turboplanner

TP the question has been asked by everybody, emails, FOI, RAA and personal calsJabiru and RAA have been open in their requests and lack of response on the issue

Only FOI has resulted anything.

Keith, retaliatory action tends to mean a tit for tat response, did you mean "responsive action"?

TurboAgree with what you are saying but they still have to determine before they act if it is just a malicious act by a minority with an axe to grind which in this case I believe was the case. Some pretty high profile people within the RA community had direct access with the previous administrators of RA now with CASA to drive this agenda sadly one of them is no longer with us.

 

As with all things if the minority complain long and loud enough and the majority just continue on their merry way the minority will get action.Aldo

To do the right thing. The PROCESS has been anything but satisfactory. You may think otherwise. That is your prerogative. Nev

Some people have not grasped the difference.

CASA's primary Duty of Care is to aviation safety, so if they become aware of a safety issue they can act. You'll recall Dafydd Llewellyn talking about the CASA technical people, some of considerable experience, being offloaded. That's because they don't do technical any more, they issue instructions for the people directly related to the issue to do the technical work which will return the product to a safe standard.

Almost all the hypotheticals I've seen on this forum would have been great in the Prescriptive days, but we are living in today's world, and we know, or ought to know our duty of care.

I'm satisfied with the process where an official can go to CASA and say "We want you to do something about this because that is happening and posing a risk, and here are our examples", and is responsible for the veracity of the examples, and CASA acts on that.

Yes, but for what?

Cerciority? .....for what?

They didn't leave themselves a face saving way out. Their action was reactive and lacked specificity. Also based on false data. The longer it goes on the worse it gets as they look (and are) indecisive and incompetent. Can't an affected group issue a writ of Cercioraty or Mandamus ( I forget which) to require a statement of intention or even a decision? Nev

The original problem was multiple forced landings over several years.

The story at the start of this thread is a very positive one. If the 1,000 hour cycle is consistent, not only will CASA have the evidence for a release on those aircraft and existing owners will have a bolt in solution, but the status vs Rotax will have changed dramatically, providing a lower up front aircraft cost potential, and putting Rotax in the position of having to achieve 2000 hours too approx, just to break even with Jab.

There's a proposal for a shopping centre on the Airfield. Haven't tried to unlock the story to find out whether it's the whole site or just like the DFO buildings at Moorabbin.

KP - absolutely, I am NOT suggesting that there should be - or have been - the use of this non-specific type of action - where by 'specific' I mean that the cause/s and remedy/ies were /are not detailed so that a clear path to ending the restriction through an acceptable solution can be demonstrated.Where there is an identified specific safety issue, for example a component that is not to specification, a faulty manufacturing technique etc., then obviously action needs to happen and the normal mechanisms of ADs / SBs has served the aviation community well. AFAIK, the imposition of a blanket restriction on a particular brand, with no more than in effect a statement that 'we consider that something is happening and we're going to slap an action on this mob generally until it stops happening' is a new tactic for CASA, and one with potentially dire consequences for the industry and the sport.

Just not engaging, that's all.

All of that HITC

1. openly saying nil radio ops are dangerous and dumb and

2. that 50 knts in the circuit makes you a hazard to other operators.

However, you have your own circuit height, so your 50 kts cruise does not interfere with other aircraft on climb out, crosswind, or downwind, and if I can't space a Cherokee behind you for final, having heard your radio calls (you will be below me, in a different circuit width and hard to see), I'd need to give the game away. I would be on 1 stage of flap and 90 kts on downwind, extending the downwind leg, hanging on the prop on base, and at 60 kts on final, so plenty of options to fit in with you, so I wouldn't agree with 2.

Perhaps there is an opportunity for grass roots flying below 500 feet say, and away from other traffic, to be made exempt from radio?

And there are vested interests out there who would like to see maintenance done only by professionals. Alas there are a few idiots who do dumb things to their planes and supply ammunition to those who want to ban owners from maintenance.

It would be possible to have a system using club-based volunteers, I hope they think of this as an alternative to bans and restrictions.

All are volunteers; there's no cost to the members.

The biggest benefit of this is that it provides a second pair of eyes which usually pick up the little oversights we make when building/assembling our own machines, and that can be life saving in an aircraft.

All it needs is for RAA to set up the volunteer structure.

Is there not a case for CASA to release the information on statistics of failures, on which they based their action, under the Freedom of Information Act?Or don't we have one in Australia?

