CHANGES TO RAAUS MEMBERSHIP TERMS & CONDITIONS

[facthunter]

You are a stuck record Turbs and you are NOT listening. Nev

[turboplanner]

25 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You are a stuck record Turbs and you are NOT listening. Nev

The ways of the past, pretty much everything before 1986 don't apply any more. 

So yes it might sound like a stuck record, but believe me our Australian State Governments and the Commonwealth are never going back to the days when they paid out on your behalf.

Today WE pay for OUR activities.

[facthunter]

IF I check out someone for aeros some time in the past am I responsible IF HE does something silly and Kills Himself. IF so the System is doomed. No sensible person would be part of it. People are responsible for what THEY DECIDE to  do. Not try to Get compensation from some other Party For  A DECISION that No Normal thinking person would have MADE. You can't educate people to Be risk averse IF they Aren't..  And it's NOTHING Like RACE cars where People enter events at specified Places. . Crooks don't tell where they are going to rob someone either. Pilots who stuff up are not around to repeat it, frequently. IF they take someone with them, it's much worse.  Nev

[turboplanner]

59 minutes ago, facthunter said:

IF I check out someone for aeros some time in the past am I responsible IF HE does something silly and Kills Himself. IF so the System is doomed. No sensible person would be part of it. People are responsible for what THEY DECIDE to  do. Not try to Get compensation from some other Party For  A DECISION that No Normal thinking person would have MADE. You can't educate people to Be risk averse IF they Aren't..  And it's NOTHING Like RACE cars where People enter events at specified Places. . Crooks don't tell where they are going to rob someone either. Pilots who stuff up are not around to repeat it, frequently. IF they take someone with them, it's much worse.  Nev

There's a lot of squirming going on here. No point in picking your favourite comparisons; public liability can apply to a plum stone or a fence you put up or pitching a tent.

 

No point in picking your own fantasy scenario; the precedent has been rock solid for a long time. 

 

[facthunter]

You are good at dodging serious issues Put to You. Waste of My time (as Usual) Nev

[turboplanner]

36 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You are good at dodging serious issues Put to You. Waste of My time (as Usual) Nev

You certainly waste your time talking about the past and some unrelated flying example; but I note you've steered clear of talking about any professional advice on PL; you always revert back to pre-PL days and they are never coming back no matter how much you don't like the present.

[facthunter]

Yeah. My advice is to stop flyjng as the scene stinks. An instructor could easily lose everything as things Lie. I'm mainly Here for the safety aspects of things in case you haven't noticed.  I have no need to Prove anything but the good days are over in My estimation. Despite what you Keep on saying CASA is finally RESPONSIBLE for ALL that goes on in the Air. The last "A" stands for Authority and you can't contract OUT of  a  responsibility YOU Have under a Regulation without ensuring the Chosen Body can fulfill ALL  foreseeable situations/ Liabilities. People are MUGS to work for RAAus,  Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Yeah. My advice is to stop flyjng as the scene stinks. An instructor could easily lose everything as things Lie. I'm mainly Here for the safety aspects of things in case you haven't noticed.  I have no need to Prove anything but the good days are over in My estimation. Despite what you Keep on saying CASA is finally RESPONSIBLE for ALL that goes on in the Air. The last "A" stands for Authority and you can't contract OUT of  a  responsibility YOU Have under a Regulation without ensuring the Chosen Body can fulfill ALL  foreseeable situations/ Liabilities. People are MUGS to work for RAAus,  Nev

If you were trained by CASA (or its predecessors), and you were Licensed by CASA to fly under certain conditions and you were endorsed on certain aircraft, CASA has the duty of care - a bit like road third party.

 

However, the part you missed was the "Self Administration" words used throughout Australia from the mid '80s for just about all non essential things like sports. The self administrator who sets up something, trains people, makes rules etc. has a duty of care along with their trainers, officials etc.

 

For about the last 30 years or so in recreational flying where allowed people to build their own aircraft on a hobby basis and fly it cheaply, I would say the 10,000 members have been happy with the system, and produced a reasonal safety history. I don't understand why the constant bitching just goes on and on.

[jackc]

My thoughts personally, RAAus should have stayed incorporated, BUT the members voted to change it? WHY? Because the members of the day probably were not aware it was a scheme by the hierarchy to take almost total control. NOW, we are not even members…..we are Stakeholders, RAAus words 😕 Well, that may not end well, for us.

But never fear, we can go VH and maintain our aircraft that we did not build, subject to getting a certificate after qualifying the SAAA approved Maintainer Course.

CASA then issue you with your approval to repair and maintain 👍

Happy days, goodbye RAAus……..

