Jump to content

The shiny new-look RAA?


Recommended Posts

I'm going to break an important convention which is to NOT refer to WW2, but I reckon the German prison camps were " self administering organizations" in your terms turbs.I don't think there is any way the members can influence things with voting patterns. The GFA has gone down the path of pleasing CASA by doing even more than CASA demands with the effect of making gliding much more expensive than it needs to be.But we all saw what happened to the old RAAus when they did less than CASA demanded. So both appeasement and defiance have been tried, with appeasement winning but costly.

 

The root problem is in having an all-powerful bureaucracy charged with aviation safety without it having any responsibility for the overall well-being of the aviation sector. This is not the fault of any group of aviation members.

In the case of the old RAA and the punishment from CASA, it was less defiance on the part of RAA but much more about gross stupidity by RAA. Even when faced by a revolt by the members, the response by the majority (edit: or a significant minority) was ill tempered. We can continue to blame CASA but we need to keep the boards of RAA, GFA and the others in check so they don't behave like the RSL (NSW), the local sports clubs and telephone companies.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 361
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The GFA has gone down a path because of the people who sent it down that path. It has nothing to do with CASA. It was explained very well on this forum, it can be self-fixed any time a group, or reasonable numbers, wants to do something about it.

As CASA has to approve GFA (and others) ops and tech manuals, it should point out to the organisations concerned when they have gone overboard and beyond the legislative requirements. Regulation is not a pissing competition.

 

the bureaucracy's power is limited by legislation; if people don't take the time to find out what the powers are limited to that's their problem.

With regard to the CASA audit of RAAus's registration system where does it get the power to do this? Part 47 of the CASR's is not applicable and the CAO's only require that aircraft be "registered with RAA". The CAO's do not provide for audit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
As CASA has to approve GFA (and others) ops and tech manuals, it should point out to the organisations concerned when they have gone overboard and beyond the legislative requirements. Regulation is not a pissing competition.

That would be getting involved with their business, and taking legal liability for doing it.Any over-regulating by the SAO should be reversed by the members.

 

With regard to the CASA audit of RAAus's registration system where does it get the power to do this? Part 47 of the CASR's is not applicable and the CAO's only require that aircraft be "registered with RAA". The CAO's do not provide for audit.

You can manage by inspections and sign offs, but you assume liability for everything above your signature. I’ve always chosen to do it by audit, so the people getting the benefit of their organisation can be told where they are putting themselves at risk, and they have to manage the action required for compliance. CASA use that same principle, and it ususally means lowest cost to the participant.
Link to post
Share on other sites
CASA use that same principle, and it ususally means lowest cost to the participant.

But where do they get the power?

 

That would be getting involved with their business, and taking legal liability for doing it

Other government agencies approve manuals and they do not have a problem telling you what should and shouldn't be in them. After all you said "CASA's authority is spelled out in the legislation; that's as far as they can go with demands" (#343) that means that they should not approve manuals that exceed their (ie CASA's) powers.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
But where do they get the power?

I did say look at the Act.

 

Other government agencies approve manuals and they do not have a problem telling you what should and shouldn't be in them. After all you said "CASA's authority is spelled out in the legislation; that's as far as they can go with demands" (#343) that means that they should not approve manuals that exceed their (ie CASA's) powers.

No, they shouldn't exceed their powers, but if an SAO puts up a Manual to them, any beef about whether it has gone too far (and there are three or four on this forum where that is always) is between the members.For example, if an association decided that for a certain class BRS should be mandatory, CASA would have no reason o be concerned about safety, so would not need to step in; it could sign off on the manual.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I did say look at the Act.

Some specifics would be helpful otherwise its the same as CASA made us do it!

 

For example, if an association decided that for a certain class BRS should be mandatory, CASA would have no reason o be concerned about safety, so would not need to step in; it could sign off on the manual.

So if the regs mandate bi-annual flight reviews in VH aircraft how can CASA approve a manual which mandates ANNUAL flight reviews in VH aircraft? Surely they cannot approve something that they cannot mandate themselves?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Some specifics would be helpful otherwise its the same as CASA made us do it![/qute]No it's not.; there's nothing stop stop you looking it up and discovering it for yourself; you'll then be armed with the knowledge.So if the regs mandate bi-annual flight reviews in VH aircraft how can CASA approve a manual which mandates ANNUAL flight reviews in VH aircraft? Surely they cannot approve something that they cannot mandate themselves?

I would be very surprised if CASA had done something like that, but we are talking about RA. not VH registered airctraft.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely they can approve something they cannot mandate themselves.

 

If RAAus mandated that all our aircraft had to be gold plated, it would not be up to CASA to point out that they don't mandate such a thing. I would assume that CASA would point out if RAAus mandated something that was dangerous, but otherwise why would they bother? They can say yes or no, but I cannot see them going through RAAus with a fine tooth comb, looking for stupidity. That should be up to us to do and the fact that we havn't been doing it is the reason we are in the position we are.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be very surprised if CASA had done something like that, but we are talking about RA. not VH registered airctraft.

GFA require annual flight reviews in VH reg gliders and self launching gliders. BTW self launching gliders are not properly registered in terms of the requirements Part 47. They should be recorded as single engined aeroplanes (as per ICAO Annex 7 as required by CASR 47) and thus only be flown by RPL, PPL or better.
Link to post
Share on other sites
GFA require annual flight reviews in VH reg gliders and self launching gliders. BTW self launching gliders are not properly registered in terms of the requirements Part 47. They should be recorded as single engined aeroplanes (as per ICAO Annex 7 as required by CASR 47) and thus only be flown by RPL, PPL or better.

GFA are opting to use VH registration; as you have said they have not opted to use GA licensing for pilots. On that basis, if they take a different approach to Pilot auditing, there would be no reason for CASA to over-ride them. If, as a member of GFA, you felt that annual reviews were an overkill, you would raise the issue with the SAO and the SAO wold review it, and change it if the point was valid, in a democratic world.I agree with you on the motorised gliders, but GFA have the power to change that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see where you want to go with that....Yes the GFA is "self administering, as is RAA. The issue as I see it is that they tend to make the rules tighter than required so that they can say to their regulator, " look we're exceeding you requirements, aren't we great". It is exactly the same problem with quality and safety systems. Instead of meeting the requirements, some dill has to go and exceed them at great cost, both financially and in manpower.This tends to snowball, as the regulator, says "great job, we should take on these ideas" next thing, they are regulations, and the quality, safety and self administering organisations are out there trying to exceed them yet again....and around it goes.

 

I've been in the industry long enough to see what's going on, and these people wonder why it's dying out.035_doh.gif.28098ca1057810de232db78cc57ff8cf.gif

I see that happen with my work with how people interpret legal regulations and acts. The act says one thing and they go an "improve" on it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you seriously think that we, as RAA flyers, are as hard done by as allied POWs or even slightly comparable then I think you are in a different reality to me.

Calm your farm. That is not what he thinks or thought. Why, on earth, would you say something like that?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...