turboplanner

No motion to disallow in either the Senate or House of Reps.I sent a 7 page letter requesting a disallowance motion to all Senators and Members. With the exception of 3 notable responses most forwarded it on to the Ministers office, or the Shadow Minister in the case of the Opposition or responded with a standard response which was obviously drafted by CASA:

" I understand from the Minister’s office that there was extensive industry and public consultation on the proposed regulations which have been in development for a long time, and they are strongly supported by industry. Safety remains the primary focus for the regulation of sport and recreation activities, as it is for all aviation safety regulations. The regulations give flexibility for sport/recreation users by creating a robust framework for self-administration and they allow CASA to ensure resources are allocated effectively."

 

Next step is to prepare an online petition. Anyone up for it?

No, it’s all over.

 

 

Once more - there is no need for RAAus or GFA to have any regulatory powers and indeed they should not have any. It leads to misuse of these powers by private people to carry on nasty little vendettas against other people. Seen it all too often.It is CASA's responsibility to regulate civil aviation in Australia and any fond hope CASA may have of offloading liability (why anyway, as nobody in CASA will ever be personally liable for anything and nobody ever loses his or her job in CASA because they are incompetent) is in vain as by approving ops manual etc, CASA makes the regulation its own.

The whole debacle, including Part 149 can be avoided by some simple additions to existing licencing, medical and maintenance requirements in the main body of CASA regulation for a class of aircraft under 600 Kg and gliders and motorgliders. BTW motorgliders are simply utility aircraft under ICAO standards, as for example in Germany where all gliders with engines (even the sustainer type) are given D-ABCD rego and gliders without engines are D-1234.

 

We could also end the farce of pretending that RAAus aircraft are not Australian civil aircraft and give them VH-rego and put them on the ONE register CASA is required to maintain for Australian civil aircraft. There does not seem to be any ratioanle for the GFA maintaining part of the VH register either. CASA registration can hardly be run off their feet if they did it all.

 

Pilot licencing can be rationalised too and then it will be simple to move between under 600Kg aircraft, gliders and GA to the benefit of all.

You need to separate your obvious feelings for GFA from RAA; they are two separate entities with two separate histories, and two quite different current statuses

RAA is already self regulating and has a mature set of powers which in general have been used wisely.

 

CASA offloaded most liability to RAA some years ago, Part 149 theoretically has now finished the job, however CASA has done some things which have reattached liability in some areas, so it's not a clean break.

 

When most of the other government departments offloaded liability about 30 years ago it was never about their employees being personally liable, it was about State and Federal governments being seen as soft targets with unlimited money to give to plaintiffs.

 

Part 149 cannot be avoided since it is now law, and nor is there any open debate about an alternative way of running aviation in Australia. There's an endless supply of people who say they could do it better, but they are talking to themselves, and usually have no idea of the magnitude of the task.

 

All RAA has to do, right now is check the safety systems to make sure they are in line with, and will meet the requirements of Part 149.

 

 

Turbs,Within 15 sitting days after tabling a senator may give notice of a motion to disallow the legislative instrument. If the motion is agreed to, the instrument is disallowed and ceases to have effect. If a notice of motion to disallow a legislative instrument has not been resolved or withdrawn within 15 sitting days after having been given, the instrument is deemed to have been disallowed and automatically ceases to have effect.

By my count the Senate has up until and include September 19 to disallow this regulation. Yes it is law but not set in concrete yet! and it does not come into effect until "A single day to be fixed by the Minister by notifiable instrument.

 

However, if the provisions do not commence within the period of 12 months beginning on the day after this instrument is registered, they commence on the day after the end of that period."

 

I am not aware of any proclamation by the Minister - too busy fixing the drought I presume.

It now being September 20, is anyone aware of any Senate move to disallow this regulation?

 

 

Part 149 has nothing to do with it....I was speaking to a guy in CASA about it a couple of weeks ago and for us its a nothing..its to allow more control by CASA over organizations like RAA. Basically its like CASA become the ACCC of aircraft organizations

He might think that, but the regulation points to the reverse; the government off loading legal responsibility on to the people deriving a benefit. It's certainly way more powerful than the ACCC, and the good part for CASA is that they don't have to lift a finger. If they do, and this guy may well be intent on that, THEY take back the legal responsibility (and lawsuits) for what they change.

 

 

Yes that's right...the rule is to leave gates as you found them. I did know that and should have said it better.

...and the reason for that is usually to give the stock access to water after a bore breaks down in one paddock.

 

 

There is a very good reason why medical incidents don't figure much in our operations. It is because people don't go flying when they feel crook. Our operations don't normally involve having to fly or go hungry as a result of no income.There was a tug pilot around here who died while in possession of a proper GA medical certificate. But he didn't fly for his last few weeks of life because he didn't feel well. I reckon he is the most usual type where there was a serious medical issue.

