Jump to content

RAAus CEO is moving on


Recommended Posts

Obviously a company that's looking for MORE bureaucracy, staff, rules and regulation, meetings, fancy position names, contractors, increasing operating costs, fancy web sites and bleeding more money from who ever funds it.......whether it's wanted or not..... :cool:

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously a company that's looking for MORE bureaucracy, staff, rules and regulation, meetings, fancy position names, contractors, increasing operating costs, fancy web sites and bleeding more money from who ever funds it.......whether it's wanted or not..... :cool:

That prompted my thoughts.

Brisbane., "Broncos" fit that bill.

KP

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oi! Turbo...I want the truth.

Well I'm not going to bother getting it, and you've had years to get your operation going, and I doubt it will make much difference for a remote company's CEO to move on. There are bigger issues to be concerned about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously a company that's looking for MORE bureaucracy, staff, rules and regulation, meetings, fancy position names, contractors, increasing operating costs, fancy web sites and bleeding more money from who ever funds it.......whether it's wanted or not..... :cool:

I cant understand all the drama!

The Announcement just said he ismoving to a new Role, people do it every day!

Why is everybody so concerned?

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

I didn't start the thread.

I just made the joke...... chill man...... just a bit of irrelevant gosip.....

Downunder, my comment not directed at you personally.... just a lot of talk from others about someone moving to a new role which he is entitled to do. Why so much interest?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told by someone in the higher ups at RAAus that he's moving on to greener, non-aviation pastures. Hopefully whoever takes his position next will be someone who actually has an aviation background.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to accept him moving on, as long as it's not to CASA , taking his inside knowledge with him.

We got a letter from him, but his destination was conspicuous by its absence.

And Turbs, it is very unfair to blame ELAAA for the fact that CASA is stonewalling them. My guess is that they need to go political, but alas there are too few votes in it for most pollies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Turbs, it is very unfair to blame ELAAA for the fact that CASA is stonewalling them. My guess is that they need to go political, but alas there are too few votes in it for most pollies.

How are CASA stonewalling them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to accept him moving on, as long as it's not to CASA , taking his inside knowledge with him.

We got a letter from him, but his destination was conspicuous by its absence.

And Turbs, it is very unfair to blame ELAAA for the fact that CASA is stonewalling them. My guess is that they need to go political, but alas there are too few votes in it for most pollies.

Bruce you 100% correct.

Turbo needs to take a refresher on bureaucrat behaviour and the art of.

KP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce you 100% correct.

Turbo needs to take a refresher on bureaucrat behaviour and the art of.

KP

Those comments from the two of you probably sum up the problem.

Bruce it has nothing to do with going political; the politicians are likely to be told by CASA it doesn't legally fit.

 

Keith, please correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can remember you set up a Limited company to administer RA airctarft+some VH Aircraft + some VH Helicopters.

 

You could have set up an Incorporated Association to handle RA aircraft as a start, but also fitting into the accepted SAO policy were:

 

ABF

APF

ASA

ASRA

GFA

HGFA

MAAA

 

And you still could.

 

In going for a mix of RA where the liability rests with RA plus two classes where the liability and control rests with CASA, I don't believe it is possible to have a company or association doing both.

 

No one in any field of business is likely to give away control of an operation while retaining liability for its mistakes.

 

It would be interesting to see how fast things moved if you put up a proposal for an Incorporated Association handling RA only.

If that was accepted and you got some time under your belt, the potential numbers are huge, and when the numbers are huge, the costs come down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those comments from the two of you probably sum up the problem.

Bruce it has nothing to do with going political; the politicians are likely to be told by CASA it doesn't legally fit.

 

Keith, please correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can remember you set up a Limited company to administer RA airctarft+some VH Aircraft + some VH Helicopters.

 

You could have set up an Incorporated Association to handle RA aircraft as a start, but also fitting into the accepted SAO policy were:

 

ABF

APF

ASA

ASRA

GFA

HGFA

MAAA

 

And you still could.

 

In going for a mix of RA where the liability rests with RA plus two classes where the liability and control rests with CASA, I don't believe it is possible to have a company or association doing both.

 

No one in any field of business is likely to give away control of an operation while retaining liability for its mistakes.

 

It would be interesting to see how fast things moved if you put up a proposal for an Incorporated Association handling RA only.

If that was accepted and you got some time under your belt, the potential numbers are huge, and when the numbers are huge, the costs come down.

