turboplanner

Well not one with a swing down Ipad.

Turbs with you passion for rules I am shocked you say "there is nothing wrong with tuning an instrument panel to you personal tastes". What about the LSA rule ( and the subject Sportstar would be LSA ) that no modifications are permitted without the written approval of the manufacturer?

While everyone must be totally outraged by this unforgivable blunder, the underwhelming number of letters to the editor tends to indicate that the outrage isn't shared globally.

I notice that the outraged haven't been able to set a better example by going to the source - the manufacturer, and provide full details, so here's the link about what looks to be a beautifully designed aircraft.

Global 7000

Depends what's being talked about here.

There's nothing wrong with tuning an instrument panel in to your personal tastes, but it also has to be safe for an instructor in the RHS if instruction will take place; and it's not a safety issue if the aircraft could be operated with flush instruments RA aircraft tend to be very squeezy by comparison with big GA aircraft which have operated safely for nearly a century.

Thanks all for the responses. Appreciate it.The bristell is technically used by tvsa's RA school which is Leading Edge Aviation and the rates are on that website.

I'm actually a member down at Point Cook and can hire a 152 or 172 for $130 and $180 respectfully. I had been also hiring from Lilydale at $110 for the jabs but it's a bit of a drive to get there and sometimes they're free other times they're booked out.

 

So the background to my question is to whether I keep up my RA membership. I really want to support RA flying yet when cost is a factor to considering nonflying commitments(house, child, wife etc), and there are GA options cheaper than RA, really starting weigh up the options.

If you want to do trips, then as you've found out, an aircraft needs to be available for hire based on sometimes a couple of hours a day if you're camping etc. and also tied up sometimes for a couple of days, if you are socked in by weather, and that may limit aircraft availability, but there will be more available GA aircraft for travelling than RA.

Then it's the distance you want to travel; if you just want to go somewhere in Victoria like the Murray, you may get a passenger and baggage in a 152, but above that, if you want to take a passenger of two, then it's a 172.

If you do get to cross country flying, you'll find that although a faster aircraft has a substantially higher cost, your trip cost doesn't go up by the same percentage beause you are covering the distance in substantially less hours.

Even better, if you can work it so you fill all the seats ride sharing, then the trip cost is less than a 172, with six place aircraft being the cheapest per person.

That puts you into genuine touring aircraft with HF Radio and long range, so you don't have that humping of jerry can issue.

I set them all out on a spreadsheet, and that made it easy to make judgements.

I understand

Given that RAA Aus is trying desperately to take over all recreational aviation in this country, I would be concerned for all the other recreational organisations in the aviation field. Helicopters, gliders, warbirds, SAAA etc. EMPIRE building. procedes apace...Back to topic...this increase in weight, etc presages this I believe.

No, it means they administer the standards for the courses. They do not manage anything to do with actual maintenance in the field.

The wording is murky because you are trying to see things that are not there.

SAAA provide support for aircraft builders. A number of SAAA members are CASA Authorised Persons who can issue Experimental Certificates of Airworthiness. You do not have to be a member of SAAA to receive a certificate of airworthiness (or to be an Authorised Person). This is a service that is available commercially. However last I looked SAAA offered the service at a significant discount to people who have been members for a number of years.

The Authorized Person does not make any determination about the airworthiness of the aircraft. That is solely the responsibility of the builder of the aircraft. Likewise maintenance standards are the responsibility of the owner and the person who signs the documentation.

I understand that structure is attempting to put the legal responsibility on the owner of the aircraft, but when someone has been injured or killed, and a fault is found in the aircraft's design, or it's maintenance the first thing the plaintoffs go for is the list of who was responsible for authorising the ability to fly with a fault.

I personally would go for the authorising person being protected in his duties by insurance.

When given a direction by someone purporting to have authority to make you do something, get the direction in writing quoting the appropriate article and signed by them in whatever capacity they call them selves., then inform them that you will be seeking legal advice using their written direction as evidence. Sorts the wheat from the chaff very quickly......just sayin.

There is a clue on that site: For every other organization it says "... administers".For SAAA it says "... provides support". SAAA don't actually administer anything.

"Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) provides support for aircraft builders through training, test flights and airworthiness administration and approval processes."