If there were any sense in the requirement to have a medical certificate, the incidence of sudden and symptom-free loss of consciousness would have to be a lot higher than it is in reality.

That's no doubt true Bruce and they deserve credit for that; another reason we don't see medical incidents in RAA is that the results of crashes are simply not published.

 

 

This is what can happen when you step on to someone else’s turf.

 

CASA can’t go backwards in safety so what might emerge is the end of driver medicals to avoid this apparent discrimination.

 

What will come out in the open are all the medical cheat cases.

 

 

They probably couldn’t understand your pommy accent on the morse.

 

 

Since the ATSB guys read this forum, and for all I know participate in it, I can visualise some knowing smiles when they read this.

 

 

I got “Overflying left of the field” once.

 

 

well buggar me so you don't get tired driving at high speed in a truck what brand were you on neil

Try googling it, especially the part about fatigue and excessive daytime sleepiness. Very relevant to flying.

 

 

One guy in the Riverina decided to follow his intended bride’s car along the road to the church in his helicopter. Hit a powerline, crashed and burnt to a frizzle in front of her eyes.

 

 

Well bugger me, who needs a medical profession and their research.

 

 

The original idea was that a case should be decided by a jury of “12 good men and true”.They seem to be a thin on the ground these days. Most people with life experience and common sense seem to be able to get out of doing jury service, and clever lawyers manipulate the selection process. No wonder the result is often un-flamin-beleavable.

I don’t know that getting out of jury service is all that easy. The papers that came with my call up were quite severe. I turned up ready to plead business duties but that clearly wasn’t on and I had to sit out in the bull pit as people were called up. After a while I warmed to the idea and decided I wanted to do it. I was called up to a case and walked to a court room for the selection process, and down the aisle to face a a judge. The spectators all seemed to be beefy ferals. The judge brought the accused in and he stood behind us. He was charged with high level distribution of drugs. A quick look around showed he was a feral not to be trifled with, and I could see there could be problems after a guilty verdict, but now was determined to do my duty. I was the fourth person challenged and was out on the street less than an hour after arrival.

 

 

sleep apnea incidents/accidents zero myself diagnosed with mild sleep apnea but show me the stats where this has caused death injury, zero,nada zilch someone in avmed thought it was a good idea what a crock

It’s a serious problem in truck fatalities.

 

 

Yeah man,Mine was more the point that the RAA radio endorsement is only for RAA operations. RPL pilots also have to go through radio endorsement, but not PPL and above.

But at an airfield and in the air you’re mixing it with everyone. There should be a single standard. It’s not as if it hard to learn

 

 

One little gyrocopter - 3 fire engines 9 cars a tractor and a golf buggy. Bit of overkill maybe?

Well it's also one little life; the extras probably came out for a look; better than the other way around though.

 

 

With enough disgust there is still the option of calling a general meeting and turfing them out!

There is, but it would have to be done a lot differently to the last time, or it would just be another defeat.

 

 

The hostile takeover was by CASA. RAAus and GFA are merely CASA subcontractors. CASA likes this because it gives them "plausible deniability". If some thing goes wrong they will deny responsibility and shove in on to RAAus and GFA. Part 149 is intended to cement this in place. It is a sham of course and the organisations aren't smart enough to say - "Look we aren't going to do this anymore. We are member organisations and it is up to CASA to simply make appropriate regulations for these different classes of aircraft. We already have somewhat simplified regulation and it needs to be put in the main body of CASA regulations."

Mike, many of us had around ten years experience of where RAA was and where it is now, and it had very little to do with CASA and a lot to do with being able to read politics. The strongest direction to go where it is today came from a very small number of people who pushed a barrow relentlessly, then apparently not liking what they had achieved or who they had put in power/or seeing that eventually the Emperors clothes would fall off did runners.

Part 149 does appear to be a move to shift liability from the Federal Government to the users who are deriving benefit, but it's by no means the first. The CWA were among the first group who could no longer rely on a visit from the Food Inspector and a tick on a piece of paper leaving them immune from lawsuits, and they had to adapt to developing their own food handling training, audit systems, and liability insurance. They aren't squawking about it.

 

 

Why we no longer have Tail Draggers:-On another (non-aviation) forum, someone posted this to explain why :

Piper Aircraft being successfully sued for product negligence for producing taildraggers. From memory the pilot and airport manager had problems, and the pilot taxied for takeoff but the airport manager stepped in front of the airplane to stop him, and was killed by the propeller - the pilot cannot see directly in front until sufficient power is applied and the tail comes up. Hence the pilot could not see the idiot in front of him until far too late. The case essentially killed light planes in the US for a decade. When protective laws were passed all the light airplanes were subsequently tricycle geared.

