Oscar

DWF - thanks for an excellent summary of the realities. I believe that you have expressed succinctly the real position in the following:

 

I suspect (and I don't think I am the only one who does so) that the only reason the majority of RAAus members are in fact members of RAAus is because to is the only acceptable (legal) alternative to GA if you want to build and/or fly ultralight aircraft.Give this 'fact (assertion?)' it is hardly surprising that this majority have little interest in how the organisation is run or who runs it, as long as everything is going along smoothly.

Despite the somewhat fervent assertions of some members of this forum, the fact that RAA is (at least ostensibly) a 'democratic' organisation, that is, by the evidence of the low voter turn-out, NOT a matter of concern to a majority of members. I'll go further here, and suggest that, should an alternative mechanism for delivering compliance with all of the regulations and rules we have to abide by and that is an acceptable alternative by CASA exist, RAA could find itself in a situation of bleeding members.

 

Let us imagine for a moment that a commercial entity existed, that offered for a lower annual cost than RAA membership, a service that CASA approved as ensuring compliance with all 'technical' matters affecting RAA members: registration, operations etc. As an aircraft owner / pilot, you supply the information that is required (as you do to RAA now), this commercial entity processes that information and issues, by dint of a performance contract with and audit by CASA, your registration, Pilot Certificate etc. You have the choice of belonging to RAA, with the ability to exercise a 'democratic' vote on how RAA is managed, or using the commercial service that offers a performance guarantee: results or your money back?

 

If such an alternative existed - extrapolating from the number of RAA members who can be bothered to vote for the Board - what would you expect the RAA membership to be? The answer to that would provide a realistic measure of the value placed on having a 'democratic' organisation vs. a dependable service.

 

Fantasy? No, I don't think so. There are many examples of competitive 'democratic' organisations vs. commercial entities to show that, when it comes down to the hard facts, 'democracy' is valued emotively but performance is valued more highly. Look at the relative size of Credit Unions ( 'democratic' organisations) vs. the major banks. Absolutely nobody would accuse the major banks of even the faintest whiff of 'democratic' principles in their operation.

 

The reality is that almost none of the issues that affect the flying of RAA-class aircraft can be in the slightest degree affected by 'democratic' principles. We cannot vote to say, increase the MTOW of our aircraft. Even if 99.99% of members voted in favour of increased access to airspace, that is no more than an expression of desire, it would have no effect.

 

RAA members wishing to exercise a democratic principle to change things that affect our ambit of operation by majority consent need to be looking at exercising their democratic desires not within RAA but at the government that runs the organisation (CASA) that makes the rules we have to abide under. Other groups have realised this fact: look at the religious, sporting etc. groups that have a presence in the Parliaments that make the rules under which they have to operate. RAA could be a fine focus organisation for promoting our interests - and the expression of those interests ought to be driven by democratic principles.

 

As you have stated so very well:

 

RAAus is now a two headed beast. One part provides services to and regulates (in part) the operations of ultralight aircraft pilots and builders and (should) operate on business lines. The other part is still the association which sets the objectives of the organisation, advocates for members, promotes recreational aviation and provides member services such as the magazine and fly-ins.

IF RAA can be all things to all members AND maintain a democratic basis for its existence - brilliant. However, it is blindingly (and painfully) obvious that it has, thus far, not managed to hold up both ends of the log despite its ostensibly democratic nature. It is not beyond comprehension that, with adjustments, both heads could operate successfully. That would be the best outcome.

 

 

80 kts - I did NOT say that you cannot have an effective organisation only if 'democracy' is removed - that is your entirely emotive construct on my question. I suggest you google 'Godwin's Law' in relation to bringing Hitler into ANY debate.

 

What I asked is very simply: what is the demonstrated majority will of members showing? By the very low reported percentage of members actually bothering to vote, yet paying their annual dues, I believe the answer is crystal clear: the majority of members are not sufficiently concerned about participating in the democratic process offered to them to determine the composition of their Board. However, they are, in effect, voting with their wallets in regard to trying to keep on flying.

 

Is there ANY member of the current Board who received the votes of more than 50% of the membership?

 

 

Col - I am not suggesting by any means the abolition of member voting for the Board - although it seems that historically, relatively few members seem to actually participate in that activity, which may or may not tell a story in itself of the relative importance of 'participative democracy' vs. 'get on with the job that needs to be done' for many members.