This first part seems to place SAAA as a group of aircraft builders, test pilots, and then self administration (with support from CASA) for airworthiness and approval processes.

That makes some sense, as it places builders of individual designs at arms length from CASA.

"The SAAA administers training standards for maintenance training courses."

This indicates the Self-Administering Organisation departs from a strictly design, development and approval activity to include managing the maintenance standards of built aircraft in the field.

So far that all seems reasonable because it mirrors what a manufacturer does in terms of design, building and training its dealers on maintenance procedures required on its products.

"The SAAA has developed an analytical tool, the 'risk profile radar' for guiding identifying and mitigating risk. You can find more information in an article published in the Nov/Dec 2013 edition of Flight Safety Australia or contact the SAAA."

This is where it gets interesting; I eventually found it on the Flight Safety Australia site under the name Risk Radar Aviation with a copyrighted acronym, and the story in FSA say it was started four years previously (2009)

It mentions:

• Test flying section
   
   
  
• Ongoing flying maintenance
   
   
  
• Routine flying operations
   
   
  
• Annual inspections
   
   
  
• Flight Reviews
   
   
  

If it's in use, this would seem to indicate SAAA is involved in Operations as well, but the wording is certainly murky, one minuteappearing to be in partnership with CASA, and the next being self-administering.

The problem is that the SAAA is like the RACV, in that it offers some benefits to membership but they have zero authority to enforce rules. GA Experimental is operating 100% under rules set and enforced by CASA.If the RACV decided to implement a safety management system and apply it to members they would have a similar problem.

 

There is a suggestion that the SAAA will become an organization like RAA where people are required to be members. The claim (like the MPC) is that this is being driven by CASA, I have some doubt about that.

It says: "CASA currently oversights the following self-administration organisations"

It lists as one of those: "Sport Aircraft Association of Australia"

The benefit of the self - administering organisation is that it allows specialists to manage their own special area, and put duty of care in their hands.

If the self-administering bodies don't want to protect themselves, then there's a much higher chance that they'll be paying out.

The SAAA some time back developed a similar sort of plan to have chapter safety officers. This officer would have among their roles to do preinspections of places we were planning to visit - in particular builders projects, sites for fly ins etc. these preinspections would then entail advising where risks exists and remedial actions to be taken by the owner/builder etc. Also if a member did anything risky the officer was to speak or confront the member, where appropriate pass on the the SAAA - essentially become a chapter policeman.That went down like a lead balloon. Basically ours and every chapter that I had contact with said they could shove it. Events would become non-chapter events. There was talk that chaptersbwould dissolve and become local flying clubs without affiliation to SAAA. The idea of having one of our become a little Hitler was an anathema. and we were really concerned that the type of person who would relish taking on this kind of job was exactly the type of person we didn't want doing it.

 

Further I got legal advice from a magistrate who advised we run a mile and have nothing to do with this. As soon as a safety officer exists then there exists a string of responsibility and a chain of people who can be sued when the inevitable accident ( whether it is an aviation one or just a life related one like someone getting burned by hot coffee or getting a shock from an electric urn) occurs.

 

Paradoxically it's way better to have no one responsible, and if sued have a court say, " you should have had someone looking out for this" than to have have someone responsible, then someone else responsible for that persons training, then someone else responsible for the oversight of the program and then the committee members ultimately responsible for the oversight of the chapter officers.

 

Anyway, when all this chapter policeman stuff was removed ( well, they actually said it was "never part of the role" but we had it in writing that it was certainly perceived to be by those in the head of the national organisation) the role was devolved to one about collating actual safety related events ( inward and outward from the chapter to the head office) which is far more acceptable to the membership.

For C&E to work, it has to operate over a clear set of rules - the rules already in existence by the organisation, which have been voted on by the organisation in general meetings.

When that happens most members will be comfortable.

Confronting a member who "did anything risky" is not acceptable, because it's so open ended and prone to abuse, so that was never going to work.

Spelling out the powers of a C&E officer is also critical; training is essential, and the officer needs to know there's an apppeals process which could work against him.

Sitting on a Tribunal for a few years taught me a lot about the behaviour of pafrticipants, and C&E is primarily about improving behaviour.