 

 

Any other Urban Myths to debunk?

Probably true, but probably related to a single case.

Product Liability has been gazetted here in Australia, but there hasn't been a case big enough to warrant an issue being taken to our High Court to set the ball rolling.

 

It's father appears to be Ralph Nader who relentlessly pursued General Motors claiming the rear suspension of the Chevrolet Corvair caused many deaths.

 

Another major trend-maker was the case against Ford Motor Co for fires resulting from crashes of its Pinto model.

 

The first one I came across was about a Husband and wife in a White Prime Mover travelling bobtail, hit a corner too fast, slid across the road, hit a pole, and the outboard mounted fuel tank was crushed and incinerated them. White Motor Corp was fined around $10 million in punitive damages and another $10 million or so awarded to the estates of the deceased, after lawyers told the court that if the fuel tank had been located between the chassis rails the fatality would not have occurred.

 

Another one followed a semi-tanker rollover where similar damages and payout occurred after a Lawyer claimed that if the barrel diameter of the tanker has been reduced in the area above the fifth wheel the centre of gravity would have been lower and the rollover would not have occurred.

 

In both cases there were very good reasons for the designs being what they were, and those designs are still dominant in the transport industry today, without any attached string of fatalities.

 

 

I had presumed my radio only reaches about 20miles, based on the replies I receive; how many of us have tested the range of our transmissions? In rural areas we are spoiled in many ways, but I guess we should be aware of nearby CTAFs that share our frequency.

That will never be a problem if you use the correct phraseology and transmission points. Most airfields around the east coast overlap from time to time, but you never get the numbers of a city airfield.

 

 

Have another go Stillhere, looks like the quote worked out fine but you hit the wrong button before posting.

 

I notice that government also uses consultants to work out if they are performing. My opinion is that consultants seem to cost a lot to tell you what you should know already.I notice that in the email I received that they trust members and maintainers. that is good of them, but is it reciprocated?

I also noticed that this is the safest year since 2017. Wow, that is really something and the year is not over yet.

Consultants quite often use a technique of having someone rate their work so they can use the report as a reference for getting the next job, or as a watertight defence if they are accused of screwing up the work they did. Of course the reference is only as good as the integrity of the consultant they hired to do the report.

 

 

You are all missing the point of CAAPs. I hear people saying they are merely recommendations, yep they are. But they are also CASAs recommendations as to how to satisfy a regulation, in this case CAR 166. Try defending yourself in court if there’s an incident and you have decided you have a better method of satisfying Reg166

.That's correct, you won't be prosecuted by CASA for not using them, but they do fit the position of industry safety benchmarks, and you could lose your house if you ignore known safety benchmarks. I

The reason things seem to work in reverse these days is that if CASA were to make it mandatory to do a specific thing and you did and you crashed, it's likely that CASA would be paying out.

 

By CASA making a recommendation it's up to you to either follow it or come up with an even safer one. Either way, the lawsuit if something goes wrong will be against you. If, at the time you were complying with the safety benchmark, you have a very good defence; if not it's probably not going to go all that well.

 

I can remember the afternoon when we had our Corporate Lawyer in to give us a talk on some new developments. At the end some of the guys started asking questions about a regulation were the government had offloaded risk on to us. It involved us checking the new trucks rather than the registration authority. They just didn't want to learn how to do it. It was all verbal, no one had any documents. One said; "the regulation isn't mandatory, it says it's recommended".

 

The lawyer, who had started packing away her books said "If that's what it says then you don't have to comply with it". A couple of others said much the same and she gave the same answer - which was different to what I'd been telling them.

 

I said "The document is a National Code of Practice, and it says "For safety and stability the following is recommended; what would happen if someone knew this and still didn't carry out the calculations?"

 

She said In that case the code of practice is a safety document and the person could be charged with manslaughter in the case of a fatality, and most likely would not have a leg to stand on if they were sued.

 

 

I make calls in circuit even when I think I am the only aircraft for 100km. Sometimes the response surprises me.

You've probably captured the key safety benefit in a nutshell.

You don't see what you don't see.

 

I was making circuit calls at the deserted Mangalore airfield many years ago, no one in my sight, then a Fokker Friendship with an IMC trainee called behind me and he was faster than I was!

 

 

The main problem with that is when you don't know the aircraft is there, you don't know there is potential for collision, so you don't make a radio call.The regulation is somewhat of an oxymoron. .....

Good point DU; I’d say it’s a moron. There’s also a lot more buried on the CASA site somewhere, such as what to actually say and where and when.