 

What I am arguing for is a fundamental shift in the basis of the composition of the Board away from selection of regional representatives to selection of candidates to fill Board positions with nominated responsibilities. Let us say, for example, the Board were determined to require a number of Committee area responsibilities: Technical, Financial, Safety, Governance, Operations, Public Profile.

 

Candidates could list their areas of expertise and nominate for one (or more) 'Committee area/s'. Those Committee areas are filled according to the votes received, e.g. if say the Technical Committee is determined to require three members, then the three candidates with the most votes, fill those slots.

 

Some candidates will bring to the RAA Board expertise in more than one area - e.g. the same candidate might be extremely valuable to both Technical and Operations. Once a candidate is elected to the Board in any area, then filling positions on other Committees - to ensure a complete Board membership - should be automatically contested by those NOT already elected - since the Board will de facto gain the added value of having more people with knowledge in a Committee area than that Committee is required to have. That way, we get all bases covered - and probably, some bases more than covered.

 

If someone can show how regional representation on the Board provides a better organisational management outcome for members, I'm prepared to listen attentively.

 

As for 'electing' CASA - from where did that come? CASA is no more 'elected' than is the ATO...

 

 

You completely misunderstand my point and confuse the necessity to ensure compliance with CASA regulations with RAA governance.

 

The compliance regulations are NOT generated by 'democratic principles' - any more than the speed limits on the roads you drive on or the electricity bill you pay are. Do you campaign against the imposition of tread depth limits on your tyres because they were not 'democratically' decided? Is that, in your opinion, an example of a dictatorial abrogation of democratic principle? - or do you just buy new tyres when your old ones are no longer legal and grumble under your breath?

 

Save me the 'Hitler' arguments. We HAVE to be compliant, to keep flying. Your argument is not with the form of RAA management appointment, but with the government that supports the compliance rules we have to operate under. The number of aircraft currently not allowed to fly is a definitive statement of the failure of a 'democratically' elected Board determined on regional representation divides to maintain compliance. I want to see a 'democratically' elected Board that can manage our compliance issues - not one that simply reinforces a completely spurious regional representational ideal.

 

And, for what it is worth: I have a number of (naturalised and proud Australian) friends who were electors of Hitler under the democratic rules then in force. Why? - because Hitler was the choice between starving for lack of employment or a more obviously 'liberal' opposition'. They didn't vote for Hitler because they wanted a bloody maniac dictator, they voted because they wanted to keep on living. Before you play the 'Hitler' card, understand the situation of Germany in the 1930's. It is an insult of monumental proportions to compare the situation we are faced with the RAA management to the situation that enabled Hitler to ascend to power and you should be truly ashamed to have invoked any such parallel.

 

 

I hate to be a wasp in the jam here, but CASA has not always held that perspective. I believe that CASA has pursued at least one RAA member for exactly that 'offence'. This is a matter that I believe RAA should be demanding that CASA provide an an unambiguous statement as to what it considers to be 'commercial' use of an RAA-class aircraft.

 

Para 7 (d) (vi) states: (vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade

 

So, therefore, your tools of trade carried for the purpose of undertaking a job (if you can't prove that they just 'happened' to be in the aircraft) - are taken to be 'a commercial purpose'.

 

I am sorry, but short of a issued declaration by CASA, it appears that it would be necessary for a Court to determine a ruling - reference to the CAR nonwithstanding.

 

 

OK, let's get down to basics here.

 

The concept of democracy is reliant on the expression of the will of 'the population'. If less than the entirety of 'the population' casts a vote - that is an implicit expression that the issue under consideration is NOT sufficiently important for that membership of 'the population' to be concerned enough to register their opinion.

 

If a relatively small percentage of RAA membership can, to be blunt, be buggered to vote -that is an expression that the issue(s) under consideration are not important to them. Let me take this further: a vast majority of members of RAA could not give a flying, fur-lined continental f@@k about 'democracy' - what they want is to be able to continue to fly their aircraft with minimal or no frustration of that objective. They want to be able to pay their annual fees, submit their documentation as required, and be able to continue to fly hither and yon in their aircraft, in perpetuity. I am one of those.

 

In the last 12 months, the peaceful pursuit of flying legally hither and yon has been rent asunder for many members because of the failure of RAA to manage its compliance requirements. The management structure has failed us. That management structure has been in the main, 'democratically' elected and it has NOT served the members well.