I reversed about 5% of decisions, and those reversals primarily centred around a Chief Steward not being given the correct facts from Stewards or witnesses on the night, rather than faulty decisions on his part.

Rarely is there need for serious sanctions; on many occasions a Machine Examiner has marked up a fault in my Log Book, which I've fixed, and no sanctions have been involved. Invariably that process leads to improvement.

Out of one group of 1100 people I was involved with about five people per year would appeal against sanctions; one case was forging a doctor's signature on a medical, another was driving into a safe area in a temper, misjudging and knocking over a woman changing a baby on the back seat of a parked car.

C&E is the method used to reduce the chance for injuries and fatalities caused by failure to adhere to the rules of the organisation, and for Australia, where rule flouting is a National pastime, the most effective way. A byproduct of this is that it leads to less public liability claims, and the chance of long term survival for the organisation.

I have always recommended that anyone wanting legal information relating to public liability should go to a lawyer who specialises in public liability.

Even then if you colouryour request with some BS, or keep something hidden, the advice of that specialist is worthless.

It seems odd to me that someone would seek advice from a Magistrate, particularly if that Magistrate didn't specialise in hearing PL cases.

If someone gets electrocuted by an urn or burned by coffee, or there's an aviation issue, the lawyers will be going after the people responsible in any case, and worse, you're going to have to admit that you didn't take any action at all to discharge your duty of care.

In one case, the owner of the property was sued along with the track lessee, the Association's national officer, and the fire marshall who saved the driver's life; it was the plaintiff's lawyers who selected this chain.

I'm sure collating "actual" safety related events is comforting to the members, but just wait until there's a major accident and some of them a dragged into court and asked directly "You had a duty of care to ensure that xxx didn't happen; what actions had you taken to ensure this?"

Good luck with "Well we collate actual safety related events"

That's about as effective as "We are a safety based organisation, and we require all members to fly safely"

The SAAA some time back developed a similar sort of plan to have chapter safety officers. This officer would have among their roles to do preinspections of places we were planning to visit - in particular builders projects, sites for fly ins etc. these preinspections would then entail advising where risks exists and remedial actions to be taken by the owner/builder etc. Also if a member did anything risky the officer was to speak or confront the member, where appropriate pass on the the SAAA - essentially become a chapter policeman.That went down like a lead balloon. Basically ours and every chapter that I had contact with said they could shove it. Events would become non-chapter events. There was talk that chaptersbwould dissolve and become local flying clubs without affiliation to SAAA. The idea of having one of our become a little Hitler was an anathema. and we were really concerned that the type of person who would relish taking on this kind of job was exactly the type of person we didn't want doing it.

 

Further I got legal advice from a magistrate who advised we run a mile and have nothing to do with this. As soon as a safety officer exists then there exists a string of responsibility and a chain of people who can be sued when the inevitable accident ( whether it is an aviation one or just a life related one like someone getting burned by hot coffee or getting a shock from an electric urn) occurs.

 

Paradoxically it's way better to have no one responsible, and if sued have a court say, " you should have had someone looking out for this" than to have have someone responsible, then someone else responsible for that persons training, then someone else responsible for the oversight of the program and then the committee members ultimately responsible for the oversight of the chapter officers.

 

Anyway, when all this chapter policeman stuff was removed ( well, they actually said it was "never part of the role" but we had it in writing that it was certainly perceived to be by those in the head of the national organisation) the role was devolved to one about collating actual safety related events ( inward and outward from the chapter to the head office) which is far more acceptable to the membership.

My wife and I have been planning a flight into remote central Aust. for many years but it can't happen under the current 600kg MTOW. We are two "well rounded" people and current calculations, including baggage, spares and safety gear, limit us to 15 litres of fuel before we hit MTOW (J230). So I for one would relish the increase, even though we could only use 700kg of it. Just my 2 cents worth.

What appears (and I use that word because there is very little public detail about this) to have happened is RAA applied to CASA for an increase in MTOW only.

If that is true then whoever did that doesn't appear to be aware of the consequences in terms of additional empty weight required for the engineering.

I'd be interested on your comments on the Cessna 152, at 752 kg MTOW, and a common lowest common denominator tourer for two people the Cherokee Warrior at 1056 kg MTOW.