FoI Rule No 1: Know the answer before you ask the question, or you may get another answer to another question.

TP, it seems to me that you view the law as being very black and white. In my experience, that is not the case. All kinds of human biases come into play when it comes to interpreting and applying the law, both statue and common law precedent, and always influenced by the facts in each case.I once heard this great talk by a barrister about a particular Court case. He spoke for an hour and a half about all the precedents and the legal tests you would need to satisfy in order to get a preliminary injunction granted. It was all very complicated. At the end of the talk, the most highly respected senior barrister in this field got up and said "yes, that is all very good, but what it really comes down to is whether the judge likes your client".

 

Personal biases and different viewpoints play a big part in legal proceedings and also in the application of the law by administrative bodies.

JabaDon't start him again. Alan (& a couple of his followers) went on and on about rubbish when this all started and will continue with the same stuff again if encouraged. I though we were over that stage. I already have copies of the relevant material.

 

Only after some subpoenas are issued down the road will some people start to watch what they say.

 

Interesting times ahead I suspect.

It might be very interesting indeed if the material you have answers the two questions in my post #13

If it does, don't hold back, tell us the truth!

CASA do not define what remedial issues are required they simply say when remedial work to an undefined standard acceptable to CASA has been carried out then they will relax the instrument.

The newspaper implies that shopping centres make more money for the owner/99 year lessee than secondary airports, and that's true.

How that can be handled to protect flying is the million dollar question.

Perhaps an assessment of what has happened at Bankstown and Moorabbin since the Federal Government handed out 99 year leases, could help the Fed Gov decide to take a close look.

CASA have a duty of care to ensure the protection of existing owners, pilots passengers and businesses are protected by the specifications which led to the Instrument, that's all, easy to understand, and it's logical that that will take a while.

Oscar is spot on and I take offence to you calling it blah blah ! Oscar owns a Jabiru and so do I, do you own a Jabiru ? You need to be part of the solution not part of the problem ! But I doubt Jabiru will lead any legal action as they need to deal with Casa forever, but I have a lot of information regarding this matter (which I believe Oscar, Jabiru and RAA have seen some ) and it was not well handled and showed their attempt to destroy Jabiru and RAA because if it was about safety it would have been discussed prior to the published proposal and the replies to the proposal was significant.

I have perhaps been part of the solution with Jabiru J170 on two occasions; the AD which avoided ground steering lockup with pedal extenders, and the AD to reduce the chances of helicoptering when landing into gusty quartering winds. I was most impressed with the speed of Jabiru's response and the effectiveness of the actions.

I've read the parts of your information which were made public on this site, and concluded the question was reasonable and the answer was reasonable, but the matter had long since begun, and I don't think that addressed the questions; "who originally asked CASA to take action?" and "what information was provided to CASA to justify the request?"

My comments in #6 would be the same if it was the Acme Lawn Mower company which had had problems with blades shattering and had supplied a new shatter-proof blade on every lawn mower. That leaves the lawn mowers out in circulation to be tracked down and the blades changed over. Even in the formal motor vehicle recall programme, manufacturers have difficulty tracing second and third owners to advise there is an issue, and getting all the people to bring their cars in for a free changeover. Hence, you are not likely to see statements declaring there is no longer a problem, and it is equally difficult for the government to announce the end of a recall.

Please provide us with your wisdom: what ARE 'the issues listed in the instrument?'

That's just a continuing cycle through the generations for country people; I was one of them, and I never returned.

As a teenager, I saved pocket money to go up for flights from the local airstrip.

When I moved to Melbourne, I budgeted for one flying lesson per week and finally got a PPL.

I think if the costs are matched to CPI, today's hourly rate will be about the same cost in terms of earning capacity.

In those days the average person couldn't afford to own their own aircraft, so if anything, these days we are ahead.

You're the one telling the emotional hypothetical Oscar; I'm simply going by the law, and until the issues listed in the instrument, are removed from the "reasonably foreseeable risk" category, CASA's actions seem prudent.

We've heard the blah blah all before Oscar.

Some very positive news coming out of Jabiru for the future.

CASA have a duty of care to ensure the protection of existing owners, pilots passengers and businesses are protected by the specifications which led to the Instrument, that's all, easy to understand, and it's logical that that will take a while.

As I understand it Uni SA no longer has an in house flying component to it's aviation degree. They stopped flying mid last year. Hopefully one of the other flying schools at Parafield is working with Uni SA.