Proposed L2 changes

[turboplanner]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if people on both sides over time have not overstepped the boundaries, creating a mess.

 

This is what usually happens when Government Departments decide they don't want to involve themselves in the jobs day to day because it's all too hard, so without slashing their workforce by hundreds they set up an instrument which employs hundreds and allows certain otherwise prohibited activities subject to rules they make up. Over time the rules get more and more complicated, usually reflecting the personalities of the bureaucrats, and further and further away from the Act which had been through strenuous debate in Parliament, and a lot of consultation with the public.

 

I've warned several times that government departments which do this can find themselves re-importing public liability risks they had previously divested, and not only that shock for the taxpayer, but having no control over the risk management.

 

An example is the now defunct Transport Regulation Board in Victoria which would allow Omnibuses (close spaced seats and hand rails, no luggage capacity) to be used for charter provided they had seat spacing increased from 26" to 30", seat backs increased from 2" to 3", x volume of luggage bins and so on, and the list increased year by year, and at inspections there was much hair splitting until no one really knew where the line between Omnibus and Coach ended.

 

The TRB also had uniforms similar to Police, carried guns, and patrolled the roads in cars similar to Police, and one of the straws on the camels' backs occurred when a truck driver was pulled over and forced out of his truck at gun point over some minor offence.

 

It was closed down and Victoria is a simpler, safer place.

 

 

[storchy neil]

what this discussion is showing to me is that previous dxxxheads running this show raa have not followed our rules and regs

 

as the writer off the first post has clearly shown that it is in our interest to stop the rot that has been installed in our organization by idiots

 

when mark and daran start to make you and I abide by our rules not casa rules as casa approved them for you and I to have the freedom to fly in none controlled air space

 

in one way I feel for some members who live under CAS

 

previous management have not shown any respect for casa by what is happening now are we a self regulating body or just a bunch off cowboys

 

at the special meeting in Canberra I assumed members would get stuck into the past mistakes off so called experts totally wipe out the ignorant not my problem mentality ie letter from raa to me not our problem civil matter

 

while this mentality continues persons like the writer of the first post are going to be impacted on in a unfair way as brought on by dxxxheads and the lack of reporting

 

raa sent out a cd on the rules and regs how many off you read or studied it by some off the comment here not many

 

when I was learning my instructor did make shore that we as a group had fairly good grasp of our rules and regs as well as ga to a degree but there again he cared

 

now in the transport industries those that chose to go to mass management have twice the amount off rules to offset the increase in weight aloud on trucks and they have to abide by them neil

 

 

[dodo]

RickHCan you give an example of an aircraft that should only be in GA, not RAAus and then the basis of that determination. What is it about that aircraft that makes it unsuitable for RAAus "simple maintenance"?

 

In otherwords give us some meat on the bone to gnaw on...

 

Andy

carbon cub

 

 

[frank marriott]

.?????

 

MTOW 600kg, Empty wt 420kg, stall 27kts. Seems to fit to me?

 

 

[dodo]

.?????MTOW 600kg, Empty wt 420kg, stall 27kts. Seems to fit to me?

I agree.

I interpreted the question as to aircraft that could be registered, but were dubious on the grounds of specs and/or maintenance complexity.

 

So with an empty weight of 420 kg, we can have pilot, a passenger and about 65 litres of fuel, if you accept a 70kg person weight. I understand there has been some consideration that 90kg is more representative, in which case, you get about 30l fuel.

 

Alternatively, with the recommended 24 US Gal, you have 70kg fuel, 50kg baggage, and just the pilot (70-90), giving you a weight of about 610-630kg with no passenger.

 

In other words, it is unlikely the aircraft would be operated within legal gross weight.

 

And you have a relatively highly maintenance complexity,

 

dodo

 

PS ...and it looks like a very nice aircraft

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

carbon cub

Ok....thanks for the post, but I was hoping to hear from Rick....still.....So what is it about the carbon cub that rings your bell? If it's this one:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubCrafters_Carbon_Cub_SS then the performance specs don't at all seem to be problematic, its certified by its manufacturer to ASTM standards, so I presume its the carbon bit that you take issue with?

EDIT: woops I had this typed up earlier and thought I pressed post but when I came back later and did press it the Q had already been asked and answered...

 

Andy

 

 

[frank marriott]

I note with dismay that some of the policies being persued at the moment are, for the right for RAA aircraft to be allowed into controlled space

 

Rick

 

That happened prior to 2007, see CAO 95.55

 

I am not aware of any incidents coming from this approval - VCAs are pilot related not aircraft type/rego.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I wouldn't worry about the Cub Crafters Carbon Cub, nobody can afford to buy it anyway.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What I see is a classic case of a bureau doing what any unchecked bureau does.The rot started when CASA made it clear, by it's actions, that each Operations Manager would be offered a cushy position upon their resignation from RAAus.

Staff also flowed the other way. RAAus got too close to CASA. Then representation stopped. RAAus became a pure administrator. New so called "privileges" were cancelled and progress in that way has long since stopped.

 

Now we have entered the next stage. With CASA in the background cheering, RAAus has gone on a recruiting frenzy. New employed "experts" are thrust before us to sprout gobbledygook to make us feel bad about ourselves. Relax, it really is just gobbledygook and it doesn't make us safer.

 

Now the noose is tightening. Our maintenance system has been a fabulous success over the years. There is no problem. Now, despite this, it is time to create a maze of rules and to strip new pilots of their L1 authority. Now L2 is under attack. Oh dear, if an L2 happens not to work on any aircraft for a couple of years, they seem to be suggesting that said L2 might forget how to use a spanner or read a technical publication.

 

Read carefully folks. For the first time ever, there is a reference to the auditing of "maintenance facilities". "What? You're gunna audit my toolbox?"

 

Each of us will make our decisions.

Just bringing the thread back to some reality Take 1

 

 

[turboplanner]

Nong, your right on top of it mate, I read that line as well and have seen it for what it is! regulation will kill our hobby and if you take the time to read between the lines and understand the suttle movements of all the chess pieces it has been coming for a while and is a premeditated attempt to destroy RAA. Last word from CASA = 'Check mate'

Take 2

 

 

[storchy neil]

what crap corruption bull I know off two maintenance facility that have been audited by casa with only a days notice both off these facility do lame l2 l3 l4 work

 

no they were not done by casa for any breaches of regs I was there when it happened

 

what is going on is no reporting off the d....heads that have done illegal re pairs and mods that now deadstick and others who care are going to get belted by so called experts

 

now that the so called experts are employed by casa they have done a total screw up of our organization they are untouchable and we are going to pay neil