 

So- it has to be asked - what is the majority will? To have an organisation that palpably demonstrates 'democratic''principles - or to have an organisation that works to ensure that its members can continue to use their aircraft as they wished? (and that they have invested considerable amount of money to own?) Do you as an aircraft owner approach your aircraft before every flight feeling good about the fact that you can take off knowing that a 'democratic' organisation is behind that activity? Would you be happy to say: 'Well, I can't use this aircraft today because it isn't legal, but that's ok because the organisation that I rely on to keep me legal is NOT compliant with the requirement for my flight, but more importantly it IS democratic?

 

 

Didn't Winston Churchill say (after losing the election only a month or two after Britain won the war): "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

There is NO requirement for 'democracy' in the operation of RAA in regard to compliance with the CASA requirements. The requirements are spelled out in the CAR's and exemptions thereto. How RAA manages its own affairs is entirely irrelevant to the compliance issues.

 

'Democracy' is a somewhat nebulous concept at the best of times. In theory, it means that more than 50% of the 'population' is in favour of a law that bonds the remaining less than 50% of the population. There is NO element of 'democracy' in, for instance, the approved MTOW for an aircraft for it to be registered as approved for 'X' MTOW vs. 'Y' MTOW.

 

We will NOT be allowed to deviate from the compliance requirements which we have to meet because we do not agree with them on a 'democratically'-expressed basis. It is critically important that RAA members realise this fact and install a Board that acts to ensure we operate to meet the compliance requirements.

 

HOW the RAA manages its own affairs, is convincingly arguable as being based on 'democratic' principles. HOWEVER - how RAA manages compliance, has absolutely nothing relevant to or keystoned on 'democratic' principles. If these entirely variant concepts can be bought into alignment, then it would be a paradigm example of a 'democratic' organisation meeting its compliance requirements. In the real world, what do members want: to be able to keep flying their aircraft, or to belonging to an organisation that epitomises the democratic principle?

 

Yes, Winston Churchill (of cursed memory) did make that statement. Rather later, a far more enduring rock-and-roll band suggested that 'you can't always get what you want.' Both maxims will go down in history. Which one will you admit as relevant, if you can't fly your RAA - registered aircraft in the future in the conditions you believed them to be compliant? This is NOT a rhetorical question- ask the owners of Pipistrel, Pacific, Morgan etc. aircraft.

 

 

It seems to me that there are several different issues here that need to be looked at separately and then perhaps re-examined to see if there is a mechanism whereby they can be melded.

 

The first issue is meeting the administrative requirements placed on RAA. The organisation needs to - indeed must - meet mandated standards of compliance with various 'operational' requirements. While that is largely a mechanistic function to be performed by the professional staff ( CEO, Tech Manager, Ops. Manager, SMS manager etc.) it is very much a Board responsibility to provide a level of oversight, support and strategic planning: ensuring KPIs are met, apportioning RAA resources as needed to deal with situations as they arise. To do this effectively the Board needs people with appropriate expertise to at the very least fully comprehend the nature of the tasks, even if not chapter and verse of the actual requirements down to the last sub-part of every paragraph.

 

The second issue is surely the amorphous phrase 'good governance'. That covers such things as adherence to the Rules for the Association, financial control, effective long-range strategic planning for the development of the organisation etc.

 

The third, as I see it, can be loosely termed 'representation' of the objectives of the Association. I would lump in here such things as promotion of RAA members' interests at the regional and local level, defence against actions by regional / local authorities/interest groups that are antipathetic to our activity etc.

 

The first two issues are best addressed by having the Board elected on the basis of the need for a range of skills and experience - none of which, in our ambit, are in any way divided by location nor considerations of 'democracy' (other than, perhaps, the implicit 'democracy' of ensuring that the Board itself maintains a good balance of skills and experience, so it does not become 'technocrat-heavy', or 'accountant-heavy' or some fundamental imbalance of that sort. ) Selection of Board members based on regional affiliation simply does not make any coherent sense.

 

Conversely, the third issue does require regional representation - it can't work effectively without it. Such 'regional representatives' don't, I believe, need to be office-holders of the Association, but could and should form a channel of information between the association and the regional / local communities from which they are drawn, and in reverse, a channel of information upwards to the Board of matters that affect regions. They would hold status as 'spokespeople' for the Association at the regional / local level, and by election from the region, be people that regional members choose as their representative.

