Australian Warbirds

[Captain Dart]

Can anyone provide a balanced view about what's been going on recently with AWAL? AGM deferred, rumours, denials of rumours, personality clashes, you know, the usual stuff that happens in Australian GA associations...

[T28D]

Matter heard in theFederal Court over the past 2 days the coterie of ego centric goons who attempted to manipulate the AWAL into their private fiefdom have comprehensively come undone, lost on all counts and costs awarded against them.

Sad day for the members who have been kept in the dark over this travesty and the actions of the AWAL Secretary that precipitated it all.

The AWAL bank balance will now look somewhat grim due to this foolishness as they are up for: court costs, Barrister, Solicitor, Attendance air fares, accomodation.

New AGM in 28 days to be notified, with some clear thinking and properly informed membership the AWAL can move ahead in a manner moreclosely aligned with proper governance and good ethical standards.

[Captain Dart]

Thanks T28, this is the first I've heard of all of this.

So that's where my fees are going.

[LeadSled]

Captain Dart,
Far more serious than a personality clash, more issues that go to the heart of good corporate governance, and duties of directors of a public company. AWAL is a public company, the Corporations Act 2001 applies.

The legal action, taken by the President, to preserve good corporate governance, should never have been necessary. It was very courageous of him to take a huge personal financial risk (that costs would be awarded against him, if he lost) in preserving the true interests of the members of the organisation.

At the heart of the matters at issue are new and amended regulations for some Experimental and all Limited Cat. aircraft, that will be highly controversial. They will inevitably be a highly divisive issue for the membership, once the real extent of the proposed regulation is understood by members who are aircraft owners.

Tootle pip!!

[T28D]

Warbirdsin combat over planned rule changes

Irate Australian Warbirds Association Ltdmembers fear AWAL could be shut down until it gets its affairs in order, anevent that could mean a mass grounding of their fleet until the issue ofregulatory oversight is resolved. They are now saying their organisation is “ina right royal mess,” following a bitter annual general meeting on November 24 thatended in an adjournment without resolution of serious issues. The organisationrepresents some 300-400 members, and about 250 aircraft.

Members believe that unless the mess issorted out, downstream damage could also include the grounding of numerous experimentalcategory aircraft, which their organisation is seeking CASA delegation tomanage in an extension of its self-administration mandate.

The row developed when some board memberssought to displace sitting Chairman Kim Rolphe-Smith, install their ownnominees to replace departed board members, and purported to appoint a newchairman without a membership vote in compliance withthe Corporations Act 2001 which details the rules for the administrationof public companies.

The purported board meeting took placeduring the adjournment of the AGM and was arguably not a permitted act duringan adjournment of the AGM, when the powers of the board are limited.

AWAL was incorporated in 1989 as a non-profitpublic company limited by guarantee, to represent aircraft owners, operators,restorers, maintainers, historians and enthusiasts, and to help promote andpreserve Australia's military aviation heritage.

With the later establishment of certificationsfor “limited category aircraft,” AWAL was then proposed and approved as theindustry body to undertake self administration of the category under a CASAdelegation. The organisation currently has one paid executive, CEO SteveCrocker, who along with Secretary/Treasurer Jeff Muller, reports to an electedseven-member board, with Queensland warbird operator Kim Rolph-Smith as itscurrent President.

The organisation's first problems appearedwhen a BAC 167 Strikemaster crashed in 2006 during a warbird adventure flight,and (then) CASA director Bruce Byron almost grounded the Australian warbirdfleet. Two senior AWAL members approached CASA to acknowledge the issues,present a detailed submission on the way forward, and negotiate an agreedcourse of action to allow the fleet to keep flying. They reached an agreementthat AWAL would fund and provide the self-administration of limited categorywarbirds on behalf of CASA under the Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 262AN,which had been put in place for that purpose back in 1998.

The arrangement has since survived despite CASA’slack of progress in developing the regulatory framework, and the hostility ofelements within the regulator who don’t believe warbirds should fly, and are averseto the concept of experimental category aircraft into which some warbirds fall.

The experimental category was new in 1998,but since many had been pushing for it for a long time, its adoption was arelief for owners of homebuilt, historic and ex-military aircraft. Howeverlimited category (an Australian innovation) further provided the opportunityfor suitably certified aircraft to carry paying passengers on special warbirdadventures, which in turn provides revenue to hold the fleet to acceptablesafety and airworthiness standards for fare paying passengers.

The appointment of officials acceptable toCASA to administer limited category aircraft was central to the agreement, andAWAL was set up with an airworthiness specialist in charge of safetyindependent of the Board, and a chief executive officer as general manager,reporting to the Board and CASA as appropriate. Stephen Dines, a well-known CAR21 delegate and experimental/limited category expert, was appointed in theairworthiness role but was replaced when the present CEO Steve Crocker wasappointed. Subsequently, the controlling manual was also rewritten to give theCEO safety management control despite his non-airworthiness background.

What worriedmembers at the November AGM was that the CEO could now make safetydeterminations for which he was not qualified, and that he had also beenofficially contracted by CASA to help prepare Part 132 in draft legislation,which was set to become the regulatory suite for warbirds, when corporate jetsand some other operations were moved to another CASR Part. It is understoodthat certifications issued to AWAL are now under review, that no newcertifications are being issued, and that a number of projects are on hold pendingresolution.

"What we’re worried about now,"says one concerned AWAL member, "is that the Warbirds Association CEO haspowers that he is not qualified to exercise, because CASA either modified theprocedures manual or approved its modification, bypassing the qualificationrequirement. This was certainly done with CASA approval, although I’d speculatewithout CASA’s understanding of its ramifications. The new Part 132 isextremely onerous and imposes a massive burden compared with what we've had forthe last 14 years. This obviously suits CASA, but we should not have asituation where an organisation like Warbirds is having these onerousrequirements thrust upon them by their own CEO who is working together withCASA to write them.

“Oneexample among many is that the operating limitations have become more severe sothat in some aircraft it will be impossible to avoid flying over a built-up area,because if you’re at a cruise level of 15,000 feet and above cloud, you can'tbe sure that you’ll avoid flying over townships. That will no longer betolerated, and it will become an offence with severe penalties.

“Next,each limited category aircraft would be required to have an operating manualunder the new rules, which will have to be individually approved by AWAL onbehalf of CASA. There will be a pilot operating handbook to tell you how to flythe aeroplane, but there'll be another manual that tells you what you'reallowed to do with it, where you can go in it. At the moment the law says alimited category aircraft is limited by any conditions imposed by itscertificate of airworthiness. So those conditions exist for the whole category,and now they've been expanded by this part 132 into a requirement for approvedmanuals, which set out in great detail what you can and cannot do; and therewill be a huge cost to that."

Evenmore concerning, is an apparent move to require experimental category owners toupgrade their aircraft to limited category. This will be impossible for manyexisting aircraft, particularly those currently approved to perform at airshowsand exhibitions, many of which are heavily modified and incapable of qualifyingfor limited category. The move has been put forward to CASA as a way ofimproving AWAL’s revenue by requiring experimental category warbird aircraft tocome under its administration, as was admitted by a CASA person at the recentAGM.

Thepresent regulatory arrangements for experimental reflect exactly the governmentintentions for experimental exhibition aircraft. Although the proposed changesfly in the face of that Government policy, they appear to be ‘CASA policy’, anot uncommon concept among officials when they argue “the government has got itwrong.” It runs contrary to the legal position that CASA cannot propose rulesfor commercial advantage; it can only propose rules to Parliament for purposesof air safety. Changing rules to facilitate the commercial activities of AWALhas nothing to do with air safety, and some argue it does the opposite, transferringaircraft from direct CASA air safety surveillance, to a self-administrativebody.

“IfCASA wanted to allow the Warbirds Association to administer experimentalaircraft, they could just decree that it does so,” says one AWAL member. “Butwhat they're doing instead, is to say ‘no, you can't have an experimentalcertificate at all; you'll have to swap over to a limited CofA so that AWAL canadminister you.’ It's all being done so that the CEO can get some more moneyinto the organisation. It’s a quite unnecessary thing to do, it’s not viable,and it can't work for a lot of aeroplanes because a lot of them can't bemodified to come up to that standard. For many experimental aeroplanes to bebrought up to a standard that is acceptable in the limited certificationcategory is just too onerous, and not feasible. You'd be looking at maybe $100,000on some aeroplanes, where the whole point of the experimental category is thatyou don't have to do that if you don't need to.

“Butthe CEO and CASA are working together to disadvantage the experimental fleetfor the purpose of propping up the income of the Warbirds Association. At themeeting last week the words of Jeff Muller, the secretary, were ‘we have to dothis, because of membership leakage and financial leakage over the past fewyears.’ Membership leakage means that if somebody wanted to avoidself-administration they can swap their limited certificate of airworthinessfor an experimental one and then they wouldn't have to be administered at all.And therefore in Jeff Muller's mind, the answer is for all aircraft to have alimited CofA. It's a physical impossibility and they haven't worked all thisout yet, they just ‘think it will all be all right.’

"Andthose owners will be forced into self administration whether they need it orwant it. This is all very well, it will allow the Warbirds Association to havemore members to make it an economical proposition to provide administrationservices etc. However there are different certification requirements forexperimental aircraft versus a limited category aircraft. So by forcing theexperimental aircraft to upgrade to limited, the costs of doing that for a lotof aircraft will be prohibitive, and they'll just be sold or scrapped orgrounded."

Theproposal also seems to ignore for the fact that numerous experimental categoryaircraft owners require no additional administration at all. They fly theiraircraft with a CASA pilot licence and under the same regulations, they arerequired to use and approved maintenance organisation that is overseen by CASA,and they need to carry the same minimum equipment on board as everybody elsedoes. The same goes for amateur-built aircraft, about 90% of which are also inthe experimental category.

Membersare also concerned over what they believe are irregularities in AWAL’sadministration. They say these include failure to present company annualaccounts, non-notification of board member retirements, and one incorrect claim(amongst several) in a post-AGM newsletter, that the annual financial statement(not presented at the AGM) is audited, when it was not.

They are alsoconcerned at what they say is a non-compliant attempt to dislodge the incumbentpresident, when theCorporations Act 2001 – S 203Estates:

Director cannot be removed by other directors—publiccompanies

A resolution, request or notice of any or all of the directors ofa public company is void to the extent that it purports to:

(a) remove a director from their office; or

(b) require a director to vacate their office.
More than one member hasnow demanded that the CEO provide compliant documentation of company affairs,and several have told us they believe their CEO’s relationship with CASA needs examination by members as to whether itrepresents a conflict of interest

[T28D]

Now we wait for the conspiracy theory to kick in I am afraid if the DEFO action Not really just testing will the "hon Secretary" do the right and ethical thing and Foxtrot Oscar off , we wait with antipation.

[Creampuff]

Even more concerning, is an apparent move to require experimental category owners to upgrade their aircraft to limited category.Could someone post a copy of, or a link to, the draft regulation that would produce that outcome?

Thanks

[LeadSled]

Creamie,
There is no current link, the SCC has not been advised of the details, and as I understand it, contrary to SCC protocols, will only see it when the NPRM is produced.

It seems the proposed changes have been sent to selected members of AWAL.

In essence, aircraft that are ex-military, or are of a type used by a military force, even if the individual aircraft was never a military aircraft, will no longer be eligible for a certificate in the Experimental Exhibition category.

