turboplanner

If you are comparing GA and RA, the comment fits better.

 

 

In this case HE made some choices which resulted in the charges.

 

 

Would a casual peek at Notams be reasonable?

 

 

That reminds me of Bill Bryson's story:

 

"The barmaid was friendly. She wore butterfly glasses and a beehive hairdo. You could see in an instant that she had been the local good-time girl since about 1931 She had "Ready for Sex" written all over her face, but "Better Bring a Paper Bag" written all over her body.

 

 

GFA require annual flight reviews in VH reg gliders and self launching gliders. BTW self launching gliders are not properly registered in terms of the requirements Part 47. They should be recorded as single engined aeroplanes (as per ICAO Annex 7 as required by CASR 47) and thus only be flown by RPL, PPL or better.

GFA are opting to use VH registration; as you have said they have not opted to use GA licensing for pilots. On that basis, if they take a different approach to Pilot auditing, there would be no reason for CASA to over-ride them. If, as a member of GFA, you felt that annual reviews were an overkill, you would raise the issue with the SAO and the SAO wold review it, and change it if the point was valid, in a democratic world.I agree with you on the motorised gliders, but GFA have the power to change that.

 

 

Did he steer for the motorway to maximise his chances of pulling out of the loop once he realised he maybe in troublePoor fella didn’t intentionally go out and say I’m going to kill 11 people todayJust an error of judgment, I think if he crashed on the airfield and killed 11 no charges would have been laid as spectators are informed of the risks and usually enter at their own risk

Manslaughter is usually handed out for more than an error of judgement, so it wille interesting to find out what he did.

Surely that can’t be correct. Battle of Britain airshows, Shuttleworth Trust and as you say Duxford to mention but a few. If it is correct it is the Nanny State gone mad yet again.

He was charged with manslaughter, and as I recall was expected to receive a severe penalty for what he did. I'm not sure you can attach a location to it.

Some specifics would be helpful otherwise its the same as CASA made us do it![/qute]No it's not.; there's nothing stop stop you looking it up and discovering it for yourself; you'll then be armed with the knowledge.So if the regs mandate bi-annual flight reviews in VH aircraft how can CASA approve a manual which mandates ANNUAL flight reviews in VH aircraft? Surely they cannot approve something that they cannot mandate themselves?

I would be very surprised if CASA had done something like that, but we are talking about RA. not VH registered airctraft.

But where do they get the power?

I did say look at the Act.

 

Other government agencies approve manuals and they do not have a problem telling you what should and shouldn't be in them. After all you said "CASA's authority is spelled out in the legislation; that's as far as they can go with demands" (#343) that means that they should not approve manuals that exceed their (ie CASA's) powers.

No, they shouldn't exceed their powers, but if an SAO puts up a Manual to them, any beef about whether it has gone too far (and there are three or four on this forum where that is always) is between the members.For example, if an association decided that for a certain class BRS should be mandatory, CASA would have no reason o be concerned about safety, so would not need to step in; it could sign off on the manual.

 

 

As CASA has to approve GFA (and others) ops and tech manuals, it should point out to the organisations concerned when they have gone overboard and beyond the legislative requirements. Regulation is not a pissing competition.

That would be getting involved with their business, and taking legal liability for doing it.Any over-regulating by the SAO should be reversed by the members.

 

With regard to the CASA audit of RAAus's registration system where does it get the power to do this? Part 47 of the CASR's is not applicable and the CAO's only require that aircraft be "registered with RAA". The CAO's do not provide for audit.

You can manage by inspections and sign offs, but you assume liability for everything above your signature. I’ve always chosen to do it by audit, so the people getting the benefit of their organisation can be told where they are putting themselves at risk, and they have to manage the action required for compliance. CASA use that same principle, and it ususally means lowest cost to the participant.

GA IS A Self Administering Organisation.

#343 Sorry, typo, GFA is a self administering organisation

 

 

I'm going to break an important convention which is to NOT refer to WW2, but I reckon the German prison camps were " self administering organizations" in your terms turbs.

An emotional analogy, but it doesn't have any relevence.

 

I don't think there is any way the members can influence things with voting patterns.

There is an Act which allows recreational aviators to fly with some exemptions from CASA regulations. Members can ensure their officials don't incur higher costs and more complications.Have a read of that ACT; it will be a lot simpler than the spider webs of what you are being forced to conform with un-necessarily.

 

The GFA has gone down the path of pleasing CASA by doing even more than CASA demands with the effect of making gliding much more expensive than it needs to be.

The GFA has gone down a path because of the people who sent it down that path. It has nothing to do with CASA. It was explained very well on this forum, it can be self-fixed any time a group, or reasonable numbers, wants to do something about it.

 

But we all saw what happened to the old RAAus when they did less than CASA demanded.

CASA wasn't out there making unreasonable demands, people were failing to do what their own organisation's structure required.As far as I know, I was the only person to ask CASA for the details of the Audit. I received page by page details of transgressions - 186 in all

 

It was routine; the data needed fixing; it was fixed; it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

 

So both appeasement and defiance have been tried, with appeasement winning but costly.