 

 

Is anyone happy with area based reps?

No.

 

There is no valid reason to elect Board members based on geographical boundaries, when the core administration tasks demanded of RAA are entirely uninfluenced by regional concerns. I strongly support the idea of having 'regional representatives' to promote the Association to regional authorities and interests, but the management of RAA needs to be in response to skill/expertise needs - not location.

 

 

Bryon, If Maj was standing for Technical Director, I'd go along with you. From what I have read on here of his aviation maintenance experience and knowledge he'd definitely be the man.

What a stunning example of satirical commentary! Humor makes the world go around!

 

 

MichaelAre you related to or in some way associated with Michael Coates the Pipistrel dealer?

A most reasonable question - nobody would wish to be tarred with that association.

 

 

The qualification is still a bit odd however, because it seems to mean that you can't take something to someone and sell it to them, but you can deliver it after they have purchased it and ownership has transferred to them - it is no longer "property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft".

I suspect you'd need a Court ruling on whether 'delivering' in that case was a part of the commercial transaction, or just a gratuitous act on your part because you happened to be flying past and dropped in on by... Every way you look at it it gets more and more convoluted, and the answer appears to be either: 'never do anything with your aircraft that has a commercial implication', OR get the 'commercial' use parameters defined and abide by them. The first path is the simpler and more easily achieved, I completely accept. That appears so far to be the will of members, and if a majority consensus, then the RAA Board should concentrate on achieving that objective.

 

However, I really, really suggest that members consider the adage 'be careful what you wish for, lest you get it.' The simple life will have a cost, just as the more complex one does. How much do you want to be able to do vs. how much complication are you prepared to tolerate?

 

And, as an aside: is there a way forward that is more sophisticated than just one size fits all?

 

 

Our branch of aviation does not need to be complex as simplicity is safer.

I'm sorry, but that is in itself an overly simplistic statement. A piece of stick on a bolt that drags on the road is simpler than an ABS braking system. Which system would you want to know is on a vehicle that collects your 16-year old to go to a party on a wet night down a lousy, but 100 kph limited, road driven by a friend who has just gained her/his licence?

 

What simple IS - is easier to administer, of less cost, more readily maintainable etc.

 

The offset is - to maintain an equitable level of safety, the operational regime becomes limited to the capability of the equipment. If you fly in a plastic chair attached by wires to a Hills Hoist with half an acre of fabric that can only flutter to earth with the maximum possible impact of a butterfly farting - then you don't need the protection of an impact-absorbing seat. If you want to cruise at 120 kts, the potential landing impact at VSo might well break your spine if you get it a bit wrong, in that same simple seat.

 

The laws of physics aren't influenced by matters of simplicity or complexity. A billycart is simple - but it you hit a brick wall at 40 kph in a billycart, you are NOT safer than if you hit that brick wall in a car with seat-belts, crumple-zones and airbags.

 

Simple IS safe - if the parameters of operation of 'simple' are kept to what is 'safe' relevant to that level of simplicity. 95.10 aircraft are simple; 24-reg aircaft are not. What capability you want, rather dictates the level of 'simplicity' that will deliver a roughly equivalent level of safety. I think the question may well be: what level of capability do we want RAA aircraft to have? At the upper end, RAA-registered aircraft offer a very decent level of capability. That is now far removed from the days of aircraft when the AUF was created.

 

Should RAA go back to a 'simpler' regime? - it's an option.

 

 

It's not, I doubt that was the intent of the law, but I do I think that the way it's enforced is ridiculous. I fix aeroplanes for a living.... does that mean I can't carry a basic tool kit?I think that's a double standard, I'm not allowed to claim vehicle costs for driving my vehicle to work, even if it carries my tools.

From what I understand - and I don't claim to be any sort of guru here - if you use your RAA-reg. aircraft just to GO to a job, even if you don't carry so much as a Swiss Army knife - you have used it for a 'commercial purpose'. Presumably, coming home isn't a 'commercial purpose' - unless, perhaps, you return to your home airfield and then also do a paying job before actually going home.

 

This is where it all gets silly, I feel. I want to be able, in the future when it's back in the air, to be able to do trips in my wee, simple, cheap but capable Jab. that have, in some small way, a 'commercial purpose'. I don't want to be a commercial gun for hire, and despite CASA's apparent interpretation that because there is a 'commercial purpose' for my flight I might be inclined to become a task-driven homicidal/suicidal maniac, I'm not going to breach any condition of the operational limits to do any such flights.