The only justification for this change, put forward at the recent AWAL AGM, was that owners putting their aircraft in Experimental Exhibition category were causing AWAL "revenue leakage" or words to that effect. Most of these aircraft are not eligible for a Limiter Cat. certificate, the proposed mechanisms to deal with that look like they have not really been thought through.

It is certainly not a regulatory change that has any air safety basis.

There has, apparently, been no consultation outside AWAL, and of particular concern to me is the fate of CAR 262AM.

262AM is for the protection of passengers, not for the benefit of aircraft owners and operator, and at best, seems to have been seriously watered down in the proposed CASR 132. 262AM has been referred to as an "an old regulation" by an officer of CASA recently, in public, it may date to 1998, but that is not "old" , and old is not the same as redundant.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

Errrm, I might not be reading your response correctly, but where did you address the issue of “upgrading from experimental to limited”.

I’ll try a different tack.

Are you suggesting that if I own a Lancair in the Experimental category, an effect of the rumoured changes will be that I will have to join AWAL? If not, where is the increase in revenue for AWAL going to come from??

[LeadSled]

Creamie,
Not at all, it is "warbirds" that are to be denied an Experimental Certificate in the Exhibition category ---- quite how many of them will qualify for a Limited cert. is very unclear.
As was stated at the recent AGM, this is "to prevent leakage of revenue" for AWAL, nobody has even paid lip service to anything to do with aviation safety to justify the above.
Tootle pip

[Jack Ranga]

Did they fly Business or First? Or was it private charters?

[Blowie]

LS

The CASA bloke at the AGM actually did try to put a safety case for their decision to cancel the experimental certificates, which raised more protests from the audience. It was the AWAL secretary who interjected with the bit about membership leakage. The CASA bloke didn't try to deny it, so I'm not sure where the finger points...?

[Creampuff]

Thanks Leaddie, understood.:ok:

[LeadSled]

Blowie,

As I recall, said CASA chap also made some statement that "Experimental" was not intended as a permanent place for aircraft, but some kind of temporary state, until a certificate in some other category was issued ---- is it this, to which you refer.

I am not sure where this extraordinary idea has come from.

When these present rules went into place in 1998, what you have now is exactly what the Minister, the CASA Board (Mr. Justice William Fisher, Chairman) and the CEO of CASA, supported by the Program Advisory Panel of the CASA Review intended.

Experimental Exhibition was precisely the intended final category for a wide variety of aircraft, including many ex-military aircraft, whose main use, after restoration (or un-restored, for that matter) would be displays at airshows.

Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

At a practice session for the traditional Australia day cricket match the Bar Room Barristers congregated at a shady, convivial watering hole to discuss "ways and means". As usually happens, matters aeronautical were discussed amongst them, the Warbirds dust up.

One of the crowd with a passing interest in AWAL told a tale, which floored everyone there. The yarn, as told is just a bit too recherché for relating on Pprune, but it has the distinct whiff of being just a little more than a dry dusty tale of corporate pushing and shoving.

It appears from the (long and eloquent) report "by T28", the Brisbane court hearing only scratches the surface of something which is potentially very ugly. Seems the Court and board are mulling over a right royal crock of pony pooh. Most of us thought AWAL was a happy, self managing outfit ticking over quietly. Not so apparently.

I notice Phelan withdrew his original piece; so we can assume there is 'paperwork' with unpleasant words flying about the place; but if someone could provide some background information without ending up hip deep in the mess – it would be much appreciated. Particularly by P7 who copped a fair pummelling after the tale was spun. There are some serious beers being bet here, so we await the umpires decision.

[Frank Arouet]

It's such a pity when any organsiation ends up at odds with the Corporations Act 2001 because ASIC are usually only interested in harvesting the tall poppy's. It takes someone with the funds to bring things to a close with minimal damage to the organisation.

Usually as I have witnessed, it is better just to resign your position after you have been compromised and watch the place implode.

If the aviation sector in Australia was united, coordinated, coherent and competent at lobbying government, there might be a very slim chance of overcoming the sector's profound electoral handicap. However, much of it (other than a tiny number with deep pockets) is disunited, un-coordinated, incoherent and incompetent at lobbying government.

[Nononsence]

Leadsled and T28D, shouldn't you come clean about your motives for bagging Australian Warbirds Association with this rubbish?

I think both of you resigned from the AWAL Board "under clouds".

Time perhaps to forget the grudge and let the warbirders do their thing. A look at their accounts on their website indicates that they are going well.

[T28D]

Ah a new starter to Pprune well Mr Nononsense all will be revealed later today, AWAL was financial until the Judge awarded costs against them in the action that never should have occurred had the Secretary understood the AWAL obligations within the Corporations Law, thankfully the Judge did understand what was happening and ruled against AWAL on all 3 counts.

As the truth emerges re: Part 132 and the restrictions in it for all Warbird operators then we will see what the real game is.

And there are a significant body of so called "dissident" members who want change.

The reinstatement of parallel path would be a good starting position along with leaving the Regs as they are at present, Old aviation saying that holds true "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

[LeadSled]

I think both of you resigned from the AWAL Board "under clouds".nonosense,
How well self-named.

In short, re. the people you think you are referring to, the short answer is no. One resigned due severe health problems, the other didn't resign at all, just called it quits after something like 15 years on the AWAL board, simply declining to nominate for another term. There are, undoubtedly, times when enough is enough.

You would be well advised to check the facts, and not rely on some very erroneous and defamatory emails being circulated by partisan individuals, or the equally partisan phone campaign under way.

The coffers of AWAL are lighter by some $50,000+ give or take, as a result of non-compliance with the Corporations Act 2001,and due to the silliness that is going on.

Not a good result for the poor old members who have, so far as I can see, not even been told about the court case, right up to the Dispatch delivered in the last few hours, let alone what it has cost them.

It also looks like the company itself (AWAL is legally a public company) is campaigning in the lead-up to the resumed AGM, if this is so, this is also a serious breach of the Corporations Act 2001.

Time for a new board, with board members who actually understand about their legal responsibilities as directors of a public company.

Tootle pip!!

[T28D]

This is areasoned evaluation of theproposed Part 132 that AWAL functionaries say will be better for all Warbird Owners, may I say read carefully and beware, this will cripple Australian Warbird operations as we know them today.


REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO RULESGOVERNING LIMITED CATEGORY & EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT – 23 January 2013; by Stephen Dines, CASA Authorised Person& AWAL AP

IMPORTANT NOTES

CASAhas proposed changes for the certification and management of limited category andexperimental aircraft. The proposedchanges are set out in a ‘Consultation Draft’.

This review isbased solely on the draft dated 11 September 2012, and cannot takeinto account any changes made to the draft since that version. Therefore, observations made in this review may no longer be appropriate if CASA hassince altered the proposal.

The‘Consultation Draft’ reviewed here was made available to certain AWAL membersby Stephen Crocker, CEO of AWAL. To theknowledge of the reviewer, the ‘Consultation Draft’ is still not availableoutside CASA and AWAL, and the CASA rep has said that it will not be madeavailable until it is ready to be released to the public through the NPRMprocess.



CONSULTATION DRAFT

74 pages

Dated 11 September 2012

Schedule 1 amends the

Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

Schedule 2 amends the

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.

Includes

revisions to Parts 21 & 45

new Part 132

deletes CAR 42CB

deletes CAR 262AM

amends CAR 262AN



Introduction

Theproposed changes are complex and require many consequential amendments, so the‘Consultation Draft’ document is lengthy, convoluted and not easy to read. In this review I will attempt to outline someimportant ‘big picture’ elements of the proposal as well as discussing smallerelements of the proposed changes. I willnot discuss all the issues raised by this ‘Consultation Draft’ – there are toomany.

The‘Consultation Draft’ includes a great number of changes that are of a‘machinery’ nature and I will not comment on those at all.

Name changes and new definitions

Historic becomes Antique

Ex-military becomes Ex-armedforces

Ex-armed forces means:

an aircraft that has been manufactured in accordance with the requirements of, andaccepted for use by, an armed force of any country, but is no longer used, orhas never been used, by such a force.

Examples of armed forces

1 The army, navy or air force of a county.

2 A police force or service of a country.

3 A customs or border protection agency ofa country.

4 Another law enforcement agency of acountry.

registered operator has the meaninggiven by regulation 47.100.

operator is used frequentlybut no meaning is given to differentiate from registered operator

relevant approved organisation, for Limited,means AWAL

relevant person, for Limited,means AWAL or CASA

landingarea meansa place, whether or not an aerodrome, where an aircraft is able to take-off andland safely.

How safe operation is to be achieved

Byfar the most far-reaching change proposed, is in how safety is to be managedfor Limited category aircraft.

TheCASA proposal introduces a raft of new offences so that if a person doessomething wrong, an offence is committed for which a penalty is prescribed.(Most offences and therefore penalties are applied automatically, as offencesof ‘strict liability’.) Thus, the CASAapproach is to charge people with offences in the anticipation that this willproduce compliant behaviour, and in turn, deliver desirable safety outcomes.

Instark contrast, in the proposal that CASA agreed to in 2007, AWAL said that itwould devise policies for safe operation and enforce those policies by removingflight privileges for non-compliers, until compliance is demonstrated.

Asa result of this fundamental shift, and if AWAL agreed to remain the administratorof Limited category ops under the proposed new regs, then AWAL would primarilyact as a policing body, following policies devised by CASA and set solidly inregulation. In summary:

ORIGINAL

AWALdevises policies

AWALsets policies in Self-Admin Manual

Safetyby removing flying privileges of non-compliant aircraft

PROPOSED

CASAdetermines policies

CASAsets policies in regulation

Safetyby enforcement

Someideas contained in the draft are quite sensible and should be supported, butAWAL could support such ideas and monitor their effectiveness, by promoting andkeeping up-to-date, sound policies, rather than by putting those ideas intoregulation where they will be inflexible, and all but immovable.

Limited Manual

Amanual must be created for every Limited Category aircraft and individuallyapproved by AWAL. A copy of each Manualmust be provided to AWAL.

Eachaircraft must be operated in accordance with its Limited Manual. Failure to keep a Limited Manual up-to-dateis an offence, regardless of whether the aircraft flies or not.

It is also an offence if an operator failsto ensure that all personnel involved in adventure flights are provided withcopies of the Manual or its relevant parts.

personnel, means:

(a) an employee of the operator; and

(b) a person engaged by the operator toprovide services to the

operator; and

(c)an employee of a person mentioned in paragraph (b).

Cancellation of existing experimentalcertificates

Anotherfar-reaching CASA proposal is that ALLaircraft that can be described as ‘WARBIRDS’ should be certified in the Limited category, so that they can beadministered by AWAL. (An exception ismade for highly modified race planes.)

Toachieve this, draft reg 202.052B will cancelall existing experimental certificates that have been issued to warbirds in for example the ‘exhibition’ sub-category, on the dateof commencement of Part 132. Affectedaircraft will have to apply for a new Certificate of Airworthiness, and willhave to seek approval for any mods that are not part of the original typedesign.

Thepracticality of approving such mods is questionable and the expenseinevitable. For instance, here are someexamples of experimental warbirds that would find it difficult to re-certify inLimited category as proposed by CASA –

· Yak-52with a tail-wheel

· Kittyhawkwith the wrong engine and prop

· T-6modified to look like a Japanese fighter for the film “Tora Tora”

· Boomerangwith the wrong wings

· Nanchangwith a Yak engine

IfCASA prevails and those aircraft must operate under AWAL administration, thereis no need to re-certify them, when CAR262AN could be simply amended to embracethem. In fact, the ‘Consultation Draft’actually does amend CAR 262AN sothat AWAL can oversee certainexperimental aircraft, so it is clearly possible to add exhibition experimentalcertificates to this particular amendment if CASA wanted to. There is no reason proffered for a need tore-certify, nor consideration of the expense.

