turboplanner

Fishing expedition, same as you do to me when I write something from memory.

Just drinking a rather cheeky shiraz and reminiscing about all the aircraft I have flown in or piloted. It occurred to me that amongst the members of this forum there must be some pretty interesting aircraft experiences. Tell us what you have flown in or piloted. Here is my list (as far as I can remember through my shiraz haze). Perhaps the most interesting aircraft list will win the remains of my bottle of shiraz (best get in quickly whilst it lasts)Boeing 707

 

Lockheed Electra

 

Boeing 727

 

Cessna 180

 

Glider (not sure of make and model)

 

C130 Hercules A,E and H model (many many many hours)

 

Douglas Dakota DC3

 

de Havilland Caribou

 

Lockheed P-3 Orion simulator

 

HS 748

 

CH-47 Chinook (got to wear a harness and sit on the open ramp)

 

Boeing 737

 

Airbus A320

 

Airbus A320 simulator

 

PA-38 Tomahawk

 

PA-32

 

Thruster TST, T300, T500 - as pilot

 

Gazelle - as pilot

 

Jabiru 230 - as pilot

 

Jabiru 170

 

Foxbat A-22 - as pilot

 

Storch - as pilot

 

Pioneer 200 - as pilot

 

Tecnam echo Super - as pilot

 

Pioneer 300 - as pilot

CASA has it all laid out, they describe the rule and then say how many points it will cost you and there is no comeback, if CASA say you committed the illegal action you have no chance of saying you did it without knowing, or you could not avoid it. No recourse to a court of law. I forget the exact wording in the regs, but it is spelled out regularly. I cannot see RAA being able to override that.

In the system I described before we were able to overturn decisions made by stewards if the evidence showed they were wrong, give suspended sentences if the stewards had been too harsh etc. a much better way to keep the culture to a high standard (now around 50 years fatality-free.

Yes but isn't CASA the only ones who can take action other than RAAus dumping a member

If you have rules in it, and you have penalties in it, which could be suspensions for example, short one for minor breaches, bigger for serious breaches (just like this site), and you have an appeal system to ensure natural justice, and you follow that compliance and enforcement policy, you live it rather than just talk about it, CASA would never have a need to do anything other than preen themselves in front of the Minister and say "See, our Self Administration system is working!"

For a few years I acted as an Appeals Tribunal chairman for an organization with about 1500 A type participants, and it was one of the most interesting periods of my life.

You guys could do it if your put your minds to it.

I have read and re read the existing constitution and I think it is very poorly worded. It hardly mentions what are the main objectives of RAAus and then goes on to mentionthings we have no interest in or any hope of ever being involved in legally. There should be an update of the constitution, even if it went back to the old version it would be a lot better. I am left wondering if the odd wording is to cover something that someone has as a hidden agenda.Has anyone looked at the recent email from RAAus concerning "Disciplinary framework"

I agree with the wording for Illegal Activity, but am left wondering about the rest. Are RAAus going to discipline us for breaking the rules of flying. If so does CASA also have the ability to prosecute us on top of RAAus or do RAAus discipline us and CASA has no further interest.

 

I cannot see CASA letting RAAus discipline us for breaking the rules, without them getting involved. I would think that if RAAus became aware of us breaking the rules it is their responsibility to advise CASA. I am wondering if whoever made up the idea of disciplinary action gave it as much thought as the person who drew up the constitution, or are they going to have a new set of rules for us to comply with?

I take it you are referring to the RAA Limited constitution, becaise life as it was in the days of the Association has ceased to exist.

RAA is one of the Self Administering bodies allowed to fly by CASA. As such RAA are expected to run their own business, and that includes Compliance and Enforcement ,so that should all be spelled out in the Constitution.

If not, then management are going to be shooting from the hip using their own thoughts, whatever they may be from year to year, era to era.

RAA should not be asking CASA to step in and do their job for them, because that's an admission they can't do their job, and thye results can be catastrophic when outside people, with less detailed understanding of the operations respond by getting involved and taking control.

I can understand canning it if the new constitution failed getting throu asic but I see no problem as it stands.

What is a lot more relevant is that the people it affects should read it nd see if they got what they wanted, i.e. a sophisticated company keyed in to todays enivironment, or a cricket club.

In its heyday Grong Grong had two pubs, a post office, bakery, a butter factory, sale and slaughter yards, butchers, four black smith shops, a general store and two shops, a school, police station, two stock and station agents, a bank, stables, sports club, train station, a couple of dance halls, the Commemoration Hall, a football club,a racecourse and gymkhana events, three churches, three mechanics and more. Lots for the Historic Society to talk about.

Hello kasper,re. Your #164.

I can remember the president and his followers back in the Runciman years yelling how un-constitutional the actions of the day were.