 

I also don't want to suddenly find out that my insurance cover is void because I have used the aircraft for a purpose other than 'recreational' aviation, as defined and limited.

 

So - the upshot of all of that is: if I want to be able to do the odd 'commercial' flight, such as delivering a part I have manufactured to a customer and installing it in her/his aircraft, even if it's just a damn cup-holder weighing 50 grammes that needs to be screwed to the door and signed off by an L2, I may have to consider putting the old girl back in VH-reg and taking out at the least an RPL I'm damned if I can see what qualitative difference there will be to my, or the general public's, safety resulting from that change - but I'd have to amortise the extra costs of operating a VH-reg aircraft vs. a self-maintained RAA-reg aircraft on the cost of that cup-holder. And the cup-holder will be almost certainly be screwed into an RAA aircraft identical in almost every respect to my own but with a different set of letters/numbers on it.

 

In principle, the Taxman is happy to allow the bank robber the cost of his dynamite and gemmy as long as he declares his income fully. The same for the SP better.(bettor?) Nev

Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion. A prostitute can claim 'expenses' as long as she/he is determined to have properly declared all income and properly have claimed allowable 'expenses'. What the ATO decides is allowable has NO reflection on the legality of the source of the income / expenses - as long as they're justified by the ATO rules. An ATO decision on your income/outgo bottom-line position has NO relevance on a CASA decision on a breach/non breach of the safety regulations for which they are responsible. You can fly Jack the Ripper to and fro - as long as you do it within the rules.

 

 

Speaking for myself only, I think RAA should stick recreational flying. We've got enough issues without adding any further complexity.

OK, we have one vote for 'purely recreational'. That's at least a start, folks, of trying to give the new Board an indication of what the members would like to see in terms of strategic direction for RAA - which I think is surely important.

 

Of course, the definition of what is 'simple' is not of itself, simple. We live in a world of trade-offs, and though I am absolutely no expert about this, it seems to me that we have been trading off from a base of 'I can build it and fly it and it's nobody else's business as long as nobody else is involved/affected' pretty much from the start of the AUF in return for greater capability, safety, airspace access etc. So, in reality, the idea of 'simple' becomes a question of how much complexity is one prepared to tolerate in return for what combination of capabilities etc. one wants.

 

That trade-off situation is of course endemic in our society: you can still build a billycart and run it down a hill inside your property ( I think!) without having anybody interfere - a pretty simple situation. However, if you want the ability to (legally) use the public road to go to the shops and back, there is immediately a stack of hurdles you have to overcome: licence, registration etc. In most places, you can't even ride a bicycle on the public roads unless you are wearing an approved helmet.

 

Our aircraft are basically fairly simple, reasonably minimum devices, but there are a host of 'complications' attached to them: standards to be met, maintenance requirements, equipment requirements, 'licence' requirements, operational limitations etc. I would doubt that there is anybody who does not have some 'complication' that is either or all of: 'incomprehensible in the reason for its existence', 'expensive', or 'bloody useless and unnecessary' that they can think of - and that is not to say that such thoughts are incorrect.

 

So, in respect of the 'purely recreational' vs. 'recreational-plus' idea, I suspect it comes down to what do we want to be able to do and how much are we willing to pay - in terms of 'complication' for that set of conditions? I am of the opinion that the 'plus' of more access to a set of commercial-use possibilities that can be demonstrated to be 'reasonable' for our class of aircraft (certainly the 'high-end' ones, the Jabs, Technams, Foxbats etc. - pick your favourite) may in fact not add a great deal of complication beyond what already exists. Is that something we'd at least like to see RAA investigate and move towards provided it is a reasonable aspiration? There's obviously no point in creating a new set of complications that the aircraft we can buy / build / operate cannot reasonably meet.

 

As an additional thought: it might well be that with the development of better administrative support systems - and RAA's systems are currently way below 'best practice' as I think we all recognise - any additional complications may not be as onerous as people may think. It is highly unlikely that any additional capability granted to us will come at NO cost, but it just could be that we can get a distance ahead for incremental rather than exponential additional cost/complication. It's the old cost/benefit equation.