Provisionis made in the draft for AWAL to authorise an aeronautical engineer for thepurpose of approving mods to Limited aircraft, but there is no suggestion ofwhich mods would be acceptable or how such mods could become approved, norconsideration of the considerable risk that would be assumed by an aeronauticalengineer who chose to do so.

Cancellation of existing Limitedcertificates and permit index numbers

202.612 Special certificates ofairworthiness ceasing to be in

forceon [thedate of commencement of Part 132]

AnyCofA that was issued by someone otherthan CASA or AWAL (that is, by a CASA Authorised Person), will be cancelledon the date of commencement of Part 132, and a new CofA must be applied for.

202.613Permit indexes assigned by CASA or Australian Warbirds Association Ltd

AnyPermit Index that was assigned by someone otherthan CASA or AWAL (for example by a CASA Authorised Person), will becancelled on the date of commencement of Part 132, and a new one must beassigned.

Experimental aircraft maintenance

Alsounannounced and unexplained, is the intention to cancel CAR 42CB, which regapplies to ALL EXPERIMENTALAIRCRAFT.

Reg42CB was established at the commencement of the experimental rules, and directswhat the maintenance will be for an experimental aircraft. This reg was created because it was clearthat for the most part, experimental aircraft would not be able to comply withthe maintenance rules for normal aircraft. Reg 42CB should have been short lived – Part 43 was scheduled to closelyfollow it, and Part 43 contained a provision to exempt experimental aircraftfrom the normal maintenance rules – but after 15 years, that exemption hasstill not arrived to take the place of CAR 42CB.

WithoutCAR 42CB in place, or something like it, experimental aircraft of ALL typeswill be forced to obey maintenance rules which may simply be impossible. If CASA has considered this conflict anddesigned a replacement for 42CB, it is not readily apparent.

CASA head ofpower to define Limited uses and permit index

Thisregulation creates the power for CASA to modify, at any time, what uses a Limited aircraft may be put to,or how a Permit Index will apply, byissuing an Instrument.

21.004 Legislative instruments for Part 21

For paragraph 98 (5A) (a) of the Act, CASAmay issue

legislative instruments prescribing:

(a) operations that are special purposeoperations for limited

category aircraft for paragraph 21.189 (3)(i); or

(b) the requirements for the assignment ofa permit index

number to a limited category aircraft for

paragraph21.189C (2) (a).

Withthis power available, CASA can make whatever changes it sees as appropriatefrom time to time, without being hampered by the processes involved withchanging a regulation.

Thereis no reason apparent for this extraordinary approach and no safety outcome is suggested. There is no indication of what justificationCASA would need to trigger a modification to those provisions and consultationwould not be mandatory.

Offences shared around

Atseveral places in the ‘Consultation Draft’, offences are prescribed that applysimultaneously to both operator and pilot. Here is one example:

132.205 Flying limited categoryaircraft—flights over

populous areas

(1) The operator and the pilot incommand of a limited category

aircraft each commit an offence if:

(a) the aircraft is flown over a populousarea; and

(b)the flight is not permitted by this regulation.

A forced landing during an adventure flight createsan offence:

132.260 Carriage of passengers for hire orreward or on

publicly available flights—unbroken roundtrips only

(1) The operator of the aircraft commits anoffence if, for the

flight, the aircraft does not take-off fromand land at the same

landingarea (without landing anywhere else).

Thereare also offences created that apply to a booking agent if adventure passengersare not warned correctly at the point of sale.

Guardian must fly with pax

Would-beadventure passengers who are under 18 or mentally-impaired must be accompaniedon a flight by a parent or guardian. This will rule out the use of TWO-SEAT aircraft for such passengers.

Personal use officially okay

Amid the proposed changes is a provision that officially sanctions personaluse ofa limited category aircraft, as long as such a flight -

(a) is not publicly available; and

(b)no payment or reward is made or given to the aircraft’s registered operator,operator or flight crew.

Thedefinition of personal flight includes the personal transportation of theaircraft’s owner or operator or of a person to whom the aircraft is lent.

Itshould come as a relief to Limited owners to know that they will no longer riskprosecution for undertaking a personal flight in their warbird, and CASA is tobe applauded for taking this position.

Thedown-side for this public announcement is that, when they find out about it,manufacturers and distributors of certified aircraft may object, as happened inthe USA. Warbird ops in the US wereseverely constrained as a result.

Flight over a built-up area

Restrictionsregarding flight over a built-up area are tighter in the proposed new rules:

A limited category aircraft with a permitindex of 0 may be flown over a populous area.

A limited category aircraft with a permitindex of 1 may be flown over a populous area only in accordance with anapproval granted by AWAL or CASA.

A limited category aircraft with a permitindex of 2 may be flown over a populous area only in accordance with anapproval issued by CASA (only).

Alimited category aircraft with a permit index of 3 will not be permitted to flyover a built-up area at all.

Underthe original rules, there were more sensible provisions like this one in AC21.25(1), for an aircraft with apermit index of 1:

When the aircraftis transiting over a city or town, the aircraft must fly at a speed and heightwhich, in the event of an engine failure, will enable the aircraft to glide toa locality clear of the populous area.

CASAhas stated clearly that even an overflightat altitude would create an offence in the new rules, if an aircraft is notapproved for flight over the built-up area underneath it.

Shifting responsibilities

Currently,a Limited aircraft can operate in Australia, on the proviso that thirdparties are protected from it. Withthat direction from Government in mind, the original Limited rules wereconstructed with clear statements of responsibility and outcomes, like this:

From 21.189

Anapplicant is entitled to a special certificate of airworthiness for an aircraftin the limited category if the applicant gives CASA or an authorised person, informationreasonably needed by CASA or the authorised person to enable it to impose any conditions necessary in theinterests of the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground orwater.

Theproposed regs however, contain several instances where AWAL or CASA or anAuthorised Aeronautical Engineer, for example, must take responsibility for thesafety of more than third parties:

Forexample, under the proposed 21.189C, whenAWAL issues a Limited CofA, AWAL must assign a permit index to the aircraft,only if AWAL “is satisfied” that the assignment of the number would not belikely to have an adverse effect on thesafety of air navigation.

Similarly, under 21.189D, CASA may vary a permitindex that was issued by AWAL if CASA is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of aviation safety.

Anotherexample; when considering the issue of instruments for the control of Limitedops, 132.020 empowers CASA to take into account matters affecting the safe navigation and operation of ANAIRCRAFT to which Part 132 applies.

When the rules for Limited category andexperimental were composed, a separate NPRM produced the following reg:

201.003 Commonwealthand CASA not liable in certain cases

Neitherthe Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss ordamage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design,construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limitedcategory aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASAdone or made in good faith in relation to any of those things.

CASR201.003 clearly indicates that CASAcannot be responsible for the safety of the aircraft itself.

Allthe above examples represent obviousconflicts with CASR 21.003, which in turn will impose unreasonableliability on persons who might be required to make decisions under thoseprovisions.

Thisshift away from Government’s directive as expressed in 201.003, will inevitablygenerate unexpected consequences as people apply their own ideas of how to dealwith phrases like “in the interest of aviation safety”. This change presents a very real threat tothe continued viability of Limited operations.

Unnecessary duplication

Inthe ‘Consultation Draft’ there is a “new” experimental purpose created. That “new” purpose is -

21.191(ba) for an ex-armed forces aircraft—for determining whether the aircraft hasacceptable handling characteristics;

Thischange is superfluous as a provision already exists under 21.191 (b) –

AC21.5(0) 10.FLIGHT TESTING At the completionof restoration, a limited category aircraft will be required to undergo a testflight prior to the issue of a limited category CoA. A limited durationexperimental certificate issued in accordance with CASR 21.191(b) will be required...

New limit for POB

Fora Limited aircraft to be flown with more than 6 persons on board, an approvalis required. However, under the proposedchanges, the number of persons for which the approval is given must not be more than the number of personsthe aircraft was designed to carry.

Sofor large aircraft like bombers, that have had seats added for pax, it lookslike those seats will have to come out – if these proposals go ahead.

[LeadSled]

Folks,

If the above, which shows so many confusions of concepts in Part 132 and the changes to Part 21, and wholly new legal liabilities created isn't enough, just getting into what will be in the Part 132 Approved Operations Manual raises great concerns.

Note: This manual is in addition to any AFM/NATOPS or other military equivalent, that is already mandatory and in use.

It looks like all airfields that a limited cat. aircraft is going to use, must be in the approved manual, with some form of performance analysis, but it is all delightfully vague.

This leaves the opportunity, with which many with an AOC holder has to grapple, the requirements of anybody with the power to demand inclusion of provisions in the 'Approved Operations Manual' (Note: Approved, not "accepted" as with AOCM manuals) that have no head of power, but become enforceable, with criminal penalties attached, once they are in the manual. Many of you who are in the GA aerial work/ charter, and until relatively recently, Ag. flying, business will be all too familiar with the problems of Operations Manual contents and the battles with FOIs personal foibles.

Amongst all the big ticket items, there are small but equally inexplicable restrictions, such as the prohibition of volunteer assistance (HARS/Temora etc. please note), anybody assisting an "Operator" of a Limited Cat. aircraft must be an employee, either directly or under a contract, raising all sorts of Fair Work Australia, workers compo. insurance etc.issues, and many other considerations. What's wrong with volunteers??

Of interest is the severity of the penalties in Part 132, and hence, the administrative fines that can be levied by CASA.

In other rules, for offenses that are, to my mind, administrative trivia, what might have a 5 or 10 point penalty, in Part 132, it looks like most are 50 penalty points. This is a very severe penalty for something that might be a clerical error or oversight.

As the post above says, the private operations provisions are welcome, but on examination,"there is much less to this than meets the eye", you need to read this yourself, but given the limitations of who can pay who for what, it seems to me that the "private use" will be limited to the owner of the aircraft.

The "flight over populace areas" provisions are very severe, compared to what we have had for years, no safety justification can be put forward for the changes, the record over many years has been very good.

"Over populaces areas" means at any height, if you are at FL280 at M0.69, and the aircraft suddenly disintegrates, one thing I can guarantee, the bits will not fall in the town directly underneath.

Inquiries have already been made of Airservices, which seems to effectively rule out most operation in controlled airspace, the answer so far is that they will not accept an aircraft, or issue a clearance, if "over a populous area" is a limitation, because they are unable to issue a clearance with that limitation, Airservices TAAAAATS screens don't have CASA "populous areas" presented to the controller. Think Mig 15UTI some years ago in Adelaide.

Very hard to understand is that a number of provisions appear to require completion on a schedule, instead of before further flight, as is applied to aircraft generally.

Thus, it appears that an annual inspection must be done before the current MR expires, even if the aircraft is sitting in the hangar with the engine out for overhaul. How do you comply with something like this. Right now, if you haven't completed an AD, you only commit an offense if the aircraft flies, is this just incompetent drafting, or a new approach to compliance.

The crazy thing (or is it entirely intentional) about all this is that AWAL could administer the relevant aircraft in Experimental Exhibition without these changes, this was planned with CASA, without these radical changes, in 2007. The very limited benefit of the private use provisions could have been achieved by a one line change to CASR 21.189.