And at least with RAAus the members own the company but with ELAAA it is a private company of unknown ownership.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And at least with RAAus the members own the company but with ELAAA it is a private company of unknown ownership.

It matters not one bit who owns the company, what matters is that the credentials it hands out meet the required standards.

One only has to look at TAFE in SA to see how, despite public ownership, its aviation training credentials were suspect to say the least, as proved by CASA's actions.

I would gladly pay a private company to issue my RPC in the same way as a private organisation now issues RPL/PPL's. But for some reason CASA refuses to institute the same system for RPC's. Maybe just to protect the interests of the incumbent SAO's?

Maybe it is time to ask what is it that the dozen or so people in CASA's Sport Aviation Branch actually do?

The question of CASA that should be asked by our parliamentarians is "why are CASA letting unlicenced pilots flying unregistered planes fly in the same airspace as our airliners?" before a mid-air between a regional airliner carrying 20 constituents and SAO registered aircraft. CASA's response to that question would be interesting and I bet it won't be "liability".

Link to post
Share on other sites

But for some reason CASA refuses to institute the same system for RPC's. Maybe just to protect the interests of the incumbent SAO's?

I don't have any inside information on how CASA makes its decisions, but if I was in CASA's shoes I would make the exact same split on liability grounds.

I really am surprised you haven't researched this by now since SA was the state that kicked off the move of governments away from presecriptive control in the 1980s, and the SA lawyers were the best and toughest in the land.

 

The question of CASA that should be asked by our parliamentarians is "why are CASA letting unlicenced pilots flying unregistered planes fly in the same airspace as our airliners?"

The RA pilots are trained to a certain standard and given a Certificate, so I wouldn't call them unlicenced.

Their aircraft are registered, so I wouldn't call them unregistered.

They operate in a window which, with a few excpetions has them flying in different airspace to airliners.

There are some, with suitable equipment, and extra pilot training operate into locations alongside airliners - but the qualifications are equivalent to airliners. (which is why I'm disappointed to see silly threads on CTA and Flight Plans inferring any fool can wander in, say "G'day mate can you show me how I can land/get through here." and expect Airservices not to send them back to where they came from.

 

before a mid-air between a regional airliner carrying 20 constituents and SAO registered aircraft.

Without Compliance and Enforcement people the operations will become more defacto GA and that collision is exponentially more likely; It's up to the SAO to be alert to drifts like that or they, as managers, will be paying the price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The RA pilots are trained to a certain standard and given a Certificate, so I wouldn't call them unlicenced.

Licences are issued by governments or their delegates. RPC's are not issued by CASA or anybody holding a CASA delegation. Another example, I may been trained to use earthmoving equipment and issued a certificate of competence by the vendor of the equipment but unless I have the little piece of plastic issued by a government authority or its delegate and have an accident on a worksite I and my employer are done for.

Their aircraft are registered, so I wouldn't call them unregistered.

RAA aircraft are on a register held by RAAus. They are not on the Australian Register of Aircraft and thus, at law, they are not registered.

They operate in a window which, with a few exceptions has them flying in different airspace to airliners.

Regional airlines operate out of many airports that are used by RAA aircraft. Have a look at the ATSB occurrence register to see the occasional interactions

SA lawyers were the best and toughest in the land.

I doubt that this claim can be substantiated. Did you know that SA has never had a High Court Judge? Maybe SA's legal fraternity are not thought of highly enough.

if I was in CASA's shoes I would make the exact same split on liability grounds.

I hope I am not around to see this piece of bureaucratic legal thinking prove wrong in a significant case. Remember when CASA approves documents it assumes liability to some extent.

Without Compliance and Enforcement people the operations will become more defacto GA and that collision is exponentially more likely; It's up to the SAO to be alert to drifts like that or they, as managers, will be paying the price.

GA has Compliance and Enforcement people and most of 600+kg fliers never interact with them. As for the claim that risk of collisions of aircraft will be exponentially higher without RAA type organisations, there is simply no basis for the claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Licences are issued by governments or their delegates. RPC's are not issued by CASA or anybody holding a CASA delegation. Another example, I may been trained to use earthmoving equipment and issued a certificate of competence by the vendor of the equipment but unless I have the little piece of plastic issued by a government authority or its delegate and have an accident on a worksite I and my employer are done for.

 

RAA aircraft are on a register held by RAAus. They are not on the Australian Register of Aircraft and thus, at law, they are not registered.

