What happened with the MTOW change for RAAus

[Jaba-who]

Not a big word BUT.

Oh it’s big all right. The RAMPC is a “waste of space” medical. Most people who could not get a normal class 2 are unable to get a RAMPC. And conversely if you can get a RAMPC you are pretty much eligible for a normal class 2. 

There are several factors. 

 

There are exclusions which are very broad and the presence  of which makes you ineligible for the RAMPC. 

 

Once you are deemed ineligible there is no avenue of appeal. 

 

Effectively the exclusions essentially turn the RAMPC into a standard Class 2. Except that with a Class 2 there are allowable exceptions and if you are cut out by some  factors you can appeal. For some if you can show stability or good medical control you can get a pass. This is usually not possible  with a RAMPC even  with exactly  the same good control.  

 

Since this is what they have done for the RAMPC there is no reason to believe they will do anything different with the basic class 2. They originally have said there will be the extra limitations ( though I admit they have gone quiet about them) and I can not see they would make them any less stringent for the basic class 2. 

 

 

[Downunder]

Has anyone seen the leaked email they're talking about in this article from Australian Flying? Weight Increase for Ra-Aus? 

In reality it has taken ten years to get 760 kg. (RAA previously applied and was knocked back...)

It will probably take ten more to get owner maint and another ten to get 1500kg.

 

I'm not getting any younger.........

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Without owner maintenance they are kidding themselves but with the current Raa approach it was expected as has been previously discussed.

Not necessarily. 

If you have had the money to own a GA aircraft with LAME maintenance and the only reason you are quitting is because of the medical it won’t be an issue that you can’t do your own maintenance. 

 

Lots  of pilots don’t want to do their own maintenance. 

 

 

[Jaba-who]

In reality it has taken ten years to get 760 kg. (RAA previously applied and was knocked back...)It will probably take ten more to get owner maint and another ten to get 1500kg.

 

I'm not getting any younger.........

And I wouldn’t hold your breath about the situation actually changing. 

If if you read the email carefully and if you keep in mind what CASA has already done with experimental GA then this reads:

 

Firstly it says we “may” do things.

 

This has to be interpreted as “we may not”. 

 

Secondly CASA has a history of saying things that can be interpreted many ways and in the final promulgation when they remove the ambiguity  it’s been the most draconian way that has been presented. 

 

Third the undercurrent  has been constantly that any changes will be made to keep their perception of safety as the arbitor of change, which is basically saying that any stated change will be offset by some  other change to mitigate the perceived risk they have of the first change.

 

The introduction of maintenance procedures courses is stated in the email. 

 

It likely that any change will follow the already happening GA experimental pattern. Since I built my Jab 430 in this category in 2007 I have seen the rules for builder maintenance tighten from essentially  if you built more than 51% ( minimally defined what constitutes 51%) then multi step restriction additions  so that now even if you build it you can’t work on any part of it you didn’t build yourself. You have to do a clerical course on filling in CASA Paperwork. You have do a special course on weight and balance to do your own W&B.  

 

I am am confident that that will be what CASA adds into the RAAus mix when any weight limits are increased. 

 

Back to my way past early statement - “Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it! “

 

 

[Fred]

Not necessarily. If you have had the money to own a GA aircraft with LAME maintenance and the only reason you are quitting is because of the medical it won’t be an issue that you can’t do your own maintenance. 

 

Lots  of pilots don’t want to do their own maintenance. 

Whilst I agree your statement is correct, I suspect the numbers would be negligible.  Also watch for the RAA approach to licensing in relation re medicals for an increase in weight - nothing out yet, but do you trust the current administration as I certainly don’t. 

 

They have already proposed a seperate yearly medical at 75 which was only removed from the proposed ops manual after it was pointed out that a yearly medical is already required for a driver’s licence.  I say watch closely.

 

 

[Downunder]

Not necessarily. If you have had the money to own a GA aircraft with LAME maintenance and the only reason you are quitting is because of the medical it won’t be an issue that you can’t do your own maintenance. 

 

Lots  of pilots don’t want to do their own maintenance. 

Maintenance is not the only issue. Losing access to controled airspace may factor in too.

An existing GA pilot in a class D airport cannot just swap over to RAA with his plus 600 kg aircraft. 

 

It seems to be a standard CASA operation procedure these days to alow or approve a change but then bury it in regulation which virtually nullifies the original approval. 

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Maintenance is not the only issue. Losing access to controled airspace may factor in too.An existing GA pilot in a class D airport cannot just swap over to RAA with his plus 600 kg aircraft. 

 

It seems to be a standard CASA operation procedure these days to alow or approve a change but then bury it in regulation which virtually nullifies the original approval. 

Yes you are completely correct on both counts. 

If you have an RAAus pilot cert and a GA licence you can still fly an RAAus registered aircraft into CTA but as soon as you lose the medical it's like you don't have the GA licence anymore. So yes you'd lose CTA access. 

 

And mega-yes on your second. It has been CASAs modus operandi at least since I've been involved in aviation (1990s). Every apparent softening of rules has been quietly countered in some back-page change that has nullified the primary rule. 

 

Sometimes it's taken years but it happened. 

 

 

[hihosland]

Fred did say

 

"

 

They have already proposed a seperate yearly medical at 75 which was only removed from the proposed ops manual after it was pointed out that a yearly medical is already required for a driver’s licence.  I say watch closely. "

 

Being 75+ 

 

When I renewed my membership online last week, I was forced to upload a Dr's certificate before I could proceed further with the renewal process

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

This is the last piece in that article

 

"While neither CASA nor RA-Aus is willing to confirm the details at this stage, it is anticipated that the weight increase may be granted in line with CASR Part 149 when Approval for Self-Administering Aviation Organisations (ASAO) is reformed and released."

 

part 149 has been in the works for 20 years...who is not to say it still wont be a "work in progress" for another 20 years

 

 

[jetjr]

So would appear Only 

 

factory build AC

 

lame maintained

 

45 kt stall

 

With Mtow always over 600kg but under 760kg (ie never been on RAA reg)

 

pilot medical- likely to mean no CTA

 

id be asking whats in it for RAA or the owner and how many aircraft/pilots fit or want to head onto this new catagory?

 

CASA can it offloading a heap management of small GA to RAA for free. More moeney available for regulatory reform

 

 

[kasper]

But my inner cynicism says this - and it’s based on what we were told by RAAus at the PDP day

 

1. Weight increase to 760 prob linked to part 149

 

2. This will be a new grouping of aircraft not an extension to existing

 

3. Weight increase past 760 later subject to proven history of safe ops and maint on 760

 

4. Lame maintained on factory built is the only way towards CTA

 

so my take is that this very much that this very limited group of people will impact every RAAus member and aircraft as we will all be dragged closer and closer to GA maintenance and build requirements to provide the necessary evidence.  

 

I kniw im a broken record but what earthly good does 4 inspections on a self designed and built 95.10 have when NOBODY is entitled to or able to make design calls onnit and there is no test flying or restrictions on it ...

 

Alignment upwards and upwards is happening and it’s removing the actual reason for the existence of the two ULTRALIGHT CAO’s 

 

my expectation is that if/when part 149 comes along ultralights as a seperate beast from GA non-commercial will be gone.  

 

 

[M61A1]

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this.....

 

 There are lots of details to work through with maintenance issues an important part of ensuring safety is protected.”

 

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/weight-increase-for-ra-aus?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter - 1618&utm_content=Newsletter - 1618+CID_f2e8f31b90c5c868db39b25827f2091a&utm_source=Email marketing software&utm_term=Weight Increase for RA-Aus#djDmFhtyIyR69M5I.99

 

Do I laugh at the stupidity of these people who feel this is complicated or do I cry for aviation because these stupid people are running the show.

 

FFS,  a Cessna single is about as complicated as my Drifter.

 

The idea that we should work up incrementally on weight increases also holds no water, how do these people justify this kind of bullsh!t.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Canada has had owner maintenance of simple light aircraft and gliders for about 15 years. The United States FAA did an audit on this in 2013 and concluded there was no bad effect on the accident rate and that the aircraft were in as good or better condition on average than those maintained under the old methods.

 

This should be enough of an experiment whose results are known to institute this here.  I believe Canada is also moving to the US model of pilot medical fitness (one initial DAME exam and subsequent 2 yearly on line quiz on aeromedical factors).

 

Australia is seriously out of line with comparable anglosphere countries.

 

Other countries, successful in aviation also don't divide and conquer by handing State powers to private organisations.  Technically this is in line with the definition of Fascism.

 

By now it should be clear that the purpose of all this regulation has nothing to do with public safety. It is just a tool of government oppression designed to discourage the unfortunate subjects (not citizens) from carrying out these activities by making then onerous, expensive and difficult. Anyone with a firearms licence will understand.

 

As ever the private organisations in charge of aviation activities are as much a problem as CASA.

 

 

[Yenn]

Mike I disagree with your reasoning of the governments working. All these government departments are doing is providing work for themselves and an ever expanding beaurocracy. They are not interested in controlling us, only increasing their power to control government ministers and provide jobs, preferably with power to control the minions under them Controlling us is just an added bonus after their main aim..

 

 

[M61A1]

Mike I disagree with your reasoning of the governments working. All these government departments are doing is providing work for themselves and an ever expanding beaurocracy. They are not interested in controlling us, only increasing their power to control government ministers and provide jobs, preferably with power to control the minions under them Controlling us is just an added bonus after their main aim..

The bureaucrat's main job is to make sure them and their boss won't be successfully sued. I see that our main problem is lawyers and magistrates who allow claimants to blame someone else in order to get a payout and absolve themselves of personal responsibility.

 

 

[kasper]

The bureaucrat's main job is to make sure them and their boss won't be successfully sued. I see that our main problem is lawyers and magistrates who allow claimants to blame someone else in order to get a payout and absolve themselves of personal responsibility.

And if you can find any large number of cases within the last 10 years where an RAAus registered aircraft owner has been pursued in courts I’ll give some thought to your comments. 

Untul then it it sounds like base prejudice against lawyers and courts.  

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Kasper...just ask the police how well the courts and lawyers do in keeping scum off the streets

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

The problem IS the courts and the lawyers

 

 

[kasper]

Keeping them off the street?

 

Sorry but unless you’d like to pay for many more prisons at a cost in excess of $100k per prisoner per year it’s NOT the courts ... 

 

talk to your politians if you don’t like the sentencing options within court systems and be prepared for massive increases in cost on prisons ...

 

and before you try the idea that prison will rehab and prevent future activity google recivatism rates for your state or territory.

 

lock them up does not work. Alternates are not perfect but they do can work in some cases. 

 

But back to regulation of ultralights and rec aircraft ... who do you suggest need locking up or are being not locked up because of lawyers and the courts?

 

and if it’s the civil side where are the actual cases of loss against RAAus aircraft owners?

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Yenn, you need to distinguish between the monkeys and the organ grinders. The monkeys (CASA) will do whatever the organ grinders want, to keep the bananas coming. Their masters the politicians  (the organ grinders) call the tune.

 

 

[M61A1]

And if you can find any large number of cases within the last 10 years where an RAAus registered aircraft owner has been pursued in courts I’ll give some thought to your comments. Untul then it it sounds like base prejudice against lawyers and courts.  

I wasn't just talking about recreational aviation, but I'm fairly certain some of the changes to our rules have been as a result of legal action against RAAus. I may be wrong here, but wasn't there a case about a Sting where there were 2 deaths after an engine failure, and one (or more) of the surviving partners took legal action against RAAus. I would suggest that may be at least partly responsible  for the reason that we now have have an approval process for everything. Someone else is checking everything we do, because no one wants to be sued for letting us hurt oursleves.

I understand that sometimes a lawyer may be necessary to help you when you have genuinely been caused harm by someone's negligence, but I see quite a few that really (in my opinion) should never have made it to a courtroom. Consider also, that lawyers have made the law so complex, that only a specialist can negotiate it. I don't consider that good for anyone but the legal profession.

 

Summary: I believe that many of our over restrictive rules both in Rec flying and day to day life are the result of successful lawsuits by people, who in my opinion, should not have been successful. This is the reason I place the blame for their success in milking the system and the creation of new laws to prevent others from initiating similar action, squarely at the feet of the lawyers who push for the new precedent in the quest for a dollar, and the magistrates who award the payouts.

 

 

[kasper]

I wasn't just talking about recreational aviation, but I'm fairly certain some of the changes to our rules have been as a result of legal action against RAAus. I may be wrong here, but wasn't there a case about a Sting where there were 2 deaths after an engine failure, and one (or more) of the surviving partners took legal action against RAAus. I would suggest that may be at least partly responsible  for the reason that we now have have an approval process for everything. Someone else is checking everything we do, because no one wants to be sued for letting us hurt oursleves.I understand that sometimes a lawyer may be necessary to help you when you have genuinely been caused harm by someone's negligence, but I see quite a few that really (in my opinion) should never have made it to a courtroom. Consider also, that lawyers have made the law so complex, that only a specialist can negotiate it. I don't consider that good for anyone but the legal profession.

 

Summary: I believe that many of our over restrictive rules both in Rec flying and day to day life are the result of successful lawsuits by people, who in my opinion, should not have been successful. This is the reason I place the blame for their success in milking the system and the creation of new laws to prevent others from initiating similar action, squarely at the feet of the lawyers who push for the new precedent in the quest for a dollar, and the magistrates who award the payouts.

Pretty sure your wrong:

1. RAAus accounts for the years covering the period since the sling/sting accident do not disclose costs of legal actions paid so the only way anyone got money out of RAAus was through our insurer - and IF there was payment to anyone for what was done by RAAus through the insurer that is what insurance is for.

 

2. RAAus does NOT take any design authority or responsibility for ANY 95.10 or 95.55 experimental/kit/self design.  RAAus liability in relation to these airframes does not extend to even maintenance UNLESS RAAus have chosen to extend their overview to cover details - from a legal perspective its a very careful balance here - self regulation is a balance between providing sufficient guidance/requirement that leaves the requirement and responsibility with the owner/builder and too much guidance/requirement where courts start to say RAAus have taken on responsibility ... I'm actually worried that RAAus are going to too far on the experimental airframes  - but its up to them to take advice ... and from experience that advice will never be shared with the members.

 

3. RAAus on factory built are slightly different from experimental (in my view) as the RAAus needs to direct/require owners to maintain them in line with their design authority ie the factory - and that's where RAAus need to be clear on requiring owners comply with the certificated requirements.

 

And as far as complexity goes the CAOs exempting RAAus aircraft are fairly simple in their language where ONLY the CAO applies ... its when you have to jump back into the Act and CARs that it gets really messy - and I agree that the drafting there is far from friendly and understandable ... but really we need to start again on the whole CARs and act ... but they have been doing that for decades and really you need subject matter experts IN CASA who OWN the content and intent to work with 1 set of drafters to get a consistent and coherant set of laws ...and that is not happening so we will continue to have rules and regs that are written over decades by different people without reference to interactions across the entirety of the rules.

 

 

[M61A1]

Yes RAAus has insurance , but, whether payments were made or not and whether insurance covered it or not, regs were still made to cover any perceived gaps that might leave them vulnerable in the future.

 

I know from your previous post that you are worried that they have gone too far. I believe that they have gone too far without a doubt, in regard to any experimental aircraft. Money isn't the cost for us... we pay with excessively restrictive regs, so someone up the chain doesn't have to pay with money or jail time.

 

The complexity I was talking about  was not necessarily in regard to aviation, but the legal system in general. The point about legislation being made to cover perceived gaps to prevent future lawsuits applies elsewhere as well.

 

 

[jetjr]

I recall the case discussed was a very serious business and RAA was highly exposed. Didnt even CASA try to walk away?

 

RAA (members) was close to having to pay out for someone elses problem with aircraft documentation etc.

 

Its common after something like this to have legal advisors go through and identify all the holes and risks.

 

 

[kasper]

I recall the case discussed was a very serious business and RAA was highly exposed. Didnt even CASA try to walk away?RAA (members) was close to having to pay out for someone elses problem with aircraft documentation etc.

 

Its common after something like this to have legal advisors go through and identify all the holes and risks.

And if RAAus has applied the tech manual as it stood in 2004 when mr Coates did a lot of what he did then the concerns of the coroner would not have existed - so yes there was exposure on RAAus simply because it held documents that on their face were not in compliance with the tech manual as it stood.  

Now the actual coroners report is a very unpleasant read if you were mr Coates or RAAus ... but the recommendations from the coroner could in my opinion be adequately addressed with better admin at RAAus on the operation of the then tech manual and focus on factory aircraft remaining within their certificate.  

 

But instead we have had the last 10 years of initial continued failure to administer well followed by increasing regulation of the  one size fits all variety.