Part 132, quite simply, introduces many new limitations, with provision for an almost unlimited scope for additional limitations, nothing has happened since mid-1998, to justify these changes.

The Howard Government (John Sharp was the Minister for Transport and Regional Development) intended that this sector of Australian aviation should have exactly the same rights and freedoms as our counterparts in the US.

We have had these same rights and freedoms since 1998, now they are being wound back. Why?? Don't Australian deserve the same rights and freedoms as enjoyed for decades on the US.

nononsence,
Everything I have said on this post is factual, most of it the members of AWAL in general know nothing about, the court case was not even mentioned in today's "Dispatches", why might that be?Is this "bagging" AWAL", submitting posts as above. Nothing of substance about the changes were mentioned at the AGM, were they ?? Just a lot of praise, except for a couple of dissenting voices, who were effectively silenced.

Get a copy of the draft legislation, and make up your own mind, forget the propaganda, get the facts.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

If it is true that some draft regulations were disclosed to a small number of persons within one segment of industry, and not to the industry and public generally, that’s very naughty CASA. Very naughty. := … Most offences and therefore penalties are applied automatically, as offences of ‘strict liability’. Thus, the CASA approach is to charge people with offences …No. Mr D appears to have been drinking too much folklore-flavoured Kool-Aid. It’s surprising that, notwithstanding how long ‘strict liability’ has been around and the tens of millions of dollars in infringement notices issued and fines awarded by courts against thousands of innocent, downtrodden aviators, people still don’t know what strict liability means.

Stick to the techo stuff, Mr D.

On the techo stuff front, there do seem to be numerous overkills in those draft regs! :eek:

Lucky they will never make it into law. :ok:

[LeadSled]

On the techo stuff front, there do seem to be numerous overkills in those draft regs! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

Lucky they will never make it into law. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifCreamie,
Agreed, on both counts.
Protests at SCC that CAR 262AM was for the benefit of the public, not warbirds owners and operators cut no ice.
The protections of CAR 262AM are, in my opinion, significantly wound back, to the operator's benefit.
The SCC has not seen it, and will only when it goes out as an NPRM.
Tootle pip!!

[T28D]

Members ofAustralian Warbird Association Ltd; 28 January 2013.



Ladiesand Gentlemen,



TheHistory of Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 21



Giventhe bitterness, vitriol and grossly misleading propaganda that has beencirculating in this unpleasant period for AWAL, I thought we should remind youof the facts of our regulations, and how we got to where we are now. Some ofthe statements emanating from certain quarters are not only extremelylibellous, but clearly and simply wrong in fact.



Thepity is, the changes to Part 132 are so unnecessary. The only possible benefits of the proposedchanges can be achieved, and were originally planned by CASA and AWAL, withoutthe proposed changes, and the creations of many new criminal offenses, as wellas added great uncertainty and cost.



Giventhe provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, it is highly unlikely that theseproposed rules will survive the Parliamentary process. Even if they reach theTables Office, I would expect a disallowance motion to be raised.



Muchof what is contained in this brief history can be found in previouspublications by AWAL, including President’s newsletters from 2003, and theNovember/December 2007 issue of The Warbirds Flyer.



In1996, the incoming government took some interesting aviation policy intooffice.



Thisincluded the simple proposition that there was no reason the aviation communityin Australia should not enjoy all the rightsand freedoms to “commit aviation” enjoyed across the Pacific.



Thisgovernment also believed that people should take responsibility for their ownactions and risk taking, as long as others were not endangered by theiractions. It was not the government’s job to protect you from yourself.



Thatan aeroplane might be involved did not change the premise --- takeresponsibility for your own actions.



Someof you will know that this government even amended consumer protection laws, sothat businesses in the “Adventure Sports” field could contract out of thenormal protections, ie; indemnity contracts became enforceable. It wasn’t justabout Sports Aviation.



Foraviation, the responsible Minister instituted the CASA Review, a top to bottom reviewof CASA’s role and aviation regulation.



Ofsignificance to us, in 1996/97, Bill Hamilton, a Qantas Captain, AWAL director,and future AWAL Vice President and President, was appointed by the Minister asVice-Chairman of the Program Advisory Panel (PAP) of the CASA Review, andChairman of the Regulatory Review Sub Committee. This put a few noses out ofjoint.



In1996 the CASA CEO was Leroy Keith, a widely respected ex-FAA executive, who hadheaded up the FAA heavy aircraft certification office. The Chairman of the CASABoard was Mr. Justice William Fisher.



Thefirst decision of the CASA Review, strongly endorsed by the Minister, was toadopt a rule structure with a numbering system and the touch and feel of the USaviation regulations. This was easy, NZ had already done this, and the JAA (nowEASA) had adopted the same framework, if not the same type of rules.



Thefirst job of work for the Regulatory Review Group, in setting up a review ofall regulation, was to adopt and adapt the FAA regulations for design,certification and production of aircraft and parts, becoming CASR Parts 21 to35.



In1996 it was the intent of government policy, the Minister, the Chairman of CASAand the CASA CEO that Australia should enjoyall the rights and freedoms regarded as normal in the US, but deniedAustralians for some many years. Now weare to be denied again.



Wewould not be the only ones to benefit; everybody from the airlines down wouldbenefit. Some benefits, of interest to us, were;



· Voluminouslimitations on amateur builders were scrapped, and Experimental Amateur Builtaircraft numbers boomed.



· The Experimentalcategory for the AUF (now RAAus) resulted in a boom in numbers for AUF/RAAus.



· The ExperimentalExhibition category, AS INTENDED (and in marked contrast to wrong statements byCASA at the recent AGM) became the home for broad range of aircraft, includingmany ex-military aircraft that were ineligible for Limited Category.



· Limited category gavethose with suitable aircraft a right to conduct a range of activities,including the very popular Adventure Flights and Mock Combat, as paidoperations --- all available only to informed participants.



Partof the Government policy was that Self Administration was to be the order ofthe day, CASA persons were not to while away the day “playing” with a P-51 orSpitfire, when their most important job was looking after the travelling public.This was most unpopular with the middle ranks of CASA, who rejected the wholeidea that the government should interfere in the activities of the “air safetyexperts”.



WhenCASR Parts 21-35 went into place in August 1998, they had bipartisan support,the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, himself a former Minister forAviation and his shadow Minister for Transport and Regional Developmentsupported the government changes.



Preparationfor Self Administration began in earnest in 1999, when AWAL contracted withSAAA to begin the process, this was Stephen Dines first involvement for AWAL,having played a major role in the detailed development of Part 21, and itspractical application, in 1996 through 1999.



Progresswas slow to nil, due to the stonewalling of mid-level CASA, but after someforceful lobbying, and pointing out the Government’s intent by CAR 262AN, in2003 there was further progress, but it soon ran out of steam, as the Assistant Director of CASA produced an extraordinarydocument, later to be very embarrassing, a general exemption to CAR 262AN. ACASA two finger salute to Government legislation and policy.

CASAalso gutted our AC21.25, rendering the long standing Safety Index systemmeaningless.



Thenon 20 December 2006, the Strikemaster crashed at Bathurst, and everythingchanged, and the CAR 262AN exemption was shown for what it was.



Bythis time Bruce Byron, an entirely reasonable man, was CEO of CASA, and“somebody” in CASA told him the CAR262AN exemption was our fault, we had not“stepped up to the plate”. Nothing could have been further from the truth; wehad restarted work towards completing a set of manuals for self-admin in 1999,again in 2003, and about a year before 2007, knowing that “the inevitable wouldhappen”. Sadly, it did.



BruceByron was about to announce the grounding of all Limited Category aircraft.



Asluck would have it on 20 December 2006 most of the board of AWAL attended abriefing at ATSB in Canberra, regarding the initial Strikemaster findings. Theluck was that Stephen Dines and V-P Bill Hamilton had a meeting later the sameday with Greg Vaughan, GM General Aviation at CASA, who had re-started theself-admin. process, at our urging. At this time, Trevor Merton was ourPresident.



Thiswas when the bombshell was dropped – CASA intended to ground all Warbirds thefollowing day.



Hamiltonand Dines went into overdrive. The result was CASA agreeing to hold off on thegrounding, based on our commitment to a very tight timetable to produce manualsand put in place the self-admin. structure. The board agreed with what Hamilton and Dines had done.Merton, Dines and Hamilton worked over the Christmas / New Year break, and thedeadlines were achieved.



Thefirst instrument for self-administration, 161/07 was signed on 14 May 2007.



StephenDines was the first Director of Self Administration; these are the facts, contrary to what is now coming from certainquarters.



SteveTizzard was the first CASA Project Manager for our project, followed by GeorgeDukats.



Furtherprogress was slow, particularly when Greg Vaughan moved up the CASA ladder.

Thetraditional opposition started the usual tactics of prevarication and delays.



Therewere also eventually major changes at AWAL; Trevor Merton had to relinquish thePresidency due to workload, Stephen Crocker took over. Tony Mitchell resigned,due to ill health. After some 15 years, Bill Hamilton did not stand again forelection, due other directorships and concerns about corporate governancestandards in AWAL.



Despitehighly defamatory stories circulating right now, including fantasticallyinflated claims as to what Stephen Dines was paid, the facts are that, histerms of engagement were set by Trevor Merton, and voted on by the board, inadvance. All invoices by Dines were paid in accordance with the contract. Inthose days, our accounts were audited; the auditor never raised an issue.



Iwonder why the prominent part played by Trevor in our first self-administration approval is never mentioned by my protagonists on the board?



OnlyDines, Hamilton and I come in for the present libellous vilification.



Asa result, Stephen Dines was fired by Crocker, with much ill feeling, so StephenDines turned over all the work in progress in the form of .zip files on a CD,including the first self-admin manual, and left the project.



Thisis where the whole approach took what I regard as a serious turn for the worse,and we are now seeing that result. Government policy, from legislation to SecondReading speeches, are misrepresented or ignored.



Membersshould ask: who was the CASA ProjectManager for the Warbirds part of very threatening CASR 132 ? --- the onlyremaining part, all other sections of Part 132 have been scrapped.



Infact, it is reasonable to say that the proposed changes to Part 21, denyingowners who wish to certify their aircraft in Experimental Exhibition that right----- the admitted reason being to add to AWAL revenue, is an example. Thewhole of Part 132 is another example.



RememberCASA cannot propose rules that do not have a safety basis and;

· it is the government,NOT CASA, that make the rule ;



· what is even sillieris we planned to take over administration of the same group of aircraft in the2007 agreements with CASA, but;



· no change to certification was required – seep13 of the Nov/Dec 2007 Warbird Flyer.



In1998, it was the policy of the Minister, CASA Management (if not some of thetroops) and the CASA board, that our aircraft would simply fly in compliance with their certificateannex, the operating limitations, the normal aviation law and the requirementsof the AWAL Self Administration Manual.



Inparticular, none of the trappings of an AOC would be required for paid flights.



Nowlook closely at what is proposed, with a frightening range of criminal offencescreated by Part 132.



Everyaircraft will have to have an Approved Operations Manual, many of you will knowof the nightmares that Operations Manuals create, and they are the guts of anAOC, all but in name.



Everydeviation from your totally unnecessary Approved Operations Manual will createa criminal offence, where no offence now exists.



Thereis no safety question, to which the changes to Part 21, or the proposed Part132, is the answer!!



Thebenefits can be achieved without the changes, without all the new offenses, allwith such draconian penalties, and without the totally unknown increased coststo members.