 

So I personally vote (as it were) for at the very least, investigation by the new Board of what might be possible and at what 'cost'. First things first, of course, and first is for RAA to get its current house in order. However, I believe that development of the RAA milieu is preferable to retreat to an earlier, 'simpler' time (if indeed such retreat is even possible.)

 

 

There is obviously a great deal of legal definition that needs to be sorted - and certainly, with some clarification might come avenues for RAA to pursue in regard to a broader acceptance of the role that RAA operations can play...

 

However, that isn't answering my basic question: do members want RAA to move to try to embrace more commercial activities of potential value to the community (and utilise any leverage gained thereby for the benefit of members), or should it focus very tightly on only activities that are self-evidently purely 'recreational' and try to simplify life for members within that sphere?

 

 

Sorry, but the idea that lack of a specific, invoiced charge for the aircraft cost for a service provided utilising your aircraft is highly unlikely to persuade CASA that the purpose of your flight was not commercial. Their position is, as far as I understand it, that if the flight was involved in a commercial operation, you are nicked.

 

This principle is fairly well enshrined in law nowadays. You have, for instance, work insurance cover for travel to and from your principal place of work to a job, no matter whether you do it in your own vehicle or in a taxi for which you add the charges to the invoice.

 

However, once again, we are missing the essential point that I have been trying to make: the real value to every RAA member from some RAA-class operations being 'commercial' in definition is ultimately not a dollar return to the owner/pilot from providing the service, but from communities placing value on having RAA-class aircraft operating in their locale. What we need - I believe - is a sentiment in local communities that having RAA-class operations in their area is of value to them and thus supporting our very existence. If we are seen as oddities and of no practical value, we can expect no community support. Surely, it is in our interests to reverse that sentiment.

 

 

Actually, here's I think a fair example of what I am suggesting as 'services' that RAA-class aircraft can provide - within the restrictions of their capability.

 

You live about 120k from the nearest medical facility. Your only child is bitten by a brown-snake. You bind the limb to restrict the passage of the venom and ring for help. A paramedic with the anti-venom is 5 minutes away from the local RAA FTF. Next door is a croppie strip. However, the nearest Flying Doctor strip is 500 k's away and their King Air can't land on the croppie strip, but 30 k's away. However, legally the FTF can't fly the paramedic in to administer the anti-venom.

 

What would you rather see: help arrive in time in a little RAA-class aircraft, or an aircraft arrive, entirely legally, too damn late? I know what would actually happen - the FTF would fly the paramedic in and risk the consequences. That's what we as people do. But it shouldn't be that way.

 

 

I seriously suspect it is not the profit but the purpose of the trip that CASA has decided is the determinant. CASA doesn't care (and legislatively, can't) whether there is commercial profit in using the aircraft, but they can make a determination that the purpose of the flight was 'commercial' by its determination of that term.

 

I suspect that it's (probably) possible that, keeping to the strict legal definition, travel from your home field to the nearby field of a client and then taking a taxi to their place, means the flight you took wasn't, strictly ' commercial'

 

However, that's not really the point of this thread. The point is: if RAA-class aircraft flown by RAA-certificated pilots (as they have to be, thanks to the division of jurisdictions) can provide some services to local communities, then just perhaps local communities will increase their interest in having RAA-class activities in their area. If RAA-class aircraft and an RAA Pilots Certificate can assist a service provider to make her/his living, then that is an attractive option vs. having to meet all the costs of GA. People who might want such opportunities will progress up the RAA path instead of going to GA.

 

That gives RAA activities a 'career path' - for want of a better term - that is not a required path that has to be followed, for either your Certificate or your aircraft, but an option. If a single-seat Thruster is all you want to own and fly, then it's no imposition that there is more possible - you can stop at the level that you want. Same as a driver's licence: you do not HAVE to get a B-double licence if all you want to do is drive your Camry to the shops and back.

 

 

I believe, though I do not have personal knowledge of it, that a CASA ramp inspector has pinged someone in SQ, presumably under 206 (1) (viii) for carrying his plumbing tools intending to do work in his RAA-reg aircraft. Personally, I think this is as stupid as it would be to require a Plumber to have some sort of 'commercial operator' licence (maybe something of the taxi licence type), and the vehicles to have some sort of goods-carrying certification to take his tools to a job in his ute.