 

Now look what is happening now, I can not see any difference, only different issues.

 

May be worse this time as the constitution is being meddled with.

 

Regards,

 

KP

ensure it wasn't run like the local cricket club or the Grong Grong historic society.

Liable up to the set amount which I believe is $1?

Yes ... and note the DATE it came into effect ... the day AFTER the nomination in the elections closed ... so clearly the nominations and election cannot be under the constitution for RAAus Ltd ... and the prcess does not comply with the requirements of RAAus Inc - the constitution that applied during the nomination period ... so hands up who wants to guess the legality of the actual process underway or the validity of any appointments ...

The biggest thing to me now is the quality of the data...there will always be the question of accuracy hanging over the results.

So what's your point Oscar?

SAP; now there's a headache!

All true Kaz, but I love the call of the Corellas- we see quite a few but they've never done me any harm.

Too often the care in Duty of Care stands for Cover **** Remain Employed.

However, there is PLENTY of scope for an organisation to set relevant standards to both address risk and provide continued economical operations; it's just that many organisations don't make use of the practical skills and knowledge of their employees/members, so a proactical solution doesn't get thrashed out.

ridiculous regulation increases non-compliance and eventually normalizes non-compliance to the point that necessary regulation is ignored. We should be reducing regulation and increasing compliance....Bill

There you will learn all about Duty of care.

You will learn there are reasons companies and organisations are introducing specific definitions, pre-use qualifications, specifications which put the onus on designers, builders, component suppliers, renters, users - all the people responsible for putting the product in your hands.

Then, if you ask the right questions, such as:

"What happens if my aircraft is not officially airworthy, but I take it up anyway, and someone gets hurt including me?"

"What happens if I fly below 500 feet, and someone gets hurt? ...or decide not to comply with a safety regulation because it's ridiculous to the point where I ignore it?"

And you will come away with a much better idea of where your duty of care lies, and what the implications are if you ignore it.

Very good points Rod, but I don't think it would have mattered because it seems to me that virtually no one has looked at it anyway.

If they had they would have instantly seen through the story that the Association was no longer a club and needed corporate governance.

Sidney Kidman, Australia's Cattle King, bought a 1/14 share in the Broken Hill Mine for fourteen steers.

He sold it not long after for $100.00.

Decades later when people pointed out what they saw as a monumental blunder, he was philosophical and said he didn't regret it, because at the time he made a profit.

All correct but attempting to micromanage regulations to suit all things is the way of AU government and safety even outside it.Ends up with larger number ignoring it and risking problems rather than try to be fully compliant - because odds are you wont be somehow

If the subject is important to the point of being required, the correct word is "must"

I don't doubt that some people ignore their obligations; they frequently show their fingerprints on this site. When a regulation says you cannot fly below 500 feet, there are always a few disagreeing, but we now clearly know from recent events that if you contravene that regulation and crash and kill someone you are likely to be facing a Manslaughter charge - self enforcement.

Id be curious to learn what liability an L4 (or any other accepted person) would carry should an aircraft crash on a test flight? If the inspector has given the thumbs up, surely they are saying this thing is good to fly? The statement in the tech manual indicating the inspector is simply completing an independent inspection and not guaranteeing airworthiness would be dubious defence in court?

"A duty of care must be owed" and "a person must breach that duty of care", I'd agree.

And for those with the bent of 'guess the number of jelly beans in a jar' GUESS how many instance of should are included in the manual rather than must meaning that there is in fact no certainty as to what is a must and what is a would like to have

 

It beggars belief that a blunder like this was made; one of the most fundamental when it comes to regulations or specifications, because it can't be enforce, and it leads to endless case by case debates over what was meant.

 

Out State Tribunals are full to the brim with cases caused by this unsound wording.

 

Unless its describing a required safety action, and then public liability law kicks in. Unfortunately in that case the "defendant" as he then is thought somkethingt was voluntary due to the wording, and didn't realise he had an over-riding duty of care requirement.

Kasper's a lawyer; you're not.

Well if you want to throw Eugene doen the drain, be careful of the splash in your face.

Great work Keith!

Hi Turbs, I think understand your concern and I agree there is some risk in RAA becoming highlighted and forced to demonstrate their risk mitigation process. However, I do think your concern, whilst legitimate, is low risk regarding a curtailment of the norm and an increase in medical standards required for RAA pilots.Reasonably, in my view, the audience that is likely to challenge the RAA medical is going to be the same people that will oppose the AOPA push ... If I was developing a strategy to suppress change I would not be inclined to attack a model (RAA) that can argue success through the use of empirical evidence.

 

Cheers

 

Vev

Life isn't like that; just ask the extinct NSW greyhound industry.

In any case, the comments are now out there and searchable.