Yoursfaithfully,





M.P.(Kim)Rolph Smith,

PRESIDENT

AustralianWarbirds Association Ltd.

[Kharon]

Sheep from goats, fact from fiction: all worthy causes. Don't have a dog in this fight but it's an interesting side bar. Can someone assist us lesser mortals to form an opinion, one way or 'tuther.

For starters, (with apologies to the more discerning legal minds); was there strong opposition in '98 to changes which effectively took away some of the CASA powers by changing the definitions to read "that if paragraph (a) (b) and (c) of the reg were met then CASA must be satisfied?"; and is this element still in the mix?

Wasn't part of the deal for self administration that a 'suitably' qualified director (for want of a better description) be approved by CASA and the qualifications required were not only very clearly defined, but could not be garnered off a Corn flake box and not 'diluted'? If this was then the case, but is no longer applicable, how, why by and whom was this redistribution of safety oversight approved? Seems counter intuitive for a self administering body.

Seems to me that the deal hammered out relied heavily on there being at least one highly qualified individual to oversight safety, if this is the case why did CASA allow the change from a safety outcome based status quo, to some open ended, soft administrative pony pooh?

Finally, is there any truth in the rumour that AWAL management was part of the CASA revision of the proposed new rule set which seems to be so onerous to the ongoing well being of the AWAL? Seems to me that if the track record since '98 has been good, then there is a case for less restrictions rather than more. The old man always said "a dog eating from two crocks soon becomes bloated and useless to either master".

Creamie and Leadsled, forgive my agricultural wording, but I keep hearing stories and can't seem to get to the bottom of the blue; difficult to frame accurate questions without knowing the answers or the background. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

[Nononsence]

Kharon, I think you'll find the stories about rewriting the safety rules is actually BS. The current CEO is qualified. Dines was never DSA. The organization has the delegations, not the individual.

More importantly, as a member of AWAL I have never seen anything from the board that "promoted" Part 132. Whether we like it or not the regulator periodically changes the rules, and I gather all aviation rules are gradually being replaced by the "parts". Some of Part 132 is good for us. For the first time, private use will actually be legal. That's big!

We don't like strict liability, but it is CASA policy, and applies to all aviation.

I understand that the final draft of Part 132 isn't available for public comment yet, and the AWAL board therefore hasn't determined a policy for or against the various parts.

All the posts above re Part 132 are designed to instill the idea that the board is trying to push Part 132 on its members, and that Part 132 is bad. It just isn't that simple! Old hatreds and vested interests at work.

And by the way, I happen to know that the current president was all for Part 132 when first briefed about 4 years ago. Suits him now to switch camps.

[T28D]

THE FUTURE OF AWAL IS AT STAKE.



A PERSONAL LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

M.P. (KIM) ROLPH-SMITH

AUSTRALIAN WARBIRDS ASSOCIATION Ltd.



PLEASE TAKE TIME TO READ. THANK YOU



Dear Member,



During the last year, I have becomeincreasingly concerned about the actions of the management of AWAL, which has recently resulted in AWAL beingordered to pay my legal costs and of course its own. I expect that the totalcosts payable will be in the order of some $50,000.



This should not have happened, and didn’t needto happen. All I was trying to do was contact our members to advise them ofissues and concerns that occurred over the last 3 months. I was banned fromcontacting our members up until the court order ruled in my favour on the 18thof this month and ordered the release the membership list to me.



This is a long document,because the issues are many and technical, and cannot be covered in a fewpages.



Because AWAL is an aviationself-administration body, AWAL must always be able to demonstrate that;



· it is a fit and proper organisation.



· basic breaches of the companyMemorandum & Articles of Association and of the Corporations Act 2001should not occur.



· If for any reason breaches do occur,they should be immediately acknowledged and dealt with properly, as required bylaw, and not create further breaches of law.



There are a number of other issues, including;



· the complete lack of progress insolving the problems that have not allowed APs to issue Limited Category. C. ofAs. and the lack of action or feedback from the DSA or CEO as to their progressif any with CASA to all concerned and frustrated AWAL members awaiting LimitedCategory C of A s for their aircraft;



· the rules changes within CASR 21, and the proposed CASR Part 132 and theresult;



· potentiallymajor operational limitation on our present rights and freedoms,



· completely unknown increased cost impacts on our flying,



My concern has been heightened, becauseour general management has refused to address these concerns, claiming that therules changes will only benefit our members, a claim that is clearly not thetruth.



CHRONOLOGICALEVENTS



Onthe 14th November 2012 I emailed a memo to the CEO, the DSA and ourboard members with my concerns about our current inability to issue C of As forLimited Category aircraft.



Ihad been uneasy about the way things were happening for some time, however dueto what appeared to me to be a lack of interest from the rest of the board andthe attitudes of the Secretary and CEO in failing to involve me in any of theirconsiderations, I felt powerless to act.



Itwas not until receiving some recent advice, that I ascertained just how seriousmy concerns were, which led me to write a memo to the board regarding theseconcerns, which brought about the present situation.



Thememo was addressed to the whole board but I had no idea that it would beregarded as so offensive by the Secretary, CEO and result in their lobbying,the rest of the board.



Mymemo was merely a suggestion that we clean up our act. With the benefitof hindsight I am sorry that I did not act earlier.



Itis now 8 months since AWAL has been able to issue a C of A. There have beenmany excuses, while aeroplanes sit on the ground, at great inconvenience andexpense to owners.



Myconcerns are summarised hereunder:-



· AWAL remains in a position where itcannot act or issue C of As for members with Limited Category aircraft.,because CASA has failed to issue a CAR 262AM delegation.



· members should be told that, whereaircraft owners were waiting for C of A’s due to delays, no fees would becharged or taken until this serious situation was resolved.



· Theanswer, considering some of the provisions of Part 132, appears to be that CASAdoes not intend to give us a proper 262AM delegation.



· to ensure that, by self-audit, ourmembers conducting adventure flights were all adequately insured, especially passengers,with insurance of at least $500,000.



· If there was an incident or accidentthis could place AWAL in a vulnerable position legally.



· AWALand members will be even more legally vulnerable if Part 132, in anything likeits present form, ever becomes law.



· CASA did not appear to be supportingAWAL in relation to following up persons or companies still operating LimitedCategory aircraft and conducting adventure flights, who had not paid their AWALfees e.g; the initial adventure flight exposition assessment fee of $1650.00and $770.00 for the AWAL Permission to Operate.



· CASA must support us, as AWAL areacting on behalf of CASA, as a self-administrating organisation.



· theproposed changes to CASR 21, the new draft Part 132 and its serious ramificationsfor our members; (an initial summary is attached);



· the real effects of the major changesto Part 21, the most serious one being that Ex-militaryaircraft are to be denied a certificatein the Experimental Exhibition Cat.,even if this is their proper category, as provided for in the law, and;



· thenew Part 132 potential costs and losses – both money and rights and freedoms;



· right down to grounded aircraft thatare made unsaleable and non-income producing, because they are denied a certificate in Experimental Exhibition;



· as yet undefined but apparently seriouschanges to maintenance requirements, and;



· the failure by our management to informmembers, of these possibilities, despitethe many clearly onerous provisions of the draft changes to CASR 21 andprovision of CASR 132.



· Themany new offences created by Part 132, with maximum fine of up to $8500 fortrivial issues, like failing to notify a change of address within 14 days.



· CASAcan levy Administrative Fines (without court cases) of up to $4250.00. for administrative trivia.



· The limited private use proposed, whilewelcome, is of real little consequence, compared to the above. Part 132 is notneeded to allow additional private use.



Mymemo to the Board also included a suggested agenda for the AGM on the 24thNovember 2012.



Thememo consisted of some 25 important items, that in my opinion required oururgent attention. I asked all boardmembers for feedback, to add, comment or change any items. None did so.



Neithermy suggested agenda nor any part of it was used at the AGM.



Onthe 22nd November 2012 a teleconference was arranged by the Secretary to comeup with a compromise in voting new board members on before the actual AGM.



Therewere 4 options put forward by the Secretary, from which Board members had tomake a choice of one.



Thenext day, after seeking legal advice, I was advised that none of the optionswere legal, also that the CEO and DSA could not vote on these matters but did.



Because of abnormalities with regards tonominations and the closing date of acceptances for board vacancies, asPresident and Chairman of the meeting, I chose to adjourn the AGM at itsconclusion on 24 November 2012.



This motion and a motion that AWALwould appoint independent Elections Australia Pty Ltd to conduct the electionat the adjourned AGM , was put to themembers who attended the meeting, either personally or by proxy. Thismotion was passed.



Onthe 26th November 2012, the Monday after the meeting, I requestedthe membership list from the Secretary, aswas my right in law.



Mypurpose for the request was to exercise my right to communicate with themembership with a date for the resumed AGM, and to give you a clearunderstanding of my opinion of the issues facing us.



Iwas improperly denied this request the same day, with no reason givenwhatsoever, and apparently without AWALmanagement seeking accurate and proper legal advice.



Onthe 4th December 2012 a teleconference was called by the Secretary,with no mention as to what it was about, or any agenda posted.



TheCEO, DSA and Board were all present.



TheSecretary advised me that;



· they were “standing me down aspresident and chairman and”; despite only being a caretaker board during theadjournment, and;



· were removing me from the Board forthwith;



Thesepurported actions are prohibited by the Corporations Act 2001, a matter thatshould be known to any competent director.

[T28D]

Thereason stated was that they had lost confidence in me and in my ability to actas President/ Chairman. I advised them that what they were doing wasillegal and improper and that no proper notice was given or the reason for theteleconference. In short, the teleconferencewas not a legal board meeting. Thepurported actions and decisions had no force in law, even had the meetingbeen correctly called.



Onthe 6th December 2012 my lawyer wrote to the Secretary further requestingthe members list, and stating the provision of the Corporation Act 2001 underwhich the demand was made, S.173.



Thisrequest was again unlawfully refused, leaving me no option but to proceed viathe courts to enforce my clear legal rights under the relevant provision of theAct, S.173.and;



· To protect your rights to be properlyinformed as to developments in the company, a legal obligation imposed on alldirectors, and;



· to protect your interests as members.



Onthe 6th January 2013 a further teleconference was arranged by theSecretary to appoint a lawyer to act on behalf of AWAL in the pending SupremeCourt action in Brisbane on the 17th & 18th January2013. It was agreed by a majority of theboard members present, that the Secretary appoint a lawyer to act for AWAL.



Allthey really needed to do, if they had been properly informed and advised, wasto deliver up the Members Register, as they are statutorily obligated to do.



Hadthe Board complied with its basic statutory obligation the matter would havestopped there and the adjourned AGM would have proceeded on 19 January 2013.



Onthe morning of the 17th January the judge predictably ordered themembers list be sent to me. I received the list electronically by 12.50pm QLDtime that day minus the phone and fax details.



Onthe 18th January 2013 the judge handed down a judgement in my favourcancelling the adjourned AGM on the 19th January 2013 because of theprejudice that AWAL’s conduct had caused in failing to comply with basic andwell known statutory obligations.



Costs were awarded againstAWAL. This entirely unnecessary refusal to comply is likely tocost AWAL members at least $50,000.



Summaryfor your consideration.



Whenthe Board received my memo of concerns on the 14th November theyunexpectedly reacted very personally.



AllI was doing was making sure we got our house in order and that we werecompliant.