I notice you don't mention negotiation. Perhaps that was where the mistakes were made. CASA cannot legally exceed what's laid down in the ACT.

 

As I've mentioned, the bureaucracy's power is limited by legislation; if people don't take the time to find out what the powers are limited to that's their problem.Australian governments practise a "User Pays" philosophy wherever possible; we are not a Communist Country, so there is no obligation to be responsible for the well-being of any sector; it's up to the people of that sector. Some sectors thrive and expand; others slowly die, only to be saved at the last minute by new blood or re-branding, or adapting to the demographics of the community; these definitely are things the leadership officials can do something about.

 

Nope, turbs, the GFA is subservient to CASA. They have to keep CASA happy with how they treat their members. One example is how GFA were forced to employ an extra clerical person just to satisfy CASA requirements for information from GFA files. It cost the membership an extra salary for no benefit to the members.

GA IS A Self Administering Organisation. Let's not go down the path of pedalling deliberate untruths; not only that, but one of the members on this forum gave a very good summary of what the problems are and what the causes are, and its up to the GFA members to sort out information management. Database information can be automatically forwarded these days.

For the other people who didn't understand the basics of our industry, which have been in place now, for almost a generation, these are the Self Administering Organisations.

 

CASA's authority is spelled out in the legislation; that's as far as they can go with demands

 

If SAO officials run their own agendas, blaming CASA, and the members are too lazy to investigate, that's their fault.

 

I know Kasper is an exception and his treatment has been appalling, given his detailed knowledge, but where have his fellow members been? Where was his support? Look in the mirror.

 

• Australian Ballooning Federation (ABF)
   
   
   
  
• Australian Parachute Federation Ltd (APF)
   
   
   
  
• Australian Skydiving Association (ASA)
   
   
   
  
• Australian Sport Rotorcraft Association (ASRA)
   
   
   
  
• Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL)
   
   
   
  
• Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA)
   
   
   
  
• Hang Gliding Federation of Australia (HGFA)
   
   
   
  
• Model Aircraft Association of Australia (MAAA)
   
   
   
  
• Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus)
   
   
   
  
• Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA)
   
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

Yep, I can give you one of several examples Apen.Consider the refinishing of gliders. When I bought my first Libelle, it came with a carry-box with spare glass and gel-coat for minor repairs.These days, to put a bit of gel coat on a glider is " a major repair" and really the province of commercial operators. And who are the police to make sure that I don't do anything "unsafe?" well I suggest CASA bureaucrats.

Isn’t GFA a Self Administering Aviaion Organisation?

They had tape measures.

 

 

You keep telling yourself that....

I don’t really care; some people aren’t worth helping.

All of the above?

 

 

This CTA stuff gives CASA a chance to impose many more requirements generally and few will be exempt from the push. More and more complexity and cost.... I DID tell you so. Be wary of what you wish for. You have a management that wants to "grow", rather than stick to it's values. U/L's are off the radar. You are now the NEW GA, but it's far from over. I can't see the other sections of non "commercial transport" flying going along with a take over by the RAAus. They haven't been consulted. That would be the tail wagging the dog for them. RAAus has some numbers of people, but not the depth of involvement in aviation (which shows). CASA doesn't have it either. They are an authoritarian bureaucracy of Lawyer types intent primarily, on covering their @r$e, even if it means killing off low cost flying. Nev

Do you mean CASA would think up new rules over and above what’s applied to PPL, or do you mean all RPC would have to lift to the standard of PPL (= nothing new)

It suddenly gets pretty good after an incident though.

 

 

grass was wet

 

 

But he didn't!. Situation is no different than an unlicenced driver wiping out a few pedestrians in an unlicenced car. At theend of the day the community bears the cost. We should not be reduced, as a community, to legislating for the lowest common denominator - in this case the stupid and reckless. In aviation it will only result in CASA's dream result - the only users of airspace would be the major airlines.

It was Facthunter suggesting it wasn't fair that the government had opted out of bearing the costs.The law, which we've had for years is, the idiot who causes the problem bears the cost.

 

 

If the pilot passed All the bureaucratic test imposed by CASA, Then they should be liable.As Pilot has done all that was asked.I paid for a Raa registration, then it was reneged on, should Raa repay my cost?.

 

spacesailor

In the case of a GA pilot that might be true, and they are tying up the risk much as possible with strict liability to minimise the payout.In the case of the Self Administering Organisations, it’s up to them how they do it; CASA didn’t issue the certificates.

 

As far as reneging on your rgistration, i take it that was the Hummel Bird, and it would depend on the facts.

 

 

The government has done something similar with respect to rural fencing... they are excused from any rules which apply to everybody else.

Which government? Local? State? Federal? Trump?And what have they done now?

 

 

CASA makes a system of Strict Liability apply to all Operators and Pilots but contracts out of liability for Itself. ? Yeah that seems fair. BS. Nev

A PPG zoomed under the trees at a Fair a few years ago, almost scraping the tops of the tents, and caught his chute on a tree.If he had hooked up on a tent and dragged the machine down through the dozens of people, killed a few, made one a quadriplegic, and left a liability bill of $25 million, in your wildest dreams do you think the Regulator should pay for this person’s sport?

You could land on the Darling now.