 

I believe that CASA's position is, roughly, that if you are going to use your aircraft to provide a service, then you might be inclined to break safety rules in order to provide the service. Again, speaking personally, I think this position has as much validity as banning the sale of rope on the basis that you might be inclined to hang yourself, therefore you should not be allowed to buy rope.

 

The idea that the owner/pilot of an RAA-registered aircraft cannot be able to offer to provide any services to the community utilising her/his aircraft, is fairly much the nub of my argument. Provided that one does not break any safety requirements nor exceed the limitations of the aircraft (sort of implicit really from the first statement..) - why could a pilot with sufficient competence flying an aircraft with sufficient capability, not be allowed to undertake operations with a commercial return? For example, we see small vehicles carrying pathological samples to laboratories for analysis everywhere in the community; for a remote community, that could be as readily done by someone in say a Jab. 160 or 230, as someone in a C172. However, as things stand, the Jab. owner could not offer to provide the service and would be subject to penalties if he/she did so.

 

I am not advocating that recreational pilots/owners should be forced into conforming to standards appropriate to (limited) forms of 'commercial' operations. What I am advocating is that there should be room within the ambit of 'recreational aircraft' for the use of their qualifications and aircraft, if eligible and maintained to a prescribed standard, to engage in certain types of commercial operation without having to make the large jump to GA level - where this can be demonstrated to be reasonable on safety etc, grounds.

 

The benefit to RAA-class operation is, I believe, a shift in the appreciation by the general community that RAA-class operations has potential benefit to their community, thus generating a supportive community attitude towards us. The flow-on from that would be community support of facilities for RAA operations. Hell, it could even assist in the fuel companies continuing to supply suitable fuel rather than backing away from any aviation use of other than Avtur.

 

 

Apologies, incorrect title: should be 'Aerial Work' - second term from the top of the list.

 

 

Pete - totally agree. I've just posted a new thread - 'A Possible Path for RAA Development?' - in the Governing Bodies area- not a very polished opening post, but maybe we can use it to thrash around some ideas amongst forum members? This thread is about a specific situation and I think it might be useful to have a dedicated area where people can push their ideas.

 

 

In the 'RAA STCC Appointed' thread, I commented that I'd like to see the ambit of RAA operations grow to embrace some aspects of what may be termed 'Airwork' as the CAR's define it.

 

Rather than fill up the post, here's a link to the definition of 'Airwork': http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90021

 

Not unreasonably, this elicited some responses that RAA is for 'recreational' aviation and the requirements for anything more than that are an increasing burden on 'recreational' aircraft owners/pilots. The general thrust of this seemed to be that 'if you want to do GA-type stuff, then go be a GA owner/pilot.' That is, in my opinion, quite a reasonable position to take: why would we RAA people want to complicate our lives and make our flying more expensive?

 

I wish it were that simple - but life in our society isn't that simple. The intrusion of regulations into every aspect of our daily lives is a fact that we live with. As examples: 20 years or so ago, a farmer needing to take his or her tractor down a road to another paddock on the property, could do so (being careful) - nowadays he/she needs either road registration or a permit to move. You cannot legally sail your boat more than (from memory) 5k off the coast without requiring a functioning EPIRB; you cannot go fishing without a licence. You can't (in many places) put in a rainwater tank to catch the rain to use on your garden without a Development Application and approval - etc., etc., etc..

 

So what relevance does this have to RAA operations?

 

Well, let's say you are a Vet. in a country practice. You own a Jab. 230 and have a current RAA Pilots Certificate. A property owner rings you up with urgent call for a life-threatening health problem for a stud Bull, worth maybe $10k. It's located nearly 300k away, over recently flood-eroded roads that have a bridge out - requiring a trip of nearly 400k to get there. The owner has a strip on his property. You can jump in your 4WD and spend 10 hours on the round trip, but you can't legally jump in your 230 with your Vet's bag and get there 2 hours later, treat the problem and be home again by last light.

 

However, you COULD, entirely legally, throw a couple of slabs of beer, some champagne, half a side of beef and a bag of charcoal into the back of your Jab 230 and go visit that property owner for a barbecue. Ok, you couldn't drink more than about one middy of the beer and fly home again, but the property owner is going to, I suggest, be pre-occupied anyway.

 

Or, you could own a VH-reg. C172 and hold a CPL. Then you could legally do the professional visit. Scratch one RAA owner/pilot, and add the amortisation of GA costs to that Vet's bill..

