally be a bias towards that end of aviation, and if all are rag and tube the bias will be towards that end. The hope is you get a Board who will put personal bias aside and work for the betterment of all Rec. Aviation. Re your questions. Time yes, but expense, not really. Some in the past pushed hard for 760 kg as a natural progression and growth path, but currently most are now happy with 600kg. As we grow 760kg will most probably come back. Who knows in 100 years time we may have 5,000kg and multi engine miniature turbines, perhaps even Mach 2 approvals. And our 10 million members will have even more differences of opinion. CTA itself is not a priority at the moment, but transition approval is. (On safety grounds. Eg Coffs, M.Dor, Coolie etc) Those who really want CTA should get a PPL, and with a current medical, and approved engine can fly numbered aircraft into CTA right now. One thing you need to understand is human nature of those in power. It is a fact of life that money and numbers "talk". 10,000 odd members gives far more serious leverage than, say 200. Also you have economies of scale. There are fixed costs that must be met and these get cheaper on a unit basis as the numbers increase. Also with a large membership we are not only able to get good deals like insurance, but able to better fight those who wish to do us harm. Do you think councils would dare shut down those recent airfields if a vote swinging number of vocal pilots lived in the electorate? If we had 500,000 members across Australia right now we could shift the balance of power and vote out those pollies who would do us harm. Re the rag and tube. I am one of those, and believe we have advanced for the better. Remember it was not all that long ago where we were restricted to a maximum height of 300 feet and couldn't fly across a road. It was also forbidden to have 2 seat training aircraft. The instructor talked through the flight process and sent the student off solo to practice. No wonder we had a high fatality rate. Here came "civil disobedience" with condoned direct flouting of the rules and illegal dual instruction to reduce the death rate. Not too many would want to go back to that. As we grow I do see a stage where perhaps we will have sufficient numbers to form sub groups. Eg, Real ultralights, perhaps seaplanes, and of course weight shift. They would look after their own kind and come together under one umbrella. But you are the guys who will make these decisions, not us. That is something many on this site seem to forget. You have an opinion and a vote. Use it and make it count. Vote for those who will not only represent the views of the majority, but look after the minorities as well. It is your call. Cheers, John McK 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 FT I think you've been pretty well summed up, but the report only stated the person flew from Holbrook, and in rural terms that could mean the town airstrip but also the district and that could include farm paddocks as far as 30 km away. bull, don't get too excited, there are 9600 RAA members and this is one case. That's .01%!, well below the 5% bad eggs you usually get in all forms of society, With a penalty of two years imprisonment for flying without a certificate and two years imprisonment for flying without registration, there won't be too many people who forget next year. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Thanks Turbo ,Iwasn,t getting excited ,just concerned this would be swept under the carpet which would give our sport zero credability and more fuel for the media .........................................To John thank you for the open frank answers and honesty .i will drop in to boonah to say hi sometime soon thanks. Turbo holbrook is a fairly active ultralight area maybe we should look at nominated club members at active fields to monitor rego/licence compliance at active fields with friendly reminders of rego /licence renewals bfrs and such??? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 bull, there's no evidence so far that he flies from the airfield, or is part of the club. There is plenty of warning and disincentive just from the realisation that you can finish up in prison if you don't make sure you have a current licence and registration, and I would imagine every club in Australia, both RA and GA would have started to put warnings up on notice boards and in newsletters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I can't believe that no one checks on anything, I am not in favour of CASA police force but it seems like a giant honour box is open to a lot of abuse. FT, It is no different in GA, the only way you get caught in GA or RAA is when you get a ramp check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Many Thanks John. Great post. However has this thread gone a little off topic? Shouldn't most of this be in the new forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 CASA are definitely 'on the case' - witness list of over 30 to interview, and some of those also have (phone) video additional to that which we've already seen. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-10/casa-to-quiz-ultralight-crash-witnesses/3765882/?site=goulburnmurray§ion=news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 It seems like when dealing with the government it requires someone to die before there is any action. CASA seems to have the attitude is "if you want to kill yourself in an ultralight/GA, go ahead" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 It seems like when dealing with the government it requires someone to die before there is any action. CASA seems to have the attitude is "if you want to kill yourself in an ultralight/GA, go ahead" That is an interesting perspective mate, I read it that CASA have written all the regulations around aviation on the basis of 'strict liability' which means they do NOT have to establish your intent to breach and they have set the penalties very high. Like any law anywhere you have both an obligation to comply and a choice. Make the choice to NOT comply and the penalties are severe. They cannot be everywhere for surveillance and what surveillance they do is done by ramp checks and again the penalties are severe. You breach ... you take the risk. It is the same in all laws, taxation, criminal, traffic, aviation. If you want more CASA police doing surveillance duty ... we will all wear the cost. Whatever happened to honesty, honour and integrity? We are losing it along the journey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 HI FT, its pretty much un- policeable.To check if everybody is doing the right thing.It would cost alot on money, just to go to every known airfield in Australia.Having done that, how does CASA or anybody else go to every farm/paddock out bush and check that people whether GA or RAA have a current licence or certificate, current rego or current maintenace release. How many people drive on our roads, without a licence and registration.Its one of those things that will never be stamped out.What we can all do, is be the eyes and ears for CASA and the police and notified the authorites if we find somebody doing the wrong thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Electronic record keeping would make it pretty easy. That's how they catch real crooks not just stupid ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Electronic record keeping would make it pretty easy. That's how they catch real crooks not just stupid ones. Unfortunately that wont stop those with intent to breach from flying unregistered RAA aircraft or GA aircraft with an expired maintenance release, or fly with an expired AFR or medical. If you don't catch them in the act or someone doesn't report them, all the record keeping in the world wont catch them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 The real problem is that the end users are into a system that allows them to ignore the rules when convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 The real problem is that the end users are into a system that allows them to ignore the rules when convenient. Again I will say that is no different to any law in the current system of society we live under. Breaking any law is a choice that any individual or corporation can make. Some corporations regard the cost of breach as a 'cost of doing business'. Individuals can be incarcerated. You can ignore any law at your convenience at any time, this is not specific to aviation; unless of course we turn into a 'Police' state and big brother is around every corner. Which way do you want it? Our system of laws is based on the premise that the laws protect the majority of us from the minority of wrong doers ... if you can catch them doing it ... It all comes back to whether or not we as individuals are prepared to report wrong doing if and when we become aware of it ... otherwise we become effectively 'enablers' of those that breach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 People have this attitude that the only alternative to the current system is a authoritarian police state. Its a childish argument and I will let you win it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 You're a serial baiter FT, this isn't contributing anything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 People have this attitude that the only alternative to the current system is a authoritarian police state. Its a childish argument and I will let you win it. I haven't won anything FT ... I don't see any argument on my part supporting an authoritarian Police State; quite the contrary. I am appealing to the moral decency of the masses to report the wrong doers. But that would appear to be an arguement that you do not support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Turbo you can just click on the ignore button. David, I am only explaining the attitude that I am seeing, I don't know why you can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts