Jump to content

Public consultation weight increase


Recommended Posts

1.

ELAAA | Light Aircraft & Recreational Aviation – An Opportunity for Review? Time to Step Back? Weight Increase Proposal – Why and for Who? What Must be Considered – for What Good Reason?:-

A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CASA’S WEIGHT INCREASE PROPOSAL FOR LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT

SUBMISSION AGAINST THE WEIGHT INCREASE PROPOSAL

26TH September 2019

The current proposal, and indeed in effect similar to a prior proposal in 2008 which did not result in any changes, to allow an increase in weight of certain aircraft that can be administered by a private organization under regulations exclusive to a private organization brings to the surface long-standing and serious concerns over the direction of regulation and administration of sport & recreational aviation in Australia. The proposition is that the current direction regulatory development and how regulation is administered exacerbates the proliferation of double standards, ever increasing complex regulations and costs of administering such regulations with questionable safety improvement potential or conditions that maximise the opportunity for Australian aviation to flourish. Let‟s be clear: • Well proven regulations and their administration already exist (in Australia and in other major jurisdictions) to manage all aircraft categories, including the aircraft category(s) the subject of this current “Weight increase proposal” • This proposal is all about extending the scope of aircraft categories that can be administered under different (less onerous and relaxed standards than those otherwise applicable to the same aircraft and pilots) to a private organization(s) on an exclusive basis • Such exclusive devolution concurrent with proliferation of different standards (including pilot and flight instructor training and competency standards, medical certification, aircraft maintenance etc.)

2.

is advantageous to a minority sector of Australian Sport & Recreational Aviation – the objectives of this approach are unclear. The direction which has been developing over many years challenges the proposition that Australian aviation standards should be universal and linked to the aircraft and the operations (including pilot and flight instructor training and competency standards, medical certification, aircraft maintenance etc.) and not linked to individual organisations, and certainly not on an exclusive basis. The overarching question is simple – why is this not what is happening in Australia? But beneath the surface one cannot help but follow with more questions such as: • What is the objective of pursuing a path that we believe has not been attempted or been successful anywhere else in the world? • What is the worth of in effect conducting such an experiment? • Can we afford to accept the consequences of failure where the ultimate measure is that of the attrition of safety outcomes? Despite Australia is a signatory to the ICAO treaty and is therefore, bound to compliance with its articles and SARP‟s, then why are we seemingly hell bent on departure from the ICAO global standards and recommendations in respect of aviation regulation and administration?

At ELAAA, we believe the majority of aviators, have no issue at all with the development of more relaxed and fit-for-purpose standards for particular aircraft categories and pilots who operate them under certain operational conditions (flight rules, airspaces etc.). This is consistent with enabling aviation to flourish to the benefit of more than just aviators themselves – there are many substantial and far reaching benefits to having a healthy flourishing aviation industry (the stakeholders in aviation in Australia). We do verily believe, and also verily believe that our belief is held by the majority of aviators in Australia, that caution needs to be exercised when departing from current well proven practices and standards. We are, however, fortunate, that we are able to, which we should be doing, rely on and draw from the experience of several other major jurisdictions (such as the USA, UK and Canada) who manage aviation fleets that are in an order of magnitude larger than the Australian fleet. We do not have to re-invent the wheel. We do not have to experiment or ponder what does or does not result in improved safety outcomes. Likewise, we have no issue whatsoever with the principle of devolution of the administration of regulations to private organisations where competency and ability to achieve or better the safety outcome performance realised through CASA administration of regulation can be assured. We do, however, hold serious concerns where, as part of the process to devolve the administration of regulations, regulations founded on different standards (less onerous and relaxed standards and competency requirements than those otherwise applicable to the same aircraft and pilots) are afforded to a private organization(s) on an exclusive basis. There are two issues here – double standards, and exclusivity - which together disadvantage the majority of aviators and the nation in many respects. From ELAAA‟s narrow perspective, ELAAA had been informally advised by CASA that it was entitled to self-administer under CAO 95.55, which was just not true as RAA held a monopoly on the situation as provided in CAO 95.55 and now, the recently introduced legislation

3.

(Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Regulations and its MOS) does not take ELAAA any closer to the goal it was seeking in its Application to CASA to be appointed as ASAO. From the time of the submission of our Application to the time of the introduction of Part 149 that which was first proposed and ELAAA was led to be believe by CASA what would be the outcome, the goal posts shifted, changing dramatically the definition, form and application of Part 149. These changes were basically, the death knell to the ELAAA Application. The actions on the part of CASA have in respect of the introduction of Part 149 in its present form now further alienated many more light aircraft owners and operators due to the differing Rules and Regulations. This has now brought the position for private aviators even further from a fair and equal administration of all privately operated aircraft within the borders of Australia. This gap will now even be exacerbated further if the proposed weight increase is introduced for those aircraft that may be registered with RAA. There is a glaring and very important safety case against the increased weight and that is, as long as the RAA medical requirements and procedure remains the same and anything outside the organisational control of RAA in respect of medicals stays in place any GA pilot having questionable health will be given the opportunity to jump ship and go to RAA where they only need to make a declaration. Many negatives will flow from this not just the safety case of pilots jumping ship when they suspect that they won‟t pass a basic class 2 or a class 2 medical. One has to also consider the probable deterioration of maintenance in respect of the RAA aircraft as opposed to the stringent maintenance requirements placed on VH registered aircraft. There is also the commercial/ financial detriment within the aviation industry that needs to be addressed/ considered that is if there is a migration by VH registered aircraft to RAA how will this effect GA viability in the market place. This is a very real possibility and the numbers should be crunched before any decision is made to increase the weight limits within the RAA operational guidelines. Further, the fact that certain types of aircraft, though not exceeding the present weight limit enjoyed by RAA members, are, by some pilots owned and operate under the CASA administered regulations and regime. The fact that these aircraft may also operate under the self-administered organization (RAA) with access to standards that are not available outside of that organisation.may just fly in the face of Australian consumer legislation by creating a monopoly through the nurturing of what one could classify as a protected class. From a wider perspective, these sorts of disparities are exemplified by, for example, the long-standing call from general aviators at large to be afforded access to unique relaxed medical certification standards that are only available to members of RAA – this remains the case today. On this count alone it disadvantages thousands of private pilots who fly similar if not in many cases exactly the same aircraft in the same Australian skies. One has to ask – why is this sensible, equitable or just? CASA itself states in that regard, “Potential increased aircraft utilisation (601 kg to 760 kg MTOW)” • A higher MTOW for aircraft managed by ASAOs may provide access to a larger number of aircraft that may provide additional performance and training opportunities • Increased Maintenance Activity (CAR 30 and Part 145 Organisations). • Additional utilisation of aircraft with an MTOW

4.

between 601 kg to 760 kg may lead to an increase in maintenance organisation activity. If these assertions relate to existing aircraft and qualified pilots operating in Australia, then how would any of these assertions make any net difference? If they relate to the opportunity to increase the size of the Australian fleet or pilot flight qualifications, then why limit the opportunity to an ASAO? There can be no technical reason to do this – so, the obvious is very obvious is it not, is it perhaps for commercial reasons? If not – what? Another disparity in the approach to evolving and enhancing Australian general aviation. One must remember that one of the key Charter goals beside safety matters which is of great interest to ICAO is that of the commerciality aspect of aviation. Australia was a participant in and signed off on the Chicago Convention and ratified the Charter/ Treaty and Articles thereto in the Air Navigation Act 1920 as amended in the 1940‟s. Australia is legally bound but CASA appear to be constantly trying to push Australian Aviation in another direction by divesting itself of its mandated objects as a regulatory body in accordance with the applicable legislation and the underpinning ICAO Charter..

There are clearly many disparities embedded within and surrounding everything referred to in the above discussion. Some of these are more explicitly highlighted here, and some go beyond matters relating to aviation regulation. The CAO 95.55 specifically specifies that only one organisation, being RAA, is entitled to certain exemptions in regards to certain ultra-light aircraft (in this regard – the current weight increase proposal described in CASA DP 1912ss should really refer to “..managed by RAA…” and “…registered with RAA”. It is misleading to suggest that the proposal is available to more than one ASAO. Pilots flying VH registered private production and EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) aircraft are required to meet either the RPL medical certificate requirements if the aircraft MTO weight does not exceed 1500 kgs or the Class 2 medical standards associated with holding a CASR Part 61 Pilot Licence. RAA pilots are only required to meet the LOWER pilot medical standards per the RAA Operations Manual that rely on only pilot self-certification/ self-reporting with no requirement for medical practitioner verification. This can be to fly the same aircraft (when RAA registered) and would now be extended to be applicable to aircraft that CASA is proposing could be included in the monopoly held by RAA under CAO 95.55. Pilots flying VH registered EAB aircraft are required to meet the flight training and flight currency standards required when holding a CASR Part 61 pilot‟s licence RAA pilots are only required to meet the lesser flight standards per their Flight Operations Manual. This could be to fly the SAME higher MTOW aircraft (moved to RAA register) that CASA is proposing are acceptable to add to this monopoly held by RAA under CAO 95.55 There already a exists pathway for all aircraft between 600ks to 750 kgs MTOW to be operated without their inclusion under this monopoly provided under CAO 95.55. Why is there any justification, other than the vested interests of a commercial organisation (RAA), to expand the weight limits of this RAA monopoly CAO 95.55 and increase its market share as a direct consequence of this? (Is this a question for reference to the ACCC?)

5.

Despite ELAAA being engaged in the presentation of its documentation with alleged assistance and up until early last year consultation to achieve its goals it was constantly being thrown red herrings in particular in the matter of the development of CASR 149, ELAAA have had it stated to it by a number of Sport Aviation staff within CASA over many years now that a 760kg limit will never happen either for us or RAA and to forget about making that matter part of our platform. CASR 149 MOS has been written to exclude ELAAA‟s Application. ELAAA wrote to CASA when it came to our attention that the SAO‟s were to have a briefing on the operation of Part 149 and the MOS thereto and as we still had a current application before it we emailed CASA requesting permission to attend the briefing. CASA did not even give ELAAA the courtesy of a reply to its emailed request, which they did receive as we received a delivery receipt for our email.

Matters not openly revealed in DP 1912SS CASA have continually espoused their corporate mandate that they cannot under ( anti-competitive legislation ) legislate a competitive advantage to an organisation. However, within DP1912SS, it is not revealed that CASA has oversighted: a) Introduction of CASR 149.010 which empowers that only matters prescribed by the CASR 149 MOS are permitted matters b) basically in the greater scheme of things this has excluded the proposed ELAAA activities from coming into fruition (CASR 149 MOS) c) Empowerment of RAA‟s monopoly activities under CAO 95.55 as CASR 149 applicable activities, and d) have failed to acknowledge the “exclusivity” of CAO 95.55 To the specific and current Weight Increase proposal, ELAAA see no relevance to this proposal in the context of its application to a specific privately operated organization(s). ELAAA does, however, see relevance in enabling the establishment of relaxed less onerous regulations and standards for some lighter aircraft categories and their pilots when operated to certain flight rules and certain classes of airspace – where such new provisions are available to all Australian aviators, and not linked to any specific organization other than CASA. The approach in this specific regard is established and developing in many far larger jurisdictions than Australia, and we support it. But we cannot support a proposal that is made in circumstances where it will only be available on an exclusive basis to certain aviators who are members of a private organisation – it is discriminatory, and tantamount to anti-competitive behaviour. We also caution enabling or extending the scope of devolved responsibilities from CASA where there may be evidence or factors that indicate safety outcomes could be compromised. In this regard, the UK‟s Regulatory Review of General Aviation published in 2006 made a number of far-reaching observations and recommendations – one of which, Recommendation 6, is relevant in this regard:

Recommendation 6 The Regulatory Review Group recommends that the CAA carries out further work to investigate possible correlation between regulatory regime and GA Fatal Accident Rates (FARs) and causal factors. One area of investigation could be the licensing/training regime.

6.

The estimated FAR per 100,000 hours for the group of aircraft in the conventional aeroplane full regulation category were statistically better than those for aircraft in the devolved and self-regulation groups. In comparison, the FAR for fully regulated helicopters is very similar to self-regulated gliders, paragliders and partially devolved micro lights. Without attempting to draw any direct relationship between the UK and Australia, the UK situation is not inconsistent with a similar inference evident in material presented by CASA in its discussion paper pertaining to the proposed weight increase for self-administered organisations. The discussion paper indicates that the rate of improvement in safety outcomes, measured in the same manner as the UK review – being FAR (Fatal Accident Rate) per hours flown) pertaining to VH-private/sports aircraft administered by CASA, substantially exceed that of Australian “Recreational Aeroplanes”. Although not defined, it is presumed that this infers “Non-VH aircraft that are not administered by CASA”. Nevertheless, the performance of this category is depicted as being almost flat by comparison to the VH-Private/Sports aircraft which are administered by CASA. Figure 1 of the CASA Discussion Paper DP1912SS shows the progressive improvement in the “Recreational aircraft” (presumed these are not VH- CASA administered aircraft) accident rate over the last 5 years – despite the “up-tick” in recent times, the trend nevertheless indicates there is generally an improving trend. Figure 2 of the same discussion paper also indicates improvements as measured by the numbers of fatal accident rates for the same period. Thankfully, there is no “uptick” as seen regards accidents. However, it is important to understand that every accident, especially in the context of aviation, can so easily lead to a fatality(s).

Moving to Figure 3 of the same discussion paper, it is evident that whilst there has sadly been an “uptick” in the FAR in 2018 for “VH Private/Sports” aircraft in the 0-760kg range, the trend is clearly downwards – but this is not the case in respect of “Recreational Aeroplanes” (again – presumed these are not VH- CASA administered aircraft), where for this category there is barely any improvement in the FAR based on the data presented. Nevertheless, the discussion paper notes “…The comparison shows declining trends of fatal accident rates of recreational aeroplanes and the private/sport category of the private flying sector over the past five years.” – true, but let‟s be clear – there is a substantial difference between the rates of improvement. These data serve to indicate the need for a cautious and very careful approach to devolving aviation regulatory (and standards) administrative functions from CASA (or any government aviation regulator) to private organisation. History suggests that this does not always deliver improved safety outcomes – and such devolution should not be driven by pure commercial considerations. The focus should be fairly and squarely on whether or not such devolution compromises of safety outcomes.

ELAAA relies on the work conducted some time ago by SAAA and its observations in the matter as follows:-

SAAA proposed type training for its members, … „which was designed to educate pilots around the need for what is known as “type transition training” (meaning

7.

training to develop competency to fly aircraft that are new to pilots), looks at the consequences of increasing weights of aircraft. An understanding of these consequences is often not obvious to pilots – bear in mind that generally speaking, new pilots start their private aviation careers in small light aircraft, and the not unsurprising pathway for many is to progress to larger, heavier, more complex and faster aircraft. The consequences are serious in that they have directionally (on trend) an exponential increase in many factors such as landing speeds, cruise speeds, complexity and general performance characteristics that all collectively increase the challenge that an aircraft presents to a pilot; which is why training is essential EVEN though a particular aircraft of greater weight and performance may still exist within a defined aircraft category (or classification). The „SAAA work is summarised in the appendices to this‟… (SAAA‟s )… paper… (previously submitted to CASA). „SAAA worked with CASA, and indeed is grateful to the CASA team for their support in finding a solution with the existing laws applicable to VH-registered EAB aircraft to enable experienced SAAA pilots who best know the aircraft typically flown by SAAA members and others outside of SAAA. There is no doubt whatsoever that the outcome of the solution will save lives. However, the solution was unable to take advantage of any of the standards applicable to the RAA flight instructors. The flight instructors accredited within the SAAA must secure those accreditations with the full application of the CAR Part 61 regulations – these far exceed the alternative far less onerous standards available to RAA. Attaining the Part 61 appropriate flight instructor rating is simply out of reach of most private pilots who are keen to offer their time as volunteers to help pilots fly more safely – this therefore restricts the number of SAAA instructors, practically and financially speaking, to persons who already hold Part 61 flight instructor ratings that are immediately applicable to the SAAA program or which can at least be augmented from RPT (large transport aircraft) flight instructor ratings or similar to the requirements to instruct on light aircraft. One has to ask – what does this achieve? Why limit the opportunity to save lives by denying a set of regulations and standards to aviators not administered by a private organisation? This is just another disparity that serves no purpose to the aviation industry. Sport and Recreational Aviation oversight by CASA has become an uneven playing field with application of dual regulatory standards. The current proposal only exacerbates this undesirable situation. Specifically regards the current proposal and its apparent application to a single legislatively defined organisation under CAO Part 95.55: a) RAA enjoys a privileged and anti-competitive advantage within the Sport and Recreational aircraft sector through being advantaged by a CAO which is available exclusively to their company, and hence also aviators who procure a membership of this organisation in order to access advantageous privileges b) CASA‟s approval of dual (lower and hence more easily attainable) standards for Pilot Medicals for RAA pilots has commercially advantaged RAA. c) CASA‟s approval of having dual standards with one lower than the other for certain participants and that lower standard of pilot training for pilots permitted to fly RAA registered aircraft has commercially advantaged RAA. d) CASA‟s approval of a dual standards for flight instructors with the lower standard being permitted to train RAA pilots has

8.

commercially advantaged RAA. e) Without levelling the playing field with respect to medical and flight training standards, extension of the weight limit for CAO 95.55 serves no purpose other than to provide an even greater anti-competitive commercial advantage to RAA in the monopoly market afforded by this CAO‟.

Above specifics aside, ELAAA considers that, in recognition of generally far more material and far reaching matters surrounding all aspects of the regulation of general aviation activities, which by definition includes sport and recreational aircraft irrespective of whether they are administered by CASA or an ASAO, the current weight increase proposal for ASAO(s) be rejected. This being in accord with Option 1 as presented in the CASA discussion paper. Essentially – stop the continued proliferation and / or extension of double standards on an exclusive basis that disadvantages so many Australian aviators. There is simply too much at stake to rush. We note that a similar proposal to extend aircraft weight permissions in 2008 was rejected. We suggest that a wide-ranging enquiry, supported by specific independent reviews similar to those conducted in the UK (per the Strategic Review of General Aviation, and the Regulatory Review of General Aviation), is required to objectively reset the general aviation landscape in Australia. The cries from the Australian general aviation community over many decades have not been responded to in manner that, in the opinion of ELAAA, would have led to meaningful change within the Australian aviation industry. Responses at the 2017 Wagga Wagga General Aviation Summit from the incumbent government and shadow Ministers McCormack and Albanese in regards to the aviation community‟s concerns left no one with any confidence that the called for changes to improve the way in which general aviation is managed and regulated would occur, any time soon. At the heart of the concerns were, and they still are, the overly complex and voluminous regulations compared to other major jurisdictions (such as the UK, USA, Canada etc.) which is not conducive to a healthy affordable safe Australian general aviation industry. Therefore, we cannot see any other means by which to resolve what is happening to Australian general aviation today other than draw on the knowledge of industry stakeholders here in Australia and where applicable other like entities to that of CASA, overseas. What is abundantly clear is that the current method of addressing, in a piecemeal fashion, large numbers of legislative and rule change proposals with the current consultation system, seems inadequate and unproductive. With the current style of “questionnaire style consultation”, it is difficult to comprehensively respond to proposed changes in legislation with sufficient time to properly research and address with authority the matters as they are presented. There is a sense that the current approach to consultation trivialises the assessment of important changes to legislation and rules. However, as important as it may be to “step back” and initiate a serious objective review of Australian general aviation regulations, we acknowledge that a process such as suggested above will not happen “overnight”. And so, in the interests of not unduly deferring opportunities to improve and develop more fit-for-purpose regulations surrounding private operations of the light aircraft fleet (up to 5700kg, the US equivalent of 12,500 lb), we

9.

respectfully suggest for the light private aircraft sector that following occur without further delay: 1. The immediate “levelling of the regulations” to deliver a set of universal regulations and standards applicable to the categories (or classifications) of aircraft currently defined in our legislation that are the same for any aircraft category (or classification) or pilot within the subject sector irrespective of whether they belong to a private organization and irrespective of whether they are administered by CASA or by a private organization. 2. The standards that should be addressed, but not necessarily limited to, include: a). Pilot licencing, training and related competency standards b). Flight instructor training and related competency standards c). Medical certification of pilots d). Aircraft maintenance, well proven standards in all of these regards already exist – either within Australia or in other major and generally much larger aviation jurisdictions. Where duplicate standards exist, a process is required to bring these into one overall standard applicable to the respective operational categories such as, inter alia, in the USA GA takes in all private operations from ultra-light operations up to 12,500lbs thus creating a level playing field and not needing to maintain mountains of legislation to achieve a sane, safe and fair result. Select those regulations most appropriate and fit-for-purpose, for the related category(s) of aircraft and their pilots. There should be proper recognition of the proportionate risks that accrue to various aircraft categories (or classifications). The objective needs to be delivery of common or universally applicable regulations and standards that are in no instance linked to a specific organisation to the exclusion of others (including individuals) where such regulations and standards apply for same category(s) of aircraft and their pilots.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of ELAAA PTY LTD and its subscribers..

Richard C L Parks

Bachelor of Laws LLB

Associate Degree Aviation

Principle Sanderson & Parks Solicitors

CEO

ELAAA Pty Ltd

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With phrases such as this ....

 

We do verily believe, and also verily believe that our belief is held by the majority of aviators in Australia

 

 

 

.... this bloke has missed his calling in life - he should be a politician, spouting BS on a par with Clive Palmer.

 

This is unintelligible gobbledegook, it represents the worst variety of "verbal padding" one could produce as an example of "lawyer-speak".

 

Then there's the lingering suspicion that someone who doesn't know the difference, between "Principle" and "Principal", must have acquired their education via cheating.

 

The wording in the entire document represents the worst possible levels of 19th century lawyer and legal obfuscation, which I thought we had left behind in the 21st century.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
I regret to say that I found this unintelligible. I suspect that I disagree with it.

 

That is because you probably have no idea what is going on in the industry, You need a certain level of intelligence to comprehend how the these dual regulations are effecting both the safety and the commercial growth of aviation in Australia. Its not just those that fly or own aircraft it's all the stakeholders in the industry. And before you judge if you would like to comment do some research first.   

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
With phrases such as this ....

 

.... this bloke has missed his calling in life - he should be a politician, spouting BS on a par with Clive Palmer.

 

This is unintelligible gobbledegook, it represents the worst variety of "verbal padding" one could produce as an example of "lawyer-speak".

 

Then there's the lingering suspicion that someone who doesn't know the difference, between "Principle" and "Principal", must have acquired their education via cheating.