The chickens are coming home to roost  🤩

[BrendAn]

5 hours ago, facthunter said:

IF I check out someone for aeros some time in the past am I responsible IF HE does something silly and Kills Himself. IF so the System is doomed. No sensible person would be part of it. People are responsible for what THEY DECIDE to  do. Not try to Get compensation from some other Party For  A DECISION that No Normal thinking person would have MADE. You can't educate people to Be risk averse IF they Aren't..  And it's NOTHING Like RACE cars where People enter events at specified Places. . Crooks don't tell where they are going to rob someone either. Pilots who stuff up are not around to repeat it, frequently. IF they take someone with them, it's much worse.  Nev

raaus are losing l2s for a similar reason. now they are making the l2 responsible for the aircraft he does a condition report on .

he may not even be present when the aircraft is test flown and may be in for the fight of his life if something goes wrong.

[jackc]

2 hours ago, BrendAn said:

raaus are losing l2s for a similar reason. now they are making the l2 responsible for the aircraft he does a condition report on .

he may not even be present when the aircraft is test flown and may be in for the fight of his life if something goes wrong.

L2s can migrate to SAAA, IF RAAus keep up the pressure, there will be no one left to work on RAAus Aircraft, be the same for Instructors soon, they will be able to migrate to do RPL training soon? 

[BurnieM]

How ? Last I heard you had to be a CPL to teach in CASA land.

[jackc]

Just now, BurnieM said:

How ? Last I heard you had to be a CPL to teach in CASA land.

All I can say at this stage are……changes in the pipeline coming 🤩

[turboplanner]

8 hours ago, jackc said:

My thoughts personally, RAAus should have stayed incorporated, BUT the members voted to change it? WHY? Because the members of the day probably were not aware it was a scheme by the hierarchy to take almost total control. NOW, we are not even members…..we are Stakeholders, RAAus words 😕 Well, that may not end well, for us.

But never fear, we can go VH and maintain our aircraft that we did not build, subject to getting a certificate after qualifying the SAAA approved Maintainer Course.

CASA then issue you with your approval to repair and maintain 👍

Happy days, goodbye RAAus……..

The chickens are coming home to roost  🤩

RAA inc from memory had the protection of the Associated Incoprporations Act in the ACT from memory which  was designed to protect sporting bodies in the shift across from governments paying out for injuries/deaths to the participants having their own responsibility to do so. In the Act were certain indemnities. All the details are on this site somewhere.

 

Although some of us argued against it and pointed out the above, others got sucked in by the thought of being a Company. The most famous or infamous quote I remember was "There's no point in having a dog and barking yourself"

So we now have this ill-fit, which has largely been hidden by the relatively cases where injuries/deaths came through as claims.

 

You are quite right - we lost control as a result and we lost those indemnities.

 

Here's a link to the Associations Incorporations Act 1991, A1991-46, Republication No 40, Effective 9 June, 2025.

 

https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1991-46/

 

Members and officials Liability protection is covered in Section 51 Page 35 - Liability of Officers and Members.

 

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

On 02/11/2025 at 7:57 AM, turboplanner said:

Then you will find out what happens if something goes wrong.

Again - What does this obscure statement mean?

 

In what way does it, or any of your statements, address the inequity of our current system of determining compensation for injury/death?????

 

I am beginning to wonder if your intent, is not so much to inform but to lob a disinformation "grenade",  just to see what sort of reaction you get - Not certain of the terminology but could this be called"Trolling"?😈

Edited Monday at 12:08 AM by skippydiesel

[turboplanner]

31 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Again - What does this obscure statement mean?

 

In what way does it, or any of your statements, address the inequity of our current system of determining compensation for injury/death?????

 

I am beginning to wonder if your intent, is not so much to inform but to lob a disinformation "grenade",  just to see what sort of reaction you get - Not certain of the terminology but could this be called"Trolling"?😈

Line 1

This was in answer to what someone else had said.

It means that if you fail to discharge your duty of care, and someone can prove that, they can sue you.

The simple answer to that is to make yourself aware of the process - which I've recommened many times on this site.

 

Line 2

You are the one using the word inequity.

I, having direct involvement in many cases for about 8 years; so on-the-ground direct experience with the system have never found it iniquitous. We certainly lost some cases which ran into millions of dollars, but we learnt very quickly what duty of care was.

 

Line 4

I'm not answering invented BS! 

[skippydiesel]

Line 1 -

"This was in answer to what someone else had said" Your failure to clearly address the intended recipient.

 

Line 2 - 

"You are the one using the word inequity". True! How does stating the obvious further your argument?