C152 (kg) 2 seat

MTOW 758

Empty 490

Fuel 70.5

Pax, Baggage 197.5

(Max wt per person, no baggage 98.75)

Warrior (kg)

MTOW 1056

Empty 607

Fuel 130.5

Pax, Baggage 318.5

(Max wt per person, no baggage 79.63)

The Warrior could take three people at average 106 kg, no baggage, or two rotund people with reasonable baggage.

It's not a "suggested rule"....it's some of section 4.01 of the RAAus Ops Manual.

Your point 3. is what I would be most concerned about. I'm quite sure that written somewhere else, the PIC has the final say.

This is what the Ops Manual says (4.01.7)

"Pilots of RAAus aeroplanes should obey all directions and instructions given by the holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval. Such persons may (in the interest of safety) ground pilots and/or aeroplanes for the remainder of the day. Should grounding be required the Operations Manager or Technical Manager (as appropriate) is to be advised by the quickest possible means."

Yes, it's very risky having written instructions to override a Pilot in Command, and I'd certainly recommend taking it out.

Maybe you're thinking of a rule something like:When RAAus aeroplanes are operating from an aerodrome where an Flight Training School is based, the CFI of the Flight Training School has the authority to control and direct RAAus aeroplane operations.

 

If a fly-in is being conducted at an aerodrome where there is no Flight Training School, the most Senior Instructor (if instructors are present) is to assume those responsibilities.

 

Pilots of RAAus aeroplanes should obey all directions and instructions given by the holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval.

 

The holder of an RAAus Instructor Rating or higher Approval may (in the interest of safety) ground pilots and/or aeroplanes for the remainder of the day.

Then, based on that incorrect assumption, someone eles was moved to ask for a crying in my drink icon.

Then, based on that. one person liked the idea of a "crying in my drink icon", another agreed with it, and another thought it was funny.

You can see why I would be reluctant to get involved in policy development by forum.

As far as this suggested "rule" is concerned:

1. RAA operations occur at many places where there are no RAA Flight Training Schools; a key issue for RAA is how to manage the geographical spread.

2. As public liability cases have occurred, it has become obvious that Controlling Bodies can not only attract lawsuits should something go wrong, but can be used by members as shields where members can avoid their responsibilities. Therefore "controlling and directing" are not what you would want to build into a C&E operation.

3. Requiring pilots to obey directions and instructions of CFIs and Instructors makes those people legally responsible for their directions and instructions, where in fact Pilots in Command already have obligations.

4. Where a sanction is issued, such as grounding for the rest of the day by an approved person, there has to be grounds to be measured by and an appeals process.

5. Sanctions don't have to be issued; reminders, explanations, and retraining usually lift the person's skill base and safety awareness.

Welcome back.

All for the 'priviledge' of flying 40 year old GA planes with steam driven instruments and power plants that gobble Avgas at a prodigious rate.✈️

Better of now (imho) to fly LSA with glass cockpits, and more modern and economical engines.

Your comments pretty much match most others regarding GA in Australia at present which is intriguing because there is a light aircraft industry in the US, with new models.

For example

Cessna; now owned by Textron Aviation

Cessna TTx

In piston engined singles there is a very juicy range including the TTx low wing, and Skyhawk, Skylane and Stationaire models with glass instruments.

Piper also are selling new aircraft

Home - Piper

A retail price last year on a 172 equivalent was about $330,000.00

At that time I did a very rough check on weekly wages of 40 years ago vs the hire rate of a 172 ($18 <$26/hour), and on those rough figures the economics of price (I couldn't find an accurate retail price of a 1977 172), were roughly the same then as they would be at $330,000 Prime Cost today.

in the 1970s it was common to fit additional fuel tanks to the aircraft in the US and fly it out; a very expensive delivery task. Broken down in a shipping container today would cost a lot less.

As hirers we have to go with what is available at our airfields, but it's interesting that we are not seeing new aircraft on line.

But the new aircraft, particularly those on the Cessna site look very enticing.

The question is why aren't we seeing them here; Are we just short of forward thinking marketers, like Arthur Schutt and Bib Stillwell, who could put together long range costing models?

That appeared to be exactly what you are suggesting. More rules.We went through this once before...

here's just one good example:

 

FARs 91.13 etc etc etc.