 

The wording in the entire document represents the worst possible levels of 19th century lawyer and legal obfuscation, which I thought we had left behind in the 21st century.

 

Thank you for letting me know my word correct is on because I normally turn it of, that's one that I missed much appreciated from someone with an abundant quota of intellect. If it makes you happy I will fix it for you and as if you are perfect LOL.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1.

ELAAA | Light Aircraft & Recreational Aviation – An Opportunity for Review? Time to Step Back? Weight Increase Proposal – Why and for Who? What Must be Considered – for What Good Reason?:-

A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CASA’S WEIGHT INCREASE PROPOSAL FOR LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT

SUBMISSION AGAINST THE WEIGHT INCREASE PROPOSAL

26TH September 2019

The current proposal, and indeed in effect similar to a prior proposal in 2008 which did not result in any changes, to allow an increase in weight of certain aircraft that can be administered by a private organization under regulations exclusive to a private organization brings to the surface long-standing and serious concerns over the direction of regulation and administration of sport & recreational aviation in Australia. The proposition is that the current direction regulatory development and how regulation is administered exacerbates the proliferation of double standards, ever increasing complex regulations and costs of administering such regulations with questionable safety improvement potential or conditions that maximise the opportunity for Australian aviation to flourish. Let‟s be clear: • Well proven regulations and their administration already exist (in Australia and in other major jurisdictions) to manage all aircraft categories, including the aircraft category(s) the subject of this current “Weight increase proposal” • This proposal is all about extending the scope of aircraft categories that can be administered under different (less onerous and relaxed standards than those otherwise applicable to the same aircraft and pilots) to a private organization(s) on an exclusive basis • Such exclusive devolution concurrent with proliferation of different standards (including pilot and flight instructor training and competency standards, medical certification, aircraft maintenance etc.)

2.

is advantageous to a minority sector of Australian Sport & Recreational Aviation – the objectives of this approach are unclear. The direction which has been developing over many years challenges the proposition that Australian aviation standards should be universal and linked to the aircraft and the operations (including pilot and flight instructor training and competency standards, medical certification, aircraft maintenance etc.) and not linked to individual organisations, and certainly not on an exclusive basis. The overarching question is simple – why is this not what is happening in Australia? But beneath the surface one cannot help but follow with more questions such as: • What is the objective of pursuing a path that we believe has not been attempted or been successful anywhere else in the world? • What is the worth of in effect conducting such an experiment? • Can we afford to accept the consequences of failure where the ultimate measure is that of the attrition of safety outcomes? Despite Australia is a signatory to the ICAO treaty and is therefore, bound to compliance with its articles and SARP‟s, then why are we seemingly hell bent on departure from the ICAO global standards and recommendations in respect of aviation regulation and administration?

At ELAAA, we believe the majority of aviators, have no issue at all with the development of more relaxed and fit-for-purpose standards for particular aircraft categories and pilots who operate them under certain operational conditions (flight rules, airspaces etc.). This is consistent with enabling aviation to flourish to the benefit of more than just aviators themselves – there are many substantial and far reaching benefits to having a healthy flourishing aviation industry (the stakeholders in aviation in Australia). We do verily believe, and also verily believe that our belief is held by the majority of aviators in Australia, that caution needs to be exercised when departing from current well proven practices and standards. We are, however, fortunate, that we are able to, which we should be doing, rely on and draw from the experience of several other major jurisdictions (such as the USA, UK and Canada) who manage aviation fleets that are in an order of magnitude larger than the Australian fleet. We do not have to re-invent the wheel. We do not have to experiment or ponder what does or does not result in improved safety outcomes. Likewise, we have no issue whatsoever with the principle of devolution of the administration of regulations to private organisations where competency and ability to achieve or better the safety outcome performance realised through CASA administration of regulation can be assured. We do, however, hold serious concerns where, as part of the process to devolve the administration of regulations, regulations founded on different standards (less onerous and relaxed standards and competency requirements than those otherwise applicable to the same aircraft and pilots) are afforded to a private organization(s) on an exclusive basis. There are two issues here – double standards, and exclusivity - which together disadvantage the majority of aviators and the nation in many respects. From ELAAA‟s narrow perspective, ELAAA had been informally advised by CASA that it was entitled to self-administer under CAO 95.55, which was just not true as RAA held a monopoly on the situation as provided in CAO 95.55 and now, the recently introduced legislation

3.

(Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Regulations and its MOS) does not take ELAAA any closer to the goal it was seeking in its Application to CASA to be appointed as ASAO. From the time of the submission of our Application to the time of the introduction of Part 149 that which was first proposed and ELAAA was led to be believe by CASA what would be the outcome, the goal posts shifted, changing dramatically the definition, form and application of Part 149. These changes were basically, the death knell to the ELAAA Application. The actions on the part of CASA have in respect of the introduction of Part 149 in its present form now further alienated many more light aircraft owners and operators due to the differing Rules and Regulations. This has now brought the position for private aviators even further from a fair and equal administration of all privately operated aircraft within the borders of Australia. This gap will now even be exacerbated further if the proposed weight increase is introduced for those aircraft that may be registered with RAA. There is a glaring and very important safety case against the increased weight and that is, as long as the RAA medical requirements and procedure remains the same and anything outside the organisational control of RAA in respect of medicals stays in place any GA pilot having questionable health will be given the opportunity to jump ship and go to RAA where they only need to make a declaration. Many negatives will flow from this not just the safety case of pilots jumping ship when they suspect that they won‟t pass a basic class 2 or a class 2 medical. One has to also consider the probable deterioration of maintenance in respect of the RAA aircraft as opposed to the stringent maintenance requirements placed on VH registered aircraft. There is also the commercial/ financial detriment within the aviation industry that needs to be addressed/ considered that is if there is a migration by VH registered aircraft to RAA how will this effect GA viability in the market place. This is a very real possibility and the numbers should be crunched before any decision is made to increase the weight limits within the RAA operational guidelines. Further, the fact that certain types of aircraft, though not exceeding the present weight limit enjoyed by RAA members, are, by some pilots owned and operate under the CASA administered regulations and regime. The fact that these aircraft may also operate under the self-administered organization (RAA) with access to standards that are not available outside of that organisation.may just fly in the face of Australian consumer legislation by creating a monopoly through the nurturing of what one could classify as a protected class. From a wider perspective, these sorts of disparities are exemplified by, for example, the long-standing call from general aviators at large to be afforded access to unique relaxed medical certification standards that are only available to members of RAA – this remains the case today. On this count alone it disadvantages thousands of private pilots who fly similar if not in many cases exactly the same aircraft in the same Australian skies. One has to ask – why is this sensible, equitable or just? CASA itself states in that regard, “Potential increased aircraft utilisation (601 kg to 760 kg MTOW)” • A higher MTOW for aircraft managed by ASAOs may provide access to a larger number of aircraft that may provide additional performance and training opportunities • Increased Maintenance Activity (CAR 30 and Part 145 Organisations). • Additional utilisation of aircraft with an MTOW

4.

between 601 kg to 760 kg may lead to an increase in maintenance organisation activity. If these assertions relate to existing aircraft and qualified pilots operating in Australia, then how would any of these assertions make any net difference? If they relate to the opportunity to increase the size of the Australian fleet or pilot flight qualifications, then why limit the opportunity to an ASAO? There can be no technical reason to do this – so, the obvious is very obvious is it not, is it perhaps for commercial reasons? If not – what? Another disparity in the approach to evolving and enhancing Australian general aviation. One must remember that one of the key Charter goals beside safety matters which is of great interest to ICAO is that of the commerciality aspect of aviation. Australia was a participant in and signed off on the Chicago Convention and ratified the Charter/ Treaty and Articles thereto in the Air Navigation Act 1920 as amended in the 1940‟s. Australia is legally bound but CASA appear to be constantly trying to push Australian Aviation in another direction by divesting itself of its mandated objects as a regulatory body in accordance with the applicable legislation and the underpinning ICAO Charter..