 

Regional airlines operate out of many airports that are used by RAA aircraft. Have a look at the ATSB occurrence register to see the occasional interactions

 

I doubt that this claim can be substantiated. Did you know that SA has never had a High Court Judge? Maybe SA's legal fraternity are not thought of highly enough.

 

I hope I am not around to see this piece of bureaucratic legal thinking prove wrong in a significant case. Remember when CASA approves documents it assumes liability to some extent.

 

We're in a time warp distance with the above. You're talking about the prescriptive era.

 

 

GA has Compliance and Enforcement people and most of 600+kg fliers never interact with them.

Correct, and that's the ideal, CASA have also adopted an audit method of management such as ramp checks and that also is better than the old days.

 

As for the claim that risk of collisions of aircraft will be exponentially higher without RAA type organisations, there is simply no basis for the claim.

I said without Compliance and Performance people, not without RAA type organisations.

It's the compliance and performance people who manage the vital ingredient of behaviour and performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're in a time warp distance with the above. You're talking about the prescriptive era.

Well actually I'm talking about the law. RAA aircraft are deemed to be unregistered.

 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 200.025

Flying unregistered aircraft

For paragraph 20AB(1)(a) of the Act, a person is taken to hold a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform a duty that is essential to the operation of an unregistered Australian aircraft during flight time if:

 

(a) the person holds a pilot certificate granted by a sport aviation body that administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

 

(b) the person operates the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body's operations manual.

 

And

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 200.030

Flying unregistered aircraft--offence

A person commits an offence if:

 

(a) the person pilots an unregistered Australian aircraft; and

 

(b) a sport aviation body administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

 

© the person does not:

 

(i) hold a pilot certificate granted by the sport aviation body; and

 

(ii) operate the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body's operations manual.

 

So RPC holders fly unregistered aircraft.

I said without Compliance and Performance people, not without RAA type organisations.

It's the compliance and performance people who manage the vital ingredient of behaviour and performance.

OK but what do the Sports Aviation Branch people actually do? After several years they still haven't determined the ELAAA application and took over 3 decades to produce the piece of crap that is CASR 149.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well actually I'm talking about the law. RAA aircraft are deemed to be unregistered.

 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 200.025

Flying unregistered aircraft

For paragraph 20AB(1)(a) of the Act, a person is taken to hold a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform a duty that is essential to the operation of an unregistered Australian aircraft during flight time if:

 

(a) the person holds a pilot certificate granted by a sport aviation body that administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

 

(b) the person operates the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body's operations manual.

 

And

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 200.030

Flying unregistered aircraft--offence

A person commits an offence if:

 

(a) the person pilots an unregistered Australian aircraft; and

 

(b) a sport aviation body administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

 

© the person does not:

 

(i) hold a pilot certificate granted by the sport aviation body; and

 

(ii) operate the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body's operations manual.

 

So RPC holders fly unregistered aircraft.

 

We got there in the end; when you are issued with a Recreational Pilot Certificate you are authorised to fly a Recreational Aircraft which has some numbers on it.

 

 

 

OK but what do the Sports Aviation Branch people actually do? After several years they still haven't determined the ELAAA application and took over 3 decades to produce the piece of crap that is CASR 149.

1. They administer SAOs

2. I mentioned a possible solution for ELAAA a couple of days ago; we don't know who said what several years ago, but I would suggest there is no reason for a GA pilot who is managed by CASA in a prescriptive way to want to pay a fee to an outside supplier when he is self contained within CASA, and the same thing for his aircraft, and it doesn't make any sense for CASA, which manages VH aircraft in a prescriptive way (the same as the State road authorities) to mix aircraft under prescriptive legislation with aircraft under self administration.

3. CASR 149 probably looks like crap to someone looking at it as prescriptive legislation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. They administer SAOs

No they don't. SAO's are administered by officials elected by members and their minions.

I mentioned a possible solution for ELAAA a couple of days ago;

The corporate entity of the SAO makes no difference to the SAO's relationship with CASA. Associations were not designed for multi-jurisdictional, large membership "controlling" bodies.

3. CASR 149 probably looks like crap to someone looking at it as prescriptive legislation.

And what is wrong with prescriptive legislation. As I read the CASR's etc they are prescriptive and they have real penalties. That is not to be confused with management of those prescriptions which is the enforcement policy enunciated in the Ministerial Direction of several years ago. The only problem with prescriptive regulation is that we all know where we stand, the alternative is differential enforcement of the law which is open to allegations of corruption, or locational bias (ie different enforcement according to location).

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...