RAAus Level 2

[Bruce Tuncks]

I hope somebody knows the answer to this: Is the 2 year reapplication for RAAus level 2 resulting from a CASA demand or not?

 

If it were to be the result of a CASA demand, then it is completely unfair unless the senior CASA staff also have an automatic 2 year sacking, after which they are free to reapply for their old jobs.

 

(Edited by moderator)

 

 

[frank marriott]

I hope somebody knows the answer to this: Is the 2 year reapplication for RAAus level 2 resulting from a CASA demand or not?

You can be rest assured that there are two individuals within RAA hell bent on increasing restrictions. One just on an ego trip and the other one, as suspected by many/some, probably aiming at a CASA position with an ex RAA employee. With the current investigations into CASA in relation to a NQ incident in the news may well result in a change, or at least delay, in the the proceedings until the dust settles.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

thanks Frank, I think you have said that CASA did not demand this.

 

I can see some reasoning behind the regulation, but if applied across the board, the principle would turn society upside down.

 

Gosh, qualifications which take ten years to get expire after 2 years? wow.

 

 

[storchy neil]

Better make changes to employee statements that they are band from casa employment for five years neil

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Pretty sure that's illegal

 

 

[SDQDI]

No not at all if done right.

 

We (a fellow YQDI flyer and myself) spoke about it to Jarod and Micheal at Tamworth and were surprised that it was met with positiveness. They said all it would take is a change to the wording in the employment contract that RAA employees sign to basically say that anyone working for RAA does so agreeing that they won't work for casa for a set time (5years should be fine) after there employment with RAA finishes.

 

It needs bringing up at the next meeting to get it put in motion. I don't think there would be too many against it.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Great idea Storchy and SDQDI. It should have always been in place, but better late than never.

 

 

[facthunter]

They will all be at Lethbridge soon to answer any questions. This 2 year expiry thing came up in GA . I mentioned it in relation to the W&B course, and it may be a general principle with any air ops with the new regime of being seen to do things. (I'm referring to CASA here) It does raise the question do all at Head Office have to comply with the Concept too? If you are inactive in your particular skillset it seems fair to do a refresher. (You can't carry a passenger unless you have flown a certain amount on the recent past) Perhaps if you've never flown an aeroplane at all, you shouldn't be getting involved with regulating them.? Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Good points Nev, but what about applying the same logic to medicos, to lames, to property owners, to farmers, to the royal family, to just about any situation where your knowledge and skills could become dated?

 

And what about RAAus personnel?

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

It's not unusual - I had a "restraint of trade" clause in my contract which meant I could not work for any of my employer's clients for a period of 12 months to 2 years. That was to stop them poaching staff and also to protect corporate knowledge. Enforcing that could be costly to my employer. Similarly, if RAA put the clause in employment contracts, then if one jumped ship to work for CASA or SAAA or ELAAA or HGF etc there really isn't much RAA can do (economically) to redress the situation. CASA might honour such an agreement and not interview someone, but then they or the candidate might decide the skill set / career is worth the risk.

 

As for keeping up your skills - most professions do it all the time as a requirement. Engineers, pharmacists, accountants, nurses, etc etc have to do a certain amount of recurrent training, new training, professional development and document this for review each year. Ask Col Jones about what Engineers are required to do. For people who aren't used to this it seems an impost, but it is required to keep up with advances in technology, legislation, issues, areas of weakness and existing and new skills. Pilots do AFRs, circuits, read the updates from CASA, RAA, etc.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm only the messenger, Bruce. In Airlines you are being checked essentially about 4 times a year. I regarded it as training /refresher with the penalty of possibly failing if you don't do it good enough. It's pressure all right and should have to be justified. RAAus instructors are checked a lot. I think we expect SOME to maintain a high standard. The best thing is good TRAINING, Not relying on checking excessively. You can pick up the performance shortfalls in the training .Nev

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

No not at all if done right.We (a fellow YQDI flyer and myself) spoke about it to Jarod and Micheal at Tamworth and were surprised that it was met with positiveness. They said all it would take is a change to the wording in the employment contract that RAA employees sign to basically say that anyone working for RAA does so agreeing that they won't work for casa for a set time (5years should be fine) after there employment with RAA finishes.

 

It needs bringing up at the next meeting to get it put in motion. I don't think there would be too many against it.

Care needs to be taken with this - something to do with the outlawing of slavery - restraint of trade provisions are hard to enforce in employment contracts.

 

 

[facthunter]

Elimination of corrupt practices rather than slavery. CASA pinching our people in large numbers amounts to interfering and affecting our ability to function efficiently, or perhaps at all, if they did enough of it. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

My take on that should have been sooner in one case neil

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Don't disgree with the sentiment but my comment is about the ultimate enforceability of such an arrangement. What would probably happen is that an employee would take the CASA position and wait for RA-Aus to take action. CASA would not be a party to the ultimate action but in the intervening period any hostility may translate into negative outcomes for RA-Aus members as he/she would ,no doubt, have a number of friends willing to help within CASA.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's not unusual when selling a small business to enter into an arrangement where you voluntarily agree as part of the sale conditions not to re-establish a similar business for a given period of time. In the USA they often find that a government minister having been dealing with a certain armaments company gets a cushy job with that company just after they leave politics apparently for services rendered during their term in office. It smells to high heaven actually, but the worship of money and power is not unusual, and corruption abounds. You are supposed to divest yourself of businesses etc when you become a minister and at least declare any pecuniary interests. Poor Jimmy Carter had to get rid of his peanut farm. That seems a bit innocuous, but there you are. Governments are supposed to not take donations from developers in NSW because it could be inferred to be buying deals. Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

If the most we can achieve is to make the corruption open and obvious, then so be it.