 

Now let's turn to access to facilities.

 

Non-RPT-serviced regional airfields are being squeezed out, sold off to developers. As recently seen in the case of Casino, even RPT-serviced airfields are being severely compromised. This would be resisted if communities valued the operation of Aviation to their community - Councils would have community uprising against the sale of local airfleids.

 

The current population of Australia is about 23M. RAA membership is, at the most optimistic estimate, about 10K. Or, put another way: there are about 2,300 members of society who have no interest in RAA aviation for every one of us. If we are no more to them than a group of somewhat noisy, possibly hazardous, recreational toy-boys (and girls, lest it be thought I don't recognise the reasonable gender balance in Rec. Av.) with no redeeming value to the community - should it be any wonder if they don't stand up to a Council determining to turn the local airfield into a residential development?

 

Let me postulate a different situation: one where a regional community sees the aviation activity as of benefit: providing quicker essential services, enhancing the 'liveability' of the community, being a potential resource of relief for emergencies etc. Into that mix, let's stir 'recreational' activity as not just supportive of those services, but a feeder-ground for them. That Drifter droning overhead - just maybe the pilot is training to become someone who can be flying in the essential medication for your son or daughter when you're cut off by floods? Or the parts for your generator so your cows can be milked tomorrow? Or the shark-watch so tourists will come to your town and swim with a greater feeling of security?

 

What I'm talking here is the generation in the community mind of value to the community from having those little aircraft flying around. The value of having an FTF on the community doorstep, and possibly the pride and economic benefit of having an aircraft manufacturer in the town (go talk to the residents of Bundaberg sometime, ask them how they would feel about having their airfield shut down and the Jabiru factory go to China.)

 

With some tweaks to the rules for the 'top end of town' of the Rec. Av regime, I suggest that there's a symbiotic value-added power for the 'lower orders' - that should not need to have more onerous regulations applied.

 

It could be that little more than a broadening of the operational sphere for 55 and 24-reg aircraft that also have 'certification' to a higher standard than base-line (for 24-reg, at least, e.g. J160C) could be the wedge; I see no reason for changes to 10 and 19-reg requirements - but perhaps I have missed something.

 

Does RAA really need to operate behind an impenetrable shield of only being for 'recreational' activity - or can it broaden its base to encompass a range of low-risk to the community in return for improved value to the community activities, better utilising the capabilities of the more sophisticated aircraft in the regime and the decent pilot training that is already a feature of every RAA Certificate (perhaps with some additional 'ratings')?

 

I truly don't see that people who just want to putter around purely for fun in simple and cheap(ish) aircraft need to be disadvantaged by a broadening of the sphere of activities allowable within the generic 'RAA' ambit - but it would take an organisational decision to set up systems appropriate to the requirements for each type of activity, rather than trying to do it under a one-size-fits-all management scheme. That won't be cost-free,but with a reasonably sophisticated business process management computerised system it's not a ludicrously expensive development path.

 

 

I don't want to start any acrimonious discussion here - and I am very sympathetic to the 'why don't they just go away and leave us in peace' argument. Perhaps this is an issue for a new thread, to in fact help the new Board direct its thoughts towards all aspects of a strategy for RAA's future.

 

However, one short comment: if your current version of 'Recreational flying' involves going over 300 feet, flying in the proximity of habitation, crossing a road, or having a passenger and (often) having been trained by an instructor instead of teaching yourself to fly, literally, from the ground up - then you are already operating in an environment that has moved closer to GA. Unless you only fly within those limits, as I see it, the argument that 'GA-like privileges' is an onerous burden is a matter of degree of GA-like regulation you are happy to fly under, not a blanket 'GA-like - non-GA like' situation.

 

 

I believe that there is a crying need for 'regional reps.' to represent the organisation to regional authorities: to fight airfield closures etc., generally promote the activity (and I want to see us evolve to something that is broader than just 'Recreational' aviation, but in fact part of regional area support infrastructure, so people can use RAA-class aircraft to deliver goods and services).

 

But the Board itself, should be based on filling a nominated set of skills. We need people with Compliance, 'Governance', Financial Development, Public Relations and even political lobbying skills. We are not outside society, and we need to be able to operate effectively within the environment of society. Look at, for instance, the motoring organisations, and you will see that all of these skills are necessary for them to be effective. We are no different.