So once again, I was not discussing any MORE rules, or ANY rule for that matter, just impartially administering what's already there.

the annual rate bill is not enough ? ............. they're gunna slug you at the boat ramp ! bureaucracies have an insatiable need for money - they are a prime inflationary cause in my book

 

if you apply the same logic re fees / tolls ......................... they'll have to put a toll on:

 

- entry into the library

 

- entry to public toilets

 

- fence all parks and charge entry through gates

 

- fence all rivers and charge entry through gates

 

- fence all beaches and charge entry through gates

 

- fence all airstrips and charge entry through gates

 

[ATTACH=full]52086[/ATTACH]

Beaches, parks and rivers are pretty much no entry fee these days, but where there is a budget to maintain facilities, some Councillors like to recover as much of the cost as they can.

What do you consider an active RAA airfield,please?

Other sporting bodies would be working on around 100 locations around Australia with volunteers in attendance either full time, or from time to time on an Audit basis; flying has the advantage that pilots who may operate out of a paddock, pass through these centres.

Are you serious suggesting that every strip should be legislated to have a non- flying volunteer standing by to point out the obvious?

These thing might work at organised events like speedway and target shooting comps, and such things do occur at most fly- ins, but what you are suggesting is like requiring that you should a a volunteer traffic advisor as you back out your driveway to tell you to watch out because the neighbour's bin is on the road, every time you go to the shops in your car.

I am also familiar with some in the gliding world who won't go back because they make unnecessary rules that go beyond those required by CASA, yet still, incidents occur at the same rate.We are making rules in all facets of life that are having little or no positive value, but at great cost to personal freedom. I don't see that as a reasonable tradeoff.

If you care to go back ti line 7 of #177, the comment was intended to show that tjis was a big subject, for a more formal arena that an internet forum.

Charging fairly would be a good start. Check out Warnervale's published landing fees (page 264)...$15 per landing, with no daily rate, then there is the annual licence fee ($605) the annual 'parking fee' $1650, and then there is a $110 fee just for the privilege of (each) refuelling on council land.Any wonder why people try to avoid these kinds of extortionate charges? When was the last time Council hit you up to launch your tinny at the local boat ramp?

Unless CASA takeover all of RAAus 'operations' - then it couldn't happen because RAAus doesn't have the legal powers to conduct much in the way of 'compliance & enforcement'. Only CASA FOI's have such power, and they would have to be directed to become active within the RAAus pilot group. In any case, the 'big stick' approach hasn't worked in the past. An improved training syllabus , with more recurrent training requirements, is probably a more effective approach.

However RAA C&E, using volunteers like most national sporting bodies can nest within CASA's designation.

The C&E I'm talking about doesn't extend to legal prosecutions, so you would not need to involve FOIs any more than they are now.

I've just outlined where it does work in speedways, and it also works withing the Sporting Shooters Association, and both those operations probably have roughly as many locations operating as there are active RAA airfields.

Explaining the structure is a little like, explaining the structure which reduced the Road Toll in one post; it's quite a complex subject in itself once you get into the checks and balances, ensuring natural justice with appeals etc.

Its also a red herring thrown up on this thread about The RAA's proposed technical changes.

Reading this thread makes you realise what a shambles Australian aviation regulation is at the low end.turbo:"that's true, but add an effective compliance and enforcement operation, and you'll see a big reduction."

What utter drivel. Give us a break, mate. Do you work for CASA? Or some other part of the public service?

Sorry, it's not drivel, it's a complete missing link in parts of aviation, so yes, installing volunteers to oversee aircraft standards, condition and operation will make a big difference.

If you look at the Old Bar Ferris wheel accident, which could have been a disaster, one C&E volunteer on duty in the Clubrooms that day would have called up the pilot, advised that the runway he was proposing to land at was not the duty runway, and was seriously compromised by a Ferris wheel in the splay, and directed the pilot to the duty runway. Everyone would have learned something, and there would have been no collision.

You yourself have raised gliding issues recently, and based on what you've said, if people had taken action to eliminate the faults you've identified, a few more pilots would be around.

We have a complex set of rules supposedly designed to stop us killing ourselves, and it doesn't seem to have achieved that.