There are clearly many disparities embedded within and surrounding everything referred to in the above discussion. Some of these are more explicitly highlighted here, and some go beyond matters relating to aviation regulation. The CAO 95.55 specifically specifies that only one organisation, being RAA, is entitled to certain exemptions in regards to certain ultra-light aircraft (in this regard – the current weight increase proposal described in CASA DP 1912ss should really refer to “..managed by RAA…” and “…registered with RAA”. It is misleading to suggest that the proposal is available to more than one ASAO. Pilots flying VH registered private production and EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) aircraft are required to meet either the RPL medical certificate requirements if the aircraft MTO weight does not exceed 1500 kgs or the Class 2 medical standards associated with holding a CASR Part 61 Pilot Licence. RAA pilots are only required to meet the LOWER pilot medical standards per the RAA Operations Manual that rely on only pilot self-certification/ self-reporting with no requirement for medical practitioner verification. This can be to fly the same aircraft (when RAA registered) and would now be extended to be applicable to aircraft that CASA is proposing could be included in the monopoly held by RAA under CAO 95.55. Pilots flying VH registered EAB aircraft are required to meet the flight training and flight currency standards required when holding a CASR Part 61 pilot‟s licence RAA pilots are only required to meet the lesser flight standards per their Flight Operations Manual. This could be to fly the SAME higher MTOW aircraft (moved to RAA register) that CASA is proposing are acceptable to add to this monopoly held by RAA under CAO 95.55 There already a exists pathway for all aircraft between 600ks to 750 kgs MTOW to be operated without their inclusion under this monopoly provided under CAO 95.55. Why is there any justification, other than the vested interests of a commercial organisation (RAA), to expand the weight limits of this RAA monopoly CAO 95.55 and increase its market share as a direct consequence of this? (Is this a question for reference to the ACCC?)

5.

Despite ELAAA being engaged in the presentation of its documentation with alleged assistance and up until early last year consultation to achieve its goals it was constantly being thrown red herrings in particular in the matter of the development of CASR 149, ELAAA have had it stated to it by a number of Sport Aviation staff within CASA over many years now that a 760kg limit will never happen either for us or RAA and to forget about making that matter part of our platform. CASR 149 MOS has been written to exclude ELAAA‟s Application. ELAAA wrote to CASA when it came to our attention that the SAO‟s were to have a briefing on the operation of Part 149 and the MOS thereto and as we still had a current application before it we emailed CASA requesting permission to attend the briefing. CASA did not even give ELAAA the courtesy of a reply to its emailed request, which they did receive as we received a delivery receipt for our email.

Matters not openly revealed in DP 1912SS CASA have continually espoused their corporate mandate that they cannot under ( anti-competitive legislation ) legislate a competitive advantage to an organisation. However, within DP1912SS, it is not revealed that CASA has oversighted: a) Introduction of CASR 149.010 which empowers that only matters prescribed by the CASR 149 MOS are permitted matters b) basically in the greater scheme of things this has excluded the proposed ELAAA activities from coming into fruition (CASR 149 MOS) c) Empowerment of RAA‟s monopoly activities under CAO 95.55 as CASR 149 applicable activities, and d) have failed to acknowledge the “exclusivity” of CAO 95.55 To the specific and current Weight Increase proposal, ELAAA see no relevance to this proposal in the context of its application to a specific privately operated organization(s). ELAAA does, however, see relevance in enabling the establishment of relaxed less onerous regulations and standards for some lighter aircraft categories and their pilots when operated to certain flight rules and certain classes of airspace – where such new provisions are available to all Australian aviators, and not linked to any specific organization other than CASA. The approach in this specific regard is established and developing in many far larger jurisdictions than Australia, and we support it. But we cannot support a proposal that is made in circumstances where it will only be available on an exclusive basis to certain aviators who are members of a private organisation – it is discriminatory, and tantamount to anti-competitive behaviour. We also caution enabling or extending the scope of devolved responsibilities from CASA where there may be evidence or factors that indicate safety outcomes could be compromised. In this regard, the UK‟s Regulatory Review of General Aviation published in 2006 made a number of far-reaching observations and recommendations – one of which, Recommendation 6, is relevant in this regard:

Recommendation 6 The Regulatory Review Group recommends that the CAA carries out further work to investigate possible correlation between regulatory regime and GA Fatal Accident Rates (FARs) and causal factors. One area of investigation could be the licensing/training regime.

6.

The estimated FAR per 100,000 hours for the group of aircraft in the conventional aeroplane full regulation category were statistically better than those for aircraft in the devolved and self-regulation groups. In comparison, the FAR for fully regulated helicopters is very similar to self-regulated gliders, paragliders and partially devolved micro lights. Without attempting to draw any direct relationship between the UK and Australia, the UK situation is not inconsistent with a similar inference evident in material presented by CASA in its discussion paper pertaining to the proposed weight increase for self-administered organisations. The discussion paper indicates that the rate of improvement in safety outcomes, measured in the same manner as the UK review – being FAR (Fatal Accident Rate) per hours flown) pertaining to VH-private/sports aircraft administered by CASA, substantially exceed that of Australian “Recreational Aeroplanes”. Although not defined, it is presumed that this infers “Non-VH aircraft that are not administered by CASA”. Nevertheless, the performance of this category is depicted as being almost flat by comparison to the VH-Private/Sports aircraft which are administered by CASA. Figure 1 of the CASA Discussion Paper DP1912SS shows the progressive improvement in the “Recreational aircraft” (presumed these are not VH- CASA administered aircraft) accident rate over the last 5 years – despite the “up-tick” in recent times, the trend nevertheless indicates there is generally an improving trend. Figure 2 of the same discussion paper also indicates improvements as measured by the numbers of fatal accident rates for the same period. Thankfully, there is no “uptick” as seen regards accidents. However, it is important to understand that every accident, especially in the context of aviation, can so easily lead to a fatality(s).

Moving to Figure 3 of the same discussion paper, it is evident that whilst there has sadly been an “uptick” in the FAR in 2018 for “VH Private/Sports” aircraft in the 0-760kg range, the trend is clearly downwards – but this is not the case in respect of “Recreational Aeroplanes” (again – presumed these are not VH- CASA administered aircraft), where for this category there is barely any improvement in the FAR based on the data presented. Nevertheless, the discussion paper notes “…The comparison shows declining trends of fatal accident rates of recreational aeroplanes and the private/sport category of the private flying sector over the past five years.” – true, but let‟s be clear – there is a substantial difference between the rates of improvement. These data serve to indicate the need for a cautious and very careful approach to devolving aviation regulatory (and standards) administrative functions from CASA (or any government aviation regulator) to private organisation. History suggests that this does not always deliver improved safety outcomes – and such devolution should not be driven by pure commercial considerations. The focus should be fairly and squarely on whether or not such devolution compromises of safety outcomes.