CONCLUSION



Iam totally committed to ensuring that;



· wehave a strong and accountable Board and Management, with proper regard to therights of members, and the proper legal role of directors and officers of thecompany, in only acting in members interest.



Iam concerned that some of the current Board have a strong inclination to;



· act in a manner not in the bestinterests of AWAL Members.



· Inshort, acting deliberately, or in ignorance of their statutory duties asdirectors and officers of a public company.



· ASICand the Corporations Act 2001 makes it very clear that ignorance is not adefence available to a director or officer of a public company.



Bytaking the action that I have outlined above, I have demonstrated my commitmentto the role that I hold and I ask for your support for me and my team to enableus to deliver the proper standards of corporate governance that;



· Youare entitled to expect, and;



· We,as your elected directors, are required by law to deliver.



Thequestions facing AWAL are operational matters, as we are acting as aself-administrating organisation on behalf of CASA, and it is important that Icontinue to be a director because I understand the issues and have a clear approach to ensuring regulations areattended to in your interests.



Ihave been a board member for 18 years and president for 3 years.



Ido not want to see AWAL lose any of the great advances we have made since 1998in the operation of ex-military aircraft in Australia, as what we have here isunique.



Based on the draft changes to Part 21and the draft Part 132, we are in danger of losing many of the rights andfreedoms we gained in 1998.



None of these changes have beenproperly justified as being safety related.



Members have not been properly informedof the ramifications of the changes by the management of AWAL and I haveenclosed a review by Stephen Dines on Part 132 for your perusal. If you do nothave a copy of the Draft new Part 132 please advise and I will send it to you.



Ifyou agree, vote for me and the team I have personally nominated, who aresupporting me, and are highly recommended for the board.





THE TEAM UP FOR YOUR NOMINATION .



· Squadron Leader Phil Frawley,

· Matt Handley,

· Kevin Warren,

· KimRolph-Smith.



If you, for any reason, cannot attendthe AGM, I have enclosed proxy forms and stamped self-addressed envelope foryou to use, so don’t waste your vote.



All existing proxies for the original2012 AGM are now null and void.



I value your support. It is veryimportant to send your proxies to me wellbefore the 48 hours of the AGM otherwise your vote will not count. Pleaseadvise me of your email, fax or phone contacts so that, I can personally adviseyou immediately of any updates or changes prior to the AGM on the 24thFebruary 2013.



Even if you wish to lodge your proxywith the Secretary, please mail, fax or email me a copy, so we can properlyaudit the proxies, to make certain none“get lost”.



· Direct your proxies as to how they areto be exercised, and;



· strike out “----- or the Chairman ofthe meeting”.



Please don’t hesitate to ring me to discuss any items you’reconcerned about before voting or if you wish to be kept informed on any mattersleading up to the next adjourned meeting.



My contact details are:-



Mobile: 0408 748 902

Hangar: 07 3274 2639

Fax: 07 3374 2375

Email:[email protected] ([email protected])





Yours faithfully,



M.P. Rolph-Smith

[LeadSled]

Dines was never DSA.

nonosense,
Please read the Nov/Dec 2007 edition of "The Warbirds Flyer" to refresh you memory.

Kharon, I think you'll find the stories about rewriting the safety rules is actually BSAn assertion that completely ignores the initial dissection prepared by Stephen Dines, and based on the draft changes, both to Part 21 and the proposed Part 132, that were distributed by AWAL to selected members.

How about you tell us why Dines has got it wrong?? Have you actually read them yourself??

--- as a member of AWAL I have never seen anything from the board that "promoted" Part 132

Tell us who the CASA Project Manager for Part 132A was in 2008. Who delivered the briefing?? -- four years ago that you mention.

Whether we like it or not the regulator periodically changes the rules


No, CASA does NOT change the rules, only the Parliament can do that, there is a big difference between CASA proposing something and it becoming law.
As you might have noticed, another poster, Creampuff, does not believe these changes will make the statute books. He knows what he is talking about. I agree with him.

Some of Part 132 is good for us.

And most of it is extremely bad, and AWAL should be lobbying as hard as they can go against it, in the interests of members.

For the first time, private use will actually be legal. That's big!


Sadly, all this tells us that you don't understand the present law, there is nothing preventing you conducting private operations now, for the uses listed in Part 21.189, plus any recency flying is unrestricted.

The new private use provision, while welcome, is only a very minor addition to what you can do now. I suggest you read the actual draft legislation, rather than accept some other persons assurances. In fact the wording is quite "tricky" and really quite restrictive --- given the tricky bit, the opportunities for cost sharing are rather limited.

All the posts above re Part 132 are designed to instill the idea that the board is trying to push Part 132 on its members, and that Part 132 is bad.


No, they are not, they are all about members who haven't had any information from the AWAL management about Part 132 and the changes to Party 21.


It just isn't that simple! Old hatreds and vested interests at work.

If you want to believe that, that is your right, it's a free world (well, almost), so tell the other posters here why you are right, and they are wrong. The fact, just the facts.

If maintaining the rights and freedom we have had only since 1998, that the the US has had for decades, is a vested interest, I plead guilty

Start off with the safety case that demonstrates the need for all the changes, then the cost/benefit analysis that justifies the change (all part of the OBPR rules and the Legislative Instruments Act)

Finish of by explaining how the major change to Part 21, which is admitted to be for the purpose of bolstering AWAL revenue is not ultra vires the Civil Aviation Act, under which rules can only be made for safety purposes, CASA is a safety regulator, and cannot make rules for commercial purposes.

And by the way, I happen to know that the current president was all for Part 132 when first briefed about 4 years ago. Suits him now to switch camps.

Before he had a briefing, and was told how good it all was. Who delivered the briefing??

The difference now is that the President has seen the actual draft proposals (only because another member showed them to him ) and now understands what they really mean, and is bound by his responsibilities as a director of a public company to only act in the best interests of the company,

--- here the members of AWAL.

Do you understand the responsibilities of such a director, the Corporations Act 2001 is all plain language, unlike most aviation legislation.

Who was the great man who said: "When the facts change, I change my mind, What, Sir, do you do?"

Tootle pip!!

PS: We don't like strict liability, but it is CASA policy,
Sorry, that's wrong as well, but this post is long enough, so I will just refer you to the ALRC, who have some excellent material on the subject.

[Sunfish]

What a can of worms. This is farcical.

Who perchance at AWAL is intended to "approve" the alleged "Manuals"?

What is the purpose of CASA "helping" AWAL?

Is this, when taken in conjunction with the recent ructions between CASA and the RAA, a thinly veiled attempt by CASA to destroy recreational aviation in Australia? Is the SAAA next?

Is this proposal the work of the person in CASA who allegedly believes that only military aviation and Airlines should exist in Australia? Every time I think of CASA I think of Two former airforce officers I once had to work for. They were not pleasant experiences - both had enormous chips on their shoulders and very rigid and unforgiving personalities.

By the way, would a Tiger Moth fall under the definition of "Warbird"? If so, what could possibly be the point of creating any further documentation in the form of a "manual" when everything that could possibly be said or written about this wonderful machine has already been said and written?

What about a Yak 18T? Some of those saw service with tthe Soviet airforce.

What about the Cessna 310? Didn't that see service with the US airforce as the "blue canoe"?

[Creampuff]

Nononsence said:We don't like strict liability, but it is CASA policy Leaddie said:Sorry, that's wrong as well, but this post is long enough Go on: say it Leaddie. Say whose idea it is to have all those strict liability offences in the regs.

Perhaps if people knew the truth, they might focus their energies more effectively?

[T28D]

Creamie, We made a pledge to keep thisthread factual and "clean" if you get the drift, so inciting divisive comment is not helpful.

[Nononsence]

Sunfish, don't take any notice of a couple of old guys who are still smarting after being dumped from Aust Warbirds years ago. Everything they write has a slant. Read the draft of Part 132 yourself then decide if those long posts are accurate or not. Remember that the final draft of Part 132 is not yet available for public comment yet, so everything discussed so far may be irrelevant.
Re manuals: from what I understand they are nothing more than a collection of paperwork that already exists. Don't forget that limited category has limitations on use. Noise certificates are required. All that stuff goes into one handbook.
Re Tiger Moth, C310: the definition of a warbird is an aircraft that has had military use and doesn't have a civil type certificate. Both types you mention have civil certificates. Some owners choose to put civil types that have had military use into limited so that they can do adventure flights without an AOC.

[aroa]

Go on Creamer ...tell us who dunnit?

AFAIK Strict Liabilty for everything is NOT a Government requirement. But it has been adopted with glee by CASA as an easier way to crack a few heads and bust a few wallets. And tighten the threat/coerrcion screw.

What sort of a bureau-fascist organisation* starts its regs with .."He or she commits an offence if..." For all you criminals out there that havent been busted yet, look out. * You are right CASA!

And for CASA to criminalize everything is again in breach of Govt definitions of what constitutes a 'crime'.
Forgetting to fill in a few lines in yr log book is not a crime.. and has SFA to do with improving "safety"

Since CASA has no oversighting agency , just a disinterested DoTR, it just bloody well does what suits its current fancy, to hell with the cost burden to industry or whether it has any benefits to the "safety" case or not.
WGAF...WE are in charge!!!

Most of all the forever changing sh*te has nothing to do with safety, but all to do with keeping 16 Furzer St CB full of people at "work".

:mad::mad::mad:

[LeadSled]

By the way, would a Tiger Moth fall under the definition of "Warbirds"?

Sunfish,
In a Question on Notice some time ago, about the number of "Warbirds" in Australia ( presumably CASA supplied the information to the Minister), the answer did include Tigers and a whole range of Standard Cat. C.of A aircraft, that started off as military aircraft, which really raises the further question of "understanding" or "corporate memory" in CASA.

This is one area where I can't really blame the military retirees in CASA.

Part 132 goes back to project OS 03/04, and a certain former Executive Manager Standards, who declared, at an SCC meeting:"The government made a mistake in 1998, we are going to fix it".

Some reading these posts will be aware of the "Great Friday Afternoon Revolt" (CASA's equivalent of "The Great Tea Trolly Disaster of 1986, of Bristow fame), how the revolt was "put down" by Byron, and who was the first to depart.

At the time, there was a considerable obsession within a segment of CASA to narrow down "private flying" to the use of an aircraft by its owner and carrying only the owner's immediate family. There is an element of this in the private use limitation of Part 132.

All other private operations were to be subject to a "private operations AOC", with all the trappings of an AOC. This was micro-management by CASA gone mad.

The "Approve Operations Manual" of Part 132 is this AOC in all but name, the end result is the same.

Part of this obsession also survives in a sub-section of Part 92, involving private corporate operations, regardless of the complete lack of a demonstrated safety risk, to which the proposed rule is the answer.
Interestingly, the only fatal jet transport accident in Australia was operating on an AOC, the Mareeba Citation ---- so much for regulations being the answer.
The FAA records are somewhat similar, most of the losses of corporate aircraft have been Part 135 operations.

Is this a general "tightening up", yes, I think there is an element of that. For amateur builders, we are slowly moving back to the limitations of CAO 101.28, and LAMEs doing most of the maintenance. The frog in slowly boiling water analogy.

Something like Part 132 takes on a life of its own. Originally, there were four sub-parts of Part 132, as a result of lobbying, only the Warbirds section remains.

The great pity of all this is that the very narrow gains of of the "Warbirds Package" could be achieved without the changes to Part 21 and Part 132, with its micro-management and range of draconian penalties.

Who was it said: "Paranoia is the price of freedom, vigilance is not nearly enough".