"I, having direct involvement in many cases for about 8 years;" Your involvement, does not address the inequity of our system, which favours the wealth/influential to the disadvantage of the not so well off. Could it be that you are one of the beneficiaries/vested interest in the systems continuance? 

That you seem to think that expenditure "...cases which ran into millions of dollars" somehow equates with a just/fair resolution, is astonishing & disturbing.   

"... we learnt very quickly what duty of care was" Bully for you! This does not address the current system for awarding compensation for injury/death.

 

Line 3-

"l'm not answering invented BS! " Its not invented.  - take a look at your history, not just in this Thread/discussion, on this Forum in general 😈

 

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Line 1 -

"This was in answer to what someone else had said" Your failure to clearly address the intended recipient.

 

Line 2 - 

"You are the one using the word inequity". True! How does stating the obvious further your argument?

"I, having direct involvement in many cases for about 8 years;" Your involvement, does not address the inequity of our system, which favours the wealth/influential to the disadvantage of the not so well off. Could it be that you are one of the beneficiaries/vested interest in the systems continuance? 

That you seem to think that expenditure "...cases which ran into millions of dollars" somehow equates with a just/fair resolution, is astonishing & disturbing.   

"... we learnt very quickly what duty of care was" Bully for you! This does not address the current system for awarding compensation for injury/death.

 

Line 3-

"l'm not answering invented BS! " Its not invented.  - take a look at your history, not just in this Thread/discussion, on this Forum in general 😈

 

Forget it.

[BurnieM]

Que ? 

 

Turboplanner is not the federal or state government and neither does he have any significant influence over them.

 

He is not saying it is fair or just simply that this is how it is based on actual involvement in duty of care legal cases.

He is a good source of actual information.

 

We get that you do not agree with the current situation. What do you propose to do to change it ?

 

[Moneybox]

4 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

Que ? 

 

Turboplanner is not the federal or state government and neither does he have any significant influence over them.

 

He is not saying it is fair or just simply that this is how it is based on actual involvement in duty of care legal cases.

He is a good source of actual information.

 

We get that you do not agree with the current situation. What do you propose to do to change it ?

 

Set up a ring, as long as we're all invited at a reasonable entry fee.....

[facthunter]

The situation with RAAus  structure is only a small Part of it. As an alternative to VH it is failing. Remember it was CASA's idea. They wanted to Be rid of it. Perhaps because they thought it wasn't a serious form of  Aviation and only a Chore. There would be little KUDOS for the CASA staff involved with it.. They would see it as a punishment. A stagnant Backwater from the exciting Maiinstream RPT stuff.  RAAus darted into the FRAY Breathlessly claiming to be THE "NEW  GA". That achieved "Not Much" except ALIENATING the rest. At the early 90's I  thought we were amongst the World Leaders. Sadly, I believe we have gone BACKWARDS since then. (and I wouldn't be the ONLY one). Nev

[Keith Page]

On 30/10/2025 at 7:25 PM, jackc said:

I somehow don’t think this happened in RAAus case that was under investigation?

What you say there Jackc, that is a clear case of lying by the fact omission. 

[Blueadventures]

19 hours ago, jackc said:

My thoughts personally, RAAus should have stayed incorporated, BUT the members voted to change it? WHY? Because the members of the day probably were not aware it was a scheme by the hierarchy to take almost total control. NOW, we are not even members…..we are Stakeholders, RAAus words 😕 Well, that may not end well, for us.

But never fear, we can go VH and maintain our aircraft that we did not build, subject to getting a certificate after qualifying the SAAA approved Maintainer Course.

CASA then issue you with your approval to repair and maintain 👍

Happy days, goodbye RAAus……..

The chickens are coming home to roost  🤩

My understanding regarding the SAAA maintenance course pass is that an owner can do the necessary maintenance on the aircraft they own. Will not be able to do maintenance on other people’s aircraft. With RAA an L2 can do maintenance within their authority on members aircraft at a reasonable or zero cost.  SAAA aircraft that become VH if the owner doesn’t want to gain authority to do their own maintenance will need to engage a LAME; which is good although more costly than some alternatives within RAA. Just my understanding. 

[facthunter]

Do you know the full circumstances of THAT, Keith? I'm of the view it's not as Clear cut as that. It's easy to Judge.  Nev

[facthunter]

 I didn't complete the L2 as I was told I could NOT refuse work on anyone's Plane. I found that unacceptable as I knew they were hopeless and did a lot of their work Undocumented and you had no control of it so I won't put MY name to it. Nor would I fly the Planes they owned. You have to be able to Pick and choose who you work for When it an aircraft. Keep away from people who will drag you down with them. Nev