 

I support the idea of making applicants agree to not work for CASA for 5 years.

 

Even if this does not hold up in our amazing legal system, it is worth doing anyway.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I hope somebody knows the answer to this: Is the 2 year reapplication for RAAus level 2 resulting from a CASA demand or not?If it were to be the result of a CASA demand, then it is completely unfair unless the senior CASA staff also have an automatic 2 year sacking, after which they are free to reapply for their old jobs.

(Edited by moderator)

Hello Bruce,

Very valid question.. However look at it this way..

 

Do you have to renew your * Uni. Degree every 2 years

 

* Trade qualifications

 

* Drivers licence

 

* Diplomas

 

Once you have been awarded these qualifications they are legally yours for life only for a couple of provisos here and there. Why the L1 and L2 are different?

 

I think there are some egos out there who are just wanting to remind us that they are special and have to be worshipped.

 

KP.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Keith,

 

No-one takes your pilot licence / certificate off you; but you can't use it if you have not done a BFR every 2 years, retained your car medical equivalent, passed it annually if over 75.

 

As for Uni degrees, no one takes it off you, but most professions require you to do further recurrent training; I had to record 100hrs over a year to continue practising, doctors, dentists, engineers, accountants, etc all do this.

 

Tradies - they have to keep licences up to date with continuing training - eg Gas certificates. Mechanics do car makers' courses.

 

Diplomas, certificates, first aid, CPR - have recurrent training. A qualification you got a couple of decades ago is not worth anything if you have not kept up the recurrent training to maintain and update your skills. Ask a LAME what recurrent training they do. I suspect ELAAA also requires recurrent training for aircraft maintenance too, and require BFRs.

 

I doubt this is driven by ego - more like making the world a safer place & providing customers with better service.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

there's not a lot of change in aviation, rotax has released 5 versions of the 912 since 1992

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith,No-one takes your pilot licence / certificate off you; but you can't use it if you have not done a BFR every 2 years, retained your car medical equivalent, passed it annually if over 75.

As for Uni degrees, no one takes it off you, but most professions require you to do further recurrent training; I had to record 100hrs over a year to continue practising, doctors, dentists, engineers, accountants, etc all do this.

 

Tradies - they have to keep licences up to date with continuing training - eg Gas certificates. Mechanics do car makers' courses.

 

Diplomas, certificates, first aid, CPR - have recurrent training. A qualification you got a couple of decades ago is not worth anything if you have not kept up the recurrent training to maintain and update your skills. Ask a LAME what recurrent training they do. I suspect ELAAA also requires recurrent training for aircraft maintenance too, and require BFRs.

 

I doubt this is driven by ego - more like making the world a safer place & providing customers with better service.

Do not be gullible Sue,

 

What you are saying is continued education, CE. So how is another exam CE? Where is the updated knowledge coming from?

 

There should be training programs rolled out.

 

The L1 and L2 removed, Till one jumps through the hoops which are more complex than originally performed, just complexity not knowledge.

 

As for the L1 done on line with no practical content, this practical content is the part which demonstrates dexterity skills. A parrot can learn the read only content. OK?? Who is doing all the question answering at the computer desk? There is no proof of who is there. Could be someone with a cheat sheet helping?

 

KP.

 

 

[SDQDI]

There should be training programs rolled out.

The L1 and L2 removed, Till one jumps through the hoops which are more complex than originally performed, just complexity not knowledge.

 

As for the L1 done on line with no practical content, this practical content is the part which demonstrates dexterity skills. A parrot can learn the read only content. OK?? Who is doing all the question answering at the computer desk? There is no proof of who is there. Could be someone with a cheat sheet helping?

 

KP.

Keith I think the very last thing we need now is more complex hoops to jump through! I thought that the elaaa wanted to keep things simple?

 

Yes I think "optional" practical courses should be encouraged but certainly shouldn't be mandatory.

 

I think the online l1 exam is a reasonable fill in measure. I certainly would not have been happy if I had to do a practical course to keep my l1 privileges nor would the majority imo.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think with the attitude around in general and within the CASA particularly , something like this is inevitable. Making it relevant is the issue. Ie you learn relevant things to pass it. Knowledge and skills that you need to maintain the aircraft you work on, in a practical way, and fly safely. Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

Good Morning SDQI,

 

Considering your thoughts on the L1.

 

L1 is a fill in exam?

 

The L1 covers the uncomplicated maintenance.

 

I can not understand why there is no need for a practical component, there is more to maintenance than having a read about it.

 

Hence why have the L1 when it is only a read only exercise and fill in exam? What does it prove? For me, "I can read and comprehend English".

 

KP

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

There is a big difference between having to do an extension course compared with having to reapply for a qualification you already have.

 

While the effect may be similar if your right to practice is cancelled until you do the extension course ( do they really do this with doctors?), the difference in attitude is enormous.