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

I thought you were ignoring me, T28D?

Aroa

The people who make regulatory laws – irrespective of the subject matter – take the view that it isn’t a law unless:

1. It contains the magic words ‘a person must/must’ not, and

2. There is a penalty for failing to do what must be done, or doing what is prohibited.

That’s not CASA’s bright idea.

The least serious of available penalties are strict liability offences and civil penalty offences.

That’s not CASA’s bright idea.

Strict liability offences bring with them the option to issue an infringement notice instead of prosecution (in an amount 1/5th of the ‘full’ penalty), and payment of the fine means the matter ends without any criminal consequences. Of course, the recipient of the notice always has the option to elect to ‘have their day in court’. (Ever heard of traffic fines issued by police? Strict liability offences.)

That’s not CASA’s bright idea.

Civil penalties are usually 10 to 100 times the amount of a strict liability penalty. Big biccies.

That’s not CASA’s bright idea.

The reason I raise these issues, as an act of purest optimism, is to try make clear that it’s utterly futile and a complete waste of energy to fulminate against and argue with CASA about the existence of strict liability offences in existing or proposed regulations.

UTTERLY FUTILE AND A COMPLETE WASTE OF ENERGY

That’s precisely what the organ grinders want you to do.

For those who don’t like the technical policy of proposed Part 132, save your energy and focus your energy on arguing about the technical policy.

[LeadSled]

For those who don’t like the technical policy of proposed Part 132, save your energy and focus your energy on arguing about the technical policy.

Folks,
That is a spot on statement.

Creamie,
I did refer nonosense to the Australian Law Reform Commission, who, as you and I know, have some excellent educational material to explain "Securing Compliance", and what mens rea, actus rea and absolute liability is all about.
As to CASA's advice to OLDP on penalties, that is a whole subject in itself.
Tootle pip!!

[T28D]

Creamie, I thought you were ignoring me, T28D? Just for this , we committed to the Mods to keep this clean.

[Sunfish]

My build may end up in landfill yet. I am fast losing interest
In aviation, which appears to be the desired result of CASA ministrations.

Avalon is going to be the decision point.

[T28D]

Sunfish, Don't let the cr*p spoil the dream, on top of thewhite fluffy stuff just makes it all worth while even if the politics are cr*p.

The real fun is in beating the lord of gravity, not the lord of paper wastage.

CASA are only minders of their own twisted form of thinking, CASA on a blazer is wasteful, CASA on a shirt is wasteful , but the guys wearing the clothes believe they are invincible, the suit gives them comfort, CASA thinking is Wasteful

Fly enjoy the natural beauty and freedom of the spirit, forget the mindless Cr*p.

[Buck Rogers]

What a discraceful act of self importance by displaying dirty lanudry to the aviation community. Not to mention the $50000 bill the Warbird Members will have to pay ! ...for what....Nothing.:ugh:

[Kharon]

Sunny, what T28D said, in spades. Mind you, this topic is a minefield leftover from an older more dangerous battle. Both tribes have long memories and now, at the phoney war stage the pony pooh parcels are distractions. There may well be some who would like to see the discussion here closed and it's best to ignore the more obvious attempts. Goes back a long way to the infamous 'Liability wars', strictly speaking those battles have no place in this dust up; but boys will be boys.

There is trouble at mill; there are two opposing camps, each believing they are correct. If we can persuade the kiddies to play nice, a resolution will be achieved. It may not suit all but, it will be a legal democratic decision. It would be a shame to see the hard fought for independence lost and more restrictions placed on a small group without solid proof that the restrictions were necessary. Any other motive would be perdition.

[LeadSled]

Buck,
If the President of AWAL had not been denied the right to communicate with his members, this would not be public.

If a majority of the board of AWAL had complied with the Corporations Act 2001, there would have been no legal bill.

So, who do you think is responsible for this mess, which should never have happened.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

If the content of Mr Rolph-Smith's correspondence is accurate, a number of Board members of AWAL have in my view behaved, at best, incompetently, and should do the right thing and stump up for the funds wasted on this stupidity.

[Buck Rogers]

Creampuff I agree with you, but a simple call to Mick English in CASA will squash the misleading statements about Part 132, this would also have saved our small membership 50 Grand.. and the embarisment.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

CASR PART132 Limited Catagory (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PARTS132)

[Frank Arouet]

Buck. Do you spell it like that;

AWAL is a self administrating Enterprise who's jurisdiction is with The corporations Act 2001.

Why should any member approach CAsA for advice on jurisprudence?

Actually they should be the last to seek advice on these matters given their record.

misleading statements

Again, CAsA are not the people to talk to. If the Board are misleading the shareholder/members someone should ring ASIC.

Oh! That's been done already?

Oh! There's been a Court case and they agree?

Perhaps there is an action you can take against ASIC and CAsA?

[Creampuff]

Buck

Mr Rolph-Smith and the membership of AWAL are entitled to have the entity run in accordance with the Corporations Law.

What someone in CASA says about the content of draft Part 132 is entirely irrelevant to:

(a) the rights and obligations of AWAL, its Board and membership under the Corporations Law; and

(b) what the draft Part 132 regulations actually mean.

[LeadSled]

Creampuff I agree with you, but a simple call to Mick English in CASA will squash the misleading statements about Part 132, this would also have saved our small membership 50 Grand.. and the embarisment. Buck,
The best way to find out what is in Part 132 is read Part 132, very carefully, including all the implications therein. Have you done that?

Mr. English mentioned may well have his view, but being an employee of CASA does not make whatever he says "gospel". His interpretation or understanding of the law is not "the law". It is what is in the proposed legislative changes that counts.

I strongly recommend you read the documents carefully, all of them, and then tell us why the overview of the major implication, prepared by Stephen Dines, is incorrect. Let us have facts, not assertions.

I also invite you to explain why a certain segment of aircraft should be denied an Experimental certificate in the Part 21 Exhibition category, if this is the wish of the owner of the aircraft, and the aircraft physically qualifies.

After all, and contrary to what was said by "CASA" at the AWAL AGM, the Experimental Exhibition category is intended for its clear purpose, it is not intended to be just a short term home for a segment of the aircraft that can quite legitimately be issues a permanent Experimental Certificate in the Exhibition category.

I do hope you understand that the matter of:


what is an appropriate air safety regulatory category for certification in Part 21, for an aircraft, and;
which body has administrative jurisdiction over that aircraft,
are two entirely different issues.

The AWAL members are stuck with a big legal bill because a majority of the board of AWAL refused to comply with S.173 of the Corporations Act 2001.


Nothing to do with CASA.


Tootle pip!!

PS: Oz,
It is what is in the proposed legislation that is the problem. Those changes are not on the CASA web site, they have not even been made available to the SCC, unlike all other regulatory change proposals that have reached this stage of development. That fact, alone, is significant, in my opinion.

[Buck Rogers]

Lead sled
In regards to part132 experimental this is from the regulator CASA not warbirds, what I am talking about is the 50k fifty thousand $50000 fifty thousand dollars legal bill to the Warbird Aeroclub Membership ,not the big jet ego right and wrong, it's the members.......got it yet ...

[CrushDepth]

Hey, as a member of AWAL, I'm interested to understand what parts of Corporations Law the Association is actually in contravention of?

How about this Legal Bill....how do we know it's $50,000?

[VH-MLE]

“If the aviation sector in Australia was united, coordinated, coherent and competent at lobbying government, there might be a very slim chance of overcoming the sector's profound electoral handicap. However, much of it (other than a tiny number with deep pockets) is disunited, un-coordinated, incoherent and incompetent at lobbying government.”

Yes, that sums it up pretty well I think. I recall not that many years ago an organisation representing a sizeable number of pilots in this country were in a reasonably strong position to influence government policy at the GA level in Australia. Unfortunately, a significant amount of in-fighting (largely ego driven at the time I thought) ultimately led to the status quo being maintained.

Once again the same old names keep re-appearing - different topic, but the same old (ego driven) factional infighting!!

It's no wonder nothing changes in GA in this country and you you continue to blame it all on CASA!!!

[Creampuff]

I suppose the question is whether it’s correlation or causation.

The nature of most of these organisations is that they are run by volunteers without much, if any, understanding of the fact that the officers and members have obligations and rights at law. Not criticising – just sayin’…

In those circumstances it’s easy for people to assume they can make stuff up as they go along, and make any decisions they like – it’s ‘their’ ‘club’ - but it’s equally easy for people who understand the obligations and rights of officers and members to throw cold water over these decisions.

The course of events described by Mr Rolph-Smith fits this pattern, precisely.

Is that outcome the fault of the people whose rights were being ignored, and have now been vindicated?

[Frank Arouet]

I would recommend a read of "Duties and Responsibilities of Directors and Officers" by Professor Robert Baxt. ISSN 1446-8565 as a first step in recognising who's club/ organisation AWAL is.

[LeadSled]

In regards to part132 experimental this is from the regulator CASA not warbirds

Buck,
With all due respect, you do not seem to have any more understanding of the rule-making process than nonosense, and you certainly seem to have little understanding of how the present rules came into being ---- as a matter of Government policy and actions, NOT CASA.

It is Government that make the rules, not departments and statutory authorities, who only propose rules to government ---- haven't you ever heard of lobbying, when a segment of the community disagrees with proposals for legislation? Think the Rudd mining super profits tax, or the present threats to free speech.

Why do you think all the other sub-parts of Part 132 have disappeared (you can read that much on the CASA web site, Ozbusdriver put up the link) leaving only the Warbirds bit --- lobbying.

Or, perhaps, you agree with the oppressive limitations inherent in the changes to Part 21 and the new Part 132.

I repeat again, the Government policy, that has served Australia well, since 1998, is:

The aviation community in Australia should have the same rights and freedoms as the USA.

Put another way:

The Australia aviation community should NOT be saddled with all sorts of Australian unique RESTRICTIVE rules and regulations that have no genuine demonstrated and cost/benefit justified safety basis.

What is the problem you have with this concept of rights and freedoms, that you are apparently prepared to just sit back and "cop it", as they are whittled away.

This applies to the whole aviation community, not just the very small segment involved here.

The operators of Australian registered large airline aircraft were the immediate beneficiaries of the 1998 changes, there was a major boost to international competitiveness.

What is being proposed here (but is a long long way from becoming law) is completely contrary to the spirit and intent, now in present law, of that Government policy.

If you want to believe that wanting to preserve the present rights and freedoms of the aviation community is just somebody exercising a "big jet ego", so be it.

However, give the whole of the AWAL membership the right to decide, after they are properly informed about all sides of the argument, not just "Dispatches" that are little more than value free propaganda.

I suggest you forget playing the man, and play the ball. You never know, if you are an AWAL member, it could be in your own personal interest, have you though of that??

Hey, as a member of AWAL, I'm interested to understand what parts of Corporations Law the Association is actually in contravention of?

Crush depth,
Hasn't anybody from AWAL board or management ( except for the President, Kim Rolph-Smith, at his own expense) told you?
As has been stated here, several times, the finding of the Supreme Court of Queensland was re. S.173 of the Corporations Act 2001. You can look it up on ComLaw. While you are there, have a look at Part 2D.1, regulations S.179 through 189.

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

To put crush depth out of his misery, an official elected by a meeting of shareholders or members can only be removed by another meeting of members NOT by unilateral action of the other Directors, furthermore, company records CANNOT be withheld from any Director.