ELAAA relies on the work conducted some time ago by SAAA and its observations in the matter as follows:-

SAAA proposed type training for its members, … „which was designed to educate pilots around the need for what is known as “type transition training” (meaning

7.

training to develop competency to fly aircraft that are new to pilots), looks at the consequences of increasing weights of aircraft. An understanding of these consequences is often not obvious to pilots – bear in mind that generally speaking, new pilots start their private aviation careers in small light aircraft, and the not unsurprising pathway for many is to progress to larger, heavier, more complex and faster aircraft. The consequences are serious in that they have directionally (on trend) an exponential increase in many factors such as landing speeds, cruise speeds, complexity and general performance characteristics that all collectively increase the challenge that an aircraft presents to a pilot; which is why training is essential EVEN though a particular aircraft of greater weight and performance may still exist within a defined aircraft category (or classification). The „SAAA work is summarised in the appendices to this‟… (SAAA‟s )… paper… (previously submitted to CASA). „SAAA worked with CASA, and indeed is grateful to the CASA team for their support in finding a solution with the existing laws applicable to VH-registered EAB aircraft to enable experienced SAAA pilots who best know the aircraft typically flown by SAAA members and others outside of SAAA. There is no doubt whatsoever that the outcome of the solution will save lives. However, the solution was unable to take advantage of any of the standards applicable to the RAA flight instructors. The flight instructors accredited within the SAAA must secure those accreditations with the full application of the CAR Part 61 regulations – these far exceed the alternative far less onerous standards available to RAA. Attaining the Part 61 appropriate flight instructor rating is simply out of reach of most private pilots who are keen to offer their time as volunteers to help pilots fly more safely – this therefore restricts the number of SAAA instructors, practically and financially speaking, to persons who already hold Part 61 flight instructor ratings that are immediately applicable to the SAAA program or which can at least be augmented from RPT (large transport aircraft) flight instructor ratings or similar to the requirements to instruct on light aircraft. One has to ask – what does this achieve? Why limit the opportunity to save lives by denying a set of regulations and standards to aviators not administered by a private organisation? This is just another disparity that serves no purpose to the aviation industry. Sport and Recreational Aviation oversight by CASA has become an uneven playing field with application of dual regulatory standards. The current proposal only exacerbates this undesirable situation. Specifically regards the current proposal and its apparent application to a single legislatively defined organisation under CAO Part 95.55: a) RAA enjoys a privileged and anti-competitive advantage within the Sport and Recreational aircraft sector through being advantaged by a CAO which is available exclusively to their company, and hence also aviators who procure a membership of this organisation in order to access advantageous privileges b) CASA‟s approval of dual (lower and hence more easily attainable) standards for Pilot Medicals for RAA pilots has commercially advantaged RAA. c) CASA‟s approval of having dual standards with one lower than the other for certain participants and that lower standard of pilot training for pilots permitted to fly RAA registered aircraft has commercially advantaged RAA. d) CASA‟s approval of a dual standards for flight instructors with the lower standard being permitted to train RAA pilots has

8.

commercially advantaged RAA. e) Without levelling the playing field with respect to medical and flight training standards, extension of the weight limit for CAO 95.55 serves no purpose other than to provide an even greater anti-competitive commercial advantage to RAA in the monopoly market afforded by this CAO‟.

Above specifics aside, ELAAA considers that, in recognition of generally far more material and far reaching matters surrounding all aspects of the regulation of general aviation activities, which by definition includes sport and recreational aircraft irrespective of whether they are administered by CASA or an ASAO, the current weight increase proposal for ASAO(s) be rejected. This being in accord with Option 1 as presented in the CASA discussion paper. Essentially – stop the continued proliferation and / or extension of double standards on an exclusive basis that disadvantages so many Australian aviators. There is simply too much at stake to rush. We note that a similar proposal to extend aircraft weight permissions in 2008 was rejected. We suggest that a wide-ranging enquiry, supported by specific independent reviews similar to those conducted in the UK (per the Strategic Review of General Aviation, and the Regulatory Review of General Aviation), is required to objectively reset the general aviation landscape in Australia. The cries from the Australian general aviation community over many decades have not been responded to in manner that, in the opinion of ELAAA, would have led to meaningful change within the Australian aviation industry. Responses at the 2017 Wagga Wagga General Aviation Summit from the incumbent government and shadow Ministers McCormack and Albanese in regards to the aviation community‟s concerns left no one with any confidence that the called for changes to improve the way in which general aviation is managed and regulated would occur, any time soon. At the heart of the concerns were, and they still are, the overly complex and voluminous regulations compared to other major jurisdictions (such as the UK, USA, Canada etc.) which is not conducive to a healthy affordable safe Australian general aviation industry. Therefore, we cannot see any other means by which to resolve what is happening to Australian general aviation today other than draw on the knowledge of industry stakeholders here in Australia and where applicable other like entities to that of CASA, overseas. What is abundantly clear is that the current method of addressing, in a piecemeal fashion, large numbers of legislative and rule change proposals with the current consultation system, seems inadequate and unproductive. With the current style of “questionnaire style consultation”, it is difficult to comprehensively respond to proposed changes in legislation with sufficient time to properly research and address with authority the matters as they are presented. There is a sense that the current approach to consultation trivialises the assessment of important changes to legislation and rules. However, as important as it may be to “step back” and initiate a serious objective review of Australian general aviation regulations, we acknowledge that a process such as suggested above will not happen “overnight”. And so, in the interests of not unduly deferring opportunities to improve and develop more fit-for-purpose regulations surrounding private operations of the light aircraft fleet (up to 5700kg, the US equivalent of 12,500 lb), we

9.

respectfully suggest for the light private aircraft sector that following occur without further delay: 1. The immediate “levelling of the regulations” to deliver a set of universal regulations and standards applicable to the categories (or classifications) of aircraft currently defined in our legislation that are the same for any aircraft category (or classification) or pilot within the subject sector irrespective of whether they belong to a private organization and irrespective of whether they are administered by CASA or by a private organization. 2. The standards that should be addressed, but not necessarily limited to, include: a). Pilot licencing, training and related competency standards b). Flight instructor training and related competency standards c). Medical certification of pilots d). Aircraft maintenance, well proven standards in all of these regards already exist – either within Australia or in other major and generally much larger aviation jurisdictions. Where duplicate standards exist, a process is required to bring these into one overall standard applicable to the respective operational categories such as, inter alia, in the USA GA takes in all private operations from ultra-light operations up to 12,500lbs thus creating a level playing field and not needing to maintain mountains of legislation to achieve a sane, safe and fair result. Select those regulations most appropriate and fit-for-purpose, for the related category(s) of aircraft and their pilots. There should be proper recognition of the proportionate risks that accrue to various aircraft categories (or classifications). The objective needs to be delivery of common or universally applicable regulations and standards that are in no instance linked to a specific organisation to the exclusion of others (including individuals) where such regulations and standards apply for same category(s) of aircraft and their pilots.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of ELAAA PTY LTD and its subscribers..

Richard C L Parks

Bachelor of Laws LLB

Associate Degree Aviation

Principal Sanderson & Parks Solicitors

CEO

ELAAA Pty Ltd

 

Happy now onetrack?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick - I'm happy to see a very basic description error being corrected - but if I was the person to whom this submission was being presented, I wouldn't be happy at all - in fact, I'd probably bin it, as being incomprehensible to the average pilot and light aircraft owner. A submission needs to be concise, clear, easily read, and easily understood - and not one of these descriptions applies to your submission. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to say to those keyboard warriors that if they feel the need to comment first, before making fools of themselves go and read the public consultation document on the subject and then the 6 questions that CASA has posted.

 

This submission covers those matters so once you are aware of the process CASA has used to down play the importance of the issue the light may come on for you. 

 

This was not posted for those knockers in these forums but as an update for those that are aware of what is going on in aviation today.

 

That is the discrimination by regulation as between one private aviation organization and the GA sector.

 

Obviously those who make stupid and inane comments wouldn't appreciate the real problems that aviation, that is both Sport and GA, face in this country at this time.

 

Some are quick to shoot off their mouth and follow like sheep but then when it all falls down around them they squeal like little girls.

 

Get on board and research what is going on. 

 

And for those who hide behind a anonymity don't be shy get who you are out there don't be scared to get a little egg on your face from time to time at least it shows guts and you are not a troll like some others in these forums.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick-p , I think they were a bit hard on you. But I have to admit that I didn't read it all, mind you I am retired now and if I was a CASA paid guy, I would have read every word.

 

My interest is lost when the "safety" word is used.

 

Here's a true story about the only guy ever to die at Gawler.  He had a current GA license complete with medical. He didn't die in the air because he hadn't flown for 2 weeks. Why no flying? On account of how he felt unwell and not up to flying. And that's the point: we don't need all-powerful bureaucrats backed up by police with guns in order to do the right thing.

 

Another guy I know would fail the medical, but he has flown safely for 40 years and why? Because he doesn't fly if he feels crook, and his condition gives him ample warning of when not to fly.

 

There is a big difference between amateurs like us and professionals who are under financial pressure to fly even when they feel sick.

 

The second big thing is maintenance. 

 

I believe that maintenance, if left to the owner, would be done at least as well and probably better than through the official system which in my opinion over-rates LAMEs.

 

Sure there is a big role for associations like the ELAAA to educate the owners so they don't muck up. And yes, there may be the odd cowboy out there, but they can already do their cowboy thing no matter how much policing you do. Personally, I don't care about them and don't believe that they will ever crash into a kindergarten.  The worst thing I have heard about cowboys is that they do mustering in the outback and lie about their hours. Commercial pressure again. There is not enough money in mustering to pay for all the regulation requirements.

 

The third big thing is airspace.

 

We have far too much controlled airspace in Australia, the airlines only need 50 km wide corridors . The excess airspace is costly to police and forces VFR traffic into dangerously low operations. All this to feed an expensive  bureaucracy.

 

The greatest achievement of the RAAus  was to enable people to fly across Bass Strait over 5,000ft. Previously, they had been confined to below 5,000ft for "safety" reasons. There is much more work to do.

 

Compared to these issues, the question of increasing weight but not stall speed for RAAus and ELAAA is trivial.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce exactly thats our point all private aircraft should be governed by a simple set of regulations.

 

For example we all only need one easy medical not class 2 or 3 or 4 whatever. One set of rules for GA private and Sport.

 

Its just getting out of hand.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Richard, for your time taken on this  post.

 

It is long but I managed to read all of it, Other's call it "lawyer-speak",

 

I found it more normal that their gobbledygook, that leaves no answer to Any question. 

 

AND yes I agree with your conclusion. CASA is not for "safety" & RAA Is a monopoly.

 

spacesailor

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For example we all only need one easy medical not class 2 or 3 or 4 whatever. One set of rules for GA private and Sport.

 

Its just getting out of hand.

 

Hi Rick, in the online submission my answers were one or two lines versus your pages, do they carry equal weight? How does the process work now, this is a genuine question. I do agree with your position on medical and some others.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a good chance of this blowing up big time. I can just see some complaints getting to the politicians and a Minister saying to his advisor, "Yes I understand that self administrators want to be able to fly on a driver's medical with a little more weight, but they're only flying those little grass hoppers aren't they?" and the advisor saying "no they want to fly the exact same aircraft in the same places as a Pilot who needs a Class 2 medical and training to a PPL standard, higher certification and maintenance by a LAME" and it will be on.

 

Rick has made some very strong points that people should be thinking about, because in the worst case this could be very costly for RAA members.

 

Note: this is a precis of a quick skim through of Rick’s post. I haven’t made any comments, so any variation in these notes from the original is just an error and defaults to the original.

 

SUBMISSION AGAINST THE WEIGHT INCREASE TO 760 kg

 

Clause 1

 

1.     A similar previous proposal in 2008 did not result in any changes

 

2.     Raises concerns over regulation of Sport & Recreational Aviation in Australia

 

3.     Causes double standards in safety

 

4.     Increases administration costs

 

5.     Little safety improvement or ability of aviation to flourish

 

6.     Well proven regulations already exist

 

7.     This proposal is about expending self-administrated aircraft categories and different  standards for pilot and instructor training and medical certification, and aircraft maintenance.

 

Clause 2

 

8.     For the advantage of very few people

 

9.     Australian aviation is not based on giving advantage to a select few and/or on an exclusive basis.

 

10.  Why would we do something that has not been successful anywhere else in the world?

 

11.  Why would we even experiment with this?

 

12.  Can we afford the potential failures and safety issues?

 

13.  Why would we depart from ICAO standards?

 

14.  Most people have no objection to changes which allow aviation to flourish but we need to be cautious about departing from well proven standards.

 

15.  We can draw from USA, UK and Canada’s bigger fleets; we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

 

16.  We hold serious concerns where lower standards are awarded to a private organisation on an exclusive basis.

 

17.  This creates double standards

 

18.  Exclusivity is discriminatory.

 

Clause 3.

 

19.  Part 149 does not take ELAA any closer to being an Administrator

 

20.  Part 149 has introduced differing rules and regulations which disadvantage people.

 

21.  Less fair for private aviators

 

22.  Even less fair if the proposed weight increase is introduced for aircraft registered with RAA exclusively.

 

23.  Important safety case against the increased weight

 

24.  People in GA with medical problems can jump ship into RAA

 

25.  Will lead to a deterioration in maintenance standards, eroding the stringent standard for VH registered.

 

26.  Migration of VH aircraft to RAA will affect the viability of GA

 

27.  The changes may contravene Australian Consumer Law

 

28.  Thousands of pilots are disadvantaged by RAA lower medical standards

 

29.  If there’s an opportunity to expand aviation in this area why limit it to one ASAO? – there is no technical reason to do this.

 

30.  A key ICAO goal is commerciality

 

31.  CAO 95.55 specifies that only RAA is entitled to certain exemptions for certain ultra-light aircraft.

 

32.  The current Proposal wording is misleading and discriminatory in favour of RAA only.

 

33.  Can lead to double standards in pilot licensing.

 

Clause 5.

 

34.  ELAA have been discouraged from 760 kg limit by CASA.

 

35.  CASR 149 has been written to exclude ELAA’s application.

 

36.  While CASA say their mandate prohibits legislating a competitive advantage, the opposite will happen.

 

Clause 6.

 

37.  Fatal Accident Rates are not being depicted fairly.

 

Clause 7.

 

38.  Training standards give RAA an unfair advantage

 

Clause 8.

 

39.  Increasing the weight limit provides an even greater disadvantage for categories other than RAA

 

40.  ELAA recommend the weight increase be rejected in accordance with Option 1

 

Clause 9.

 

41.  Request a ‘levelling of regulations for:

 

42.  Pilot licensing, training, competency, standards

 

43.  Flight Instructor training, competency, standards

 

44.  Medical certification of pilots

 

45.  Aircraft maintenance

 

46.  Removal of duplications

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the regulations for 149, in my opinion, RAA is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire because CASA actually INCREASES its control of sport aviation under these regulations.

 

CASA must approve all major staffing positions and there are criminal penalties attached to the administration of all RAA activity. CASA can direct in detail all RAA operations and the members get no say whatsoever.

 

Of course if you are a CASA approved RAA staff member, you can name your own salary because replacing you can be made virtually impossible by CASA.

 

RAA effectively becomes a CASA ‘mini me” and can be all the more vicious because it is outside even the lax prudential controls that limit CASA behaviour.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

" because in the worst case this could be very costly for RAA members."

 

If the monopoly is broken, surly competition will bring the prices down, (I know, wishful thinking).

 

"RAA effectively becomes a CASA ‘mini me” and can be all the more vicious because it is outside even the lax prudential controls that limit CASA behaviour."

 

And if you disagree with RAA, ?.

 

They will not relinquish their position without a fight. Big money for the top CEO,s again.

 

After all, it will be one of the directors, being rewarded for approving the salary increases, will it not ?.

 

I want to fly, But RAA can Interpret CASA,s LAW, as it wants to !.

 

I want another organisation to be in competition with RAA.

 

spacesailor

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there's a good chance of this blowing up big time. I can just see some complaints getting to the politicians and a Minister saying to his advisor, "Yes I understand that self administrators want to be able to fly on a driver's medical with a little more weight, but they're only flying those little grass hoppers aren't they?" and the advisor saying "no they want to fly the exact same aircraft in the same places as a Pilot who needs a Class 2 medical and training to a PPL standard, higher certification and maintenance by a LAME" and it will be on.

 

Rick has made some very strong points that people should be thinking about, because in the worst case this could be very costly for RAA members.

 

Note: this is a precis of a quick skim through of Rick’s post. I haven’t made any comments, so any variation in these notes from the original is just an error and defaults to the original.

 

SUBMISSION AGAINST THE WEIGHT INCREASE TO 760 kg

 

Clause 1

 

1.     A similar previous proposal in 2008 did not result in any changes

 

2.     Raises concerns over regulation of Sport & Recreational Aviation in Australia

 

3.     Causes double standards in safety

 

4.     Increases administration costs

 

5.     Little safety improvement or ability of aviation to flourish

 

6.     Well proven regulations already exist

 

7.     This proposal is about expending self-administrated aircraft categories and different  standards for pilot and instructor training and medical certification, and aircraft maintenance.

 

Clause 2

 

8.     For the advantage of very few people

 

9.     Australian aviation is not based on giving advantage to a select few and/or on an exclusive basis.

 

10.  Why would we do something that has not been successful anywhere else in the world?

 

11.  Why would we even experiment with this?

 

12.  Can we afford the potential failures and safety issues?

 

13.  Why would we depart from ICAO standards?

 

14.  Most people have no objection to changes which allow aviation to flourish but we need to be cautious about departing from well proven standards.

 

15.  We can draw from USA, UK and Canada’s bigger fleets; we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

 

16.  We hold serious concerns where lower standards are awarded to a private organisation on an exclusive basis.

 

17.  This creates double standards

 

18.  Exclusivity is discriminatory.

 

Clause 3.

 

19.  Part 149 does not take ELAA any closer to being an Administrator

 

20.  Part 149 has introduced differing rules and regulations which disadvantage people.

 

21.  Less fair for private aviators

 

22.  Even less fair if the proposed weight increase is introduced for aircraft registered with RAA exclusively.

 

23.  Important safety case against the increased weight

 

24.  People in GA with medical problems can jump ship into RAA

 

25.  Will lead to a deterioration in maintenance standards, eroding the stringent standard for VH registered.

 

26.  Migration of VH aircraft to RAA will affect the viability of GA

 

27.  The changes may contravene Australian Consumer Law

 

28.  Thousands of pilots are disadvantaged by RAA lower medical standards

 

29.  If there’s an opportunity to expand aviation in this area why limit it to one ASAO? – there is no technical reason to do this.

 

30.  A key ICAO goal is commerciality

 

31.  CAO 95.55 specifies that only RAA is entitled to certain exemptions for certain ultra-light aircraft.

 

32.  The current Proposal wording is misleading and discriminatory in favour of RAA only.

 

33.  Can lead to double standards in pilot licensing.

 

Clause 5.

 

34.  ELAA have been discouraged from 760 kg limit by CASA.

 

35.  CASR 149 has been written to exclude ELAA’s application.

 

36.  While CASA say their mandate prohibits legislating a competitive advantage, the opposite will happen.

 

Clause 6.

 

37.  Fatal Accident Rates are not being depicted fairly.

 

Clause 7.

 

38.  Training standards give RAA an unfair advantage

 

Clause 8.

 

39.  Increasing the weight limit provides an even greater disadvantage for categories other than RAA

 

40.  ELAA recommend the weight increase be rejected in accordance with Option 1

 

Clause 9.

 

41.  Request a ‘levelling of regulations for:

 

42.  Pilot licensing, training, competency, standards

 

43.  Flight Instructor training, competency, standards

 

44.  Medical certification of pilots

 

45.  Aircraft maintenance

 

46.  Removal of duplications

 

That's pretty much what I took away from that post, however I consider the actual case to be almost the exact opposite of many of those original statements.

 

I didn't read anything in part 149 that would exclude ELAAA.

 

Done properly, getting a weight increase, relaxing the unnecessarily strict maintenance requirements and medical standards, making all private ops recreational could achieve all that is requested in Clause 9. (That's not to say CASA is planning to do it that way.)

 

Of course here in Oz we can't really expect any such sensibility.

 

It is proven that self maintenance leads to improved maintenance.

 

Thousands of pilots could actually benefit from relaxed medical standards.

 

We currently have double standards in pilot training, safety and maintenance requirements.

 

I get the impression that CASA don't actually want the idea to be attractive and have presented it in a very poor form.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
"I get the impression that CASA don't actually want the idea to be attractive work and have presented it in a very poor clever form"

 

Yeah....That's probably more accurate.....

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick - I'm happy to see a very basic description error being corrected - but if I was the person to whom this submission was being presented, I wouldn't be happy at all - in fact, I'd probably bin it, as being incomprehensible to the average pilot and light aircraft owner. A submission needs to be concise, clear, easily read, and easily understood - and not one of these descriptions applies to your submission. 

 

This submission is not for the average pilot/light aircraft owner, more to the point of being directed to the law makers and their advisors.

 

KP 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Hi Rick, in the online submission my answers were one or two lines versus your pages, do they carry equal weight? How does the process work now, this is a genuine question. I do agree with your position on medical and some others.

 

Sorry for the late reply. I did a while ago attempt to reply on my mobile phone but in the middle of replying Telstra had the all to frequent outage and I lost the post.

 

Anyway, in a nutshell CASA have trivialized a very important process by basically restricting replies to the Public Consultation. You couldn't upload anything to the web site and therefore, straight away you were restricted in making any reasonably informed and supported by evidence response. The reason given was fear of the CASA computer being given a virus. It is good to see that they have good anti virus protection in keeping with it's level of importance in government, LOL.

 

There is a lot more to this whole 760kg weight increase proposal but rather than think for everyone of those who have interest in improving the aviation scene in this country, without the angst of a dual system, for all private operations, these pilot operators need to read, listen and learn and thereafter, make their own informed decisions.

 

For those that are interested and want to really find out more and how we should be dealing with it they should visit AusFly next week at Narromine and when there attend the AGAA tent where almost all the major players in aviation will be.

 

I will finish up by saying that ELAAA has been pushing for more than 6yrs for change and have achieved some milestones, for example RAA are now using what mirrors in part our approved by CASA hands on maintenance course. Nearly 100 people have completed our course but unfortunately RAA won't accept it and as I understand it the Jabiru maintenance course.

 

We are not giving up, yes our platform has changed somewhat but we believe for the better as after this time having familiarized ourselves with the industry and legislation, obtaining a lot more competencies and qualifications we now along with other major players in the arena believe that we will achieve benefits for all of us under one functional system rather than the disjointed piecemeal one we now labour under. 

 

We need a level playing field in respect of the regulations for all private operations in Australia.

 

We need all aircraft whether RAA or GA registered by CASA with VH registration only, whether numbers or letters after the VH, it doesn't matter.

 

One medical for all which is based on a very basic platform.

 

All pilot certificates and licences be issued by CASA after all relevant training and competencies have been achieved with the relevant SAO/ training organization.

 

Regards

 

Rick-p

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Winner 1
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...