[LeadSled]

----an official elected by a meeting of shareholders or members can only be removed by another meeting of members NOT by unilateral action of the other Directors, furthermore, company records CANNOT be withheld from any Director. Sunfish,
Such simple concepts, so clearly stated in the Corporations Act 2001, seem to be eternally beyond the comprehension of some members of boards of organisations such as AWAL and AOPA.

Even the recent ructions at the Qantas Founders Memorial Museum at Longreach had similar attributes. In this case, at least S.173 was observed, there was no need for legal action, and the consequent bill.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Is that outcome the fault of the people whose rights were being ignored, and have now been vindicated?

Again, Creamie has it right.

[Buck Rogers]

Lead sled you are a complete Dope, the point I was making It was not Warbirds who was making experimental change over to limited, that's the message.
Do you think giving the members a 50k legal bill will result in a trophy at the end of year party for the voluntary president. I'm glad warbirds didn't challenge the ruling as it would have cost the membership a lot more. Oh yes and, what is the saving result. EGO.....intact that's got to be worth it.

[LeadSled]

Lead sled you are a complete Dope, the point I was making It was not Warbirds who was making experimental change over to limited, that's the message.

Buck,
Boy, Oh! Boy,
You just don't understand, do you. Why don't you do some serious homework on learning about the processes for Commonwealth regulation making, then re-read these posts.

I note that you choose to make no comment on the loss of rights and freedoms inherent in the changes.

Should I conclude from that, that you believe aviation in Australia should be subject to unique restrictive regulations unknown in the US. I invite you to tell us all why Australian aviation needs such restrictions on rights and freedoms.

As to denying some aircraft, which quite legitimately qualify for an Exhibition certificate,that certificate, the Secretary of AWAL blew the whistle on that one at the AGM , admitting it was for the purpose of bolstering AWAL revenue. Do you believe CASA can make regulations for such a purpose?

Not for any air safety purpose. Do you understand the provision of the relevant sections of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

Do you understand that the original agreement between AWAL and CASA (it's all in the records) was for AWAL to administer the self same Experimental Exhibition aircraft --- as Experimental Exhibition aircraft --- no change of certification, with the associated highly fraught new liability issues now being generated ---- for both AWAL and CASA. And that is all without consideration of the cost to be generated, one off and ongoing, that will be born by aircraft owners.

I am quite certain you have no idea of the liabilities inherent in the proposed method of deciding which current Experimental Exhibition aircraft can be issued with a Limited Certificate, if at all.

Please read and try and understand what is actually contained in the proposed legislative changes --- you cannot rely on an individual from CASA saying "She'll be right, mate". Thoroughly read Stephen Dines overview of the changes, he has a long and well documented history of being right.

Put quite simply, the very limited "private use" benefit of the proposed change (and you should read what it actually say, not what somebody assures you it say) could be achieved by far more simple means.

There is no valid justification for Part 132, at all.
You seem to be quite happy to adopt the position of: BOHICA.

Tootle pip!!

[T28D]

Buck Rodgers asyou are a newby to Pprune maybe a simple look at facts will calm your ardour.

Look up Supreme Court of Queensland BS 290 of 2013 in Com Law.

Thems the facts.

[Buck Rogers]

Lead sled
You mentioned unrestricted like the US you poor uniformed little pilot. Like needing to lodge your program letter every year and restrictions in distance traveled from your home base, need to renew your FAST card every year for formation, formation wing card formation lead card, piston, jet, no adventure flights allowed in the US. The US has it easy. wake up.

[Buck Rogers]

T28 I'm a newby to PPrune have a look at your date joined and then look at mine.

[LeadSled]

---- no adventure flights allowed in the US.

Buck,
Izzatso, Don't know much about the US Limited Category, do you?

Like needing to lodge your program letter every year and restrictions in distance traveled from your home base

And just how and why did that come about --- because a few smarties thought they were going to use Eastern bloc. cheap jets ex-military to commute around the countryside (just like somebody here announcing their intentions to commute between Sydney and Canberra in an L-39 --- ring any bells), and manufacturers/operators of standard category aircraft raising very loud objections.

Do you understand what a simple and straightforward process that is, the most expensive bit is the stamp on the envelope -- if you lodge it that way.

Of course, as a member of EAA/Warbirds of America, and an FAA licensed CPL, (real one, not a validation) what would I know about it?

What do you think will be the attitude here, by roughly the same group of people, to the "private use" provisions in Part 132. I don't think it will be silence, and Cessna for one, is quite renowned for its lobbying success in Australia, going right back to when Bob Menzies was PM.

As for the rest, all you are talking about is qualifications and recency, that is not anything to do with the proposed changes to Part 21 and the daft Part 132. I certainly have no issue with the FAST requirements, or the principles of the FAST Foundation. Indeed, this foundation is an excellent example of multi-Association cooperation to address air safety issues of a highly specialized nature.

Play the ball, and not the man, and how about you address some of the valid issues raised here, rather than just venting your spleen (all sorts of visions come to mind) about me, and who you believe I am.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

Buck

If you indeed joined PPRuNe in 2001 and have spent most of the intervening period as an observer rather than a post-er, you would have seen that LeadSled and I have had numerous disagreements on numerous issues.

On the issues.

Suggesting that anyone, much less LeadSled, is a “complete Dope”?

Not a good look. :=

[Blowie]

Hey Buck

Like needing to lodge your program letter every year

Have you ever checked the Oz requirements? Hope you submitted your annual program letter to CASA. :uhoh:

[CrushDepth]

Sorry, but one plus one does not appear to equal two here...

I've just been back and re-read the previous posts in this thread, including the 'letters' from the President, and they all imply that he had concerns AWAL was in contravention of the Corporations Act prior to any alledged attempt by the other members of the board to remove him....

Thanks for the answer SunFish and Leadsled, but that answer does not appear to work chronologically.

I'm just trying to understand how AWAL might be not in compliance with the Coporations Act.

And how would we know what the court costs are? I hear a lot of wild claims but see very little substantiation...

The other interesting issues are:
a) Seems strange for the President to claim all these concerns re functioning of the AWAL Board after being the President for three years... after all, isn't he the president and the leadership of the board his responsibility?
b) How come all these concerns come to light so close to an election?

Sorry guys, but when things smell funny, they usually are....

I think Captain Dart started this thread asking for a balanced view on what was going on....the responses don't look very balanced to me...

[Sunfish]

Crush Depth. When it comes to Corporations Law it is not a matter of "balance" the Supreme Court ruling is a matter of fact.

Furthermore, the duties, responsibilities and rights of Company Directors are also settled law and no "Balance" is required. To put that another way are you suggesting that we require "evenhandedness" when discussing the law of gravity?

When it comes to opinion of course we can ask for "balance" and I enjoy reading the perspectives about the proposed changes to the Warbirds rules - something I know little about.

The facts so far would appear to support an argument that there has been signifigant dysfunction at Board and Management level within an organisation. I call it "dysfunction" because it appears to relate to the operation of the Board and management - a matter of corporate governance.

Disagreement among Board members about the policy and actions of management are in a totally different category and are subject to robust debate as they should be, but not matters of governance.

...And if it is all about matters deemed really important, then chuck the issues back to the members for their decision. I have just been part of such a process (extraordinary general meetings, information nights etc.) on a $1.2 million chunk of yacht club infrastructure.

[T28D]

Crush Depth Court Costs are set to quite rigid terms and are subject to Taxing by the court if there is a dispute as to quantum,costs are in fact quite easy to estimate, the Plaintiffs costs were +$15 K so it is logical the respondents costs were similar and there were 2 sitting days of the Qld Supreme Court.

$50 K will be a conservative estimate me thinks.

The court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded costs to the plaintiff as is normal so AWAL is now faced with the costs order.

[CrushDepth]

T28D, why would it have been heard in the Supreme Court?

There is concern around regarding some dysfunction of the AWAL organisation. This claim regarding dysfunction seems to be all coming from one person, combined with two other bloggers on this site who seem to be aligned with that person.

The person claiming dysfunctionality is in fact the President, whose role it is to ensure functionality...

So it looks like we have one person apparently at odds with the remainder of AWAL management (all of whom are apparently warbird operators / owners themselves). That person is claiming skulduggery and proposing to elect 'his team' to the board.

What motivation could possibly result in all the remaining members (paid and unpaid) of AWAL management being against the President?

How do we know what we are being told is true?

Why would the board be in favour of Part 132 (noting they will be affected by it just as much as any other member) if it was as bad as we are being told?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

These guys are out of my league. However, something doesn't gel. Take a ground up restoration of a typical warbird, I have now watched no less than three from what I would have called scrap to flying status...cubic dollars! The owners spare no expense in the restorations to museum quality!

Why would these people worry about, effectively, the cost of a newspaper?

On theface of it, Experimental as opposed to Limited. The goal is limited but these aircraft end up as experimental..?, Something doesn't gel!

There is something else happening here, it is not money. Either AWAL is dicking around with the paperwork or an individual is dicking around. This thing with the CASA smells like a turd wrapped up in silk. Someone on the AWAL board better have a real look otherwise there will be warbirds grounded everywhere. The CASA is not interested in making things easier, they are after something else. No volunteers means a lot of the real expertise will be forbidden from helping out. There is guy I know that is very retired yet is instrumental in amassing theknowledge needed to ressurect Gobblin engines because he built the things when they were new. Under the new rules he will no longer be able to help or even touch them. No AMEs only LAMES or is that B2B3...with school learned experience on engines and systems that predate their dads let alone the lecturers...

What is wrong with this and I am very wary isthe two posters arguing the case against. Leadie and T28D, you two have history that makes it hard to see which path is the right one. What I have seen backs up your argument but there has to be more to this than arguing about a regulation that hasn't made it to NPRM stage.

Very much on the sidelines but...my opinion. Something doesn't look right. It isn't the cost of registration, It is the process that needs looking at.

[LeadSled]

crushdepth,
Reasonable questions to ask:

In one of the documents posted here, you will read a mea culpa by the President, as he started to realise the seriousness of what was actually being proposed in regulation, as opposed to what had previously only been described/sold as a "good thing"--- and realised his responsibilities at law as a director, required him to look much more closely at what was/is going on.

I would think that the alarm bells really began to ring, when he was denied access to company information that is the right of any director of a public company, a matter dealt with in his letter to members. In my opinion, a clear prima faci case of company non-compliance with the Act.

He then made application under S.173, which is open to anybody, not limited to directors or members/shareholder, he was again refused. Hence the court case, which he won.

As Creampuff has said, in one of his posts, inadequate knowledge of the duties of directors, particularly in small non-profit companies limited by guarantee, is not uncommon.

However, the law does not make allowance for such things, but places a burden on people taking up such positions to have knowledge adequate to the task of discharging their duties diligently and honestly, and only in the interests of the company, ie: the members. If they feel inadequate to the task, they should not accept the position. As you may know, signing the formal acceptance of the position is acknowledgement that you believe you are up to the job and accept the responsibilities.

The proceeding surrounding the National Safety Council, Victorian Division, some years ago, are very instructive. As I recall, the Chairman of the Board was very heavily penalised, his defence, essentially, was that he was unaware of what was going on. The court did not accept the defence.

There is now a large body of interested persons who understand the ramifications of the proposed exclusion from Part 21 Experimental Exhibition of a whole category of aircraft, that currently qualify for such a certificate.

In my opinion, the definitions and scope are so badly drafted that even various half and three quarter scale P-51D Mustangs, and sundry Spitfire, Me-109, FW 190, Fokker Tri-Plane, Bristol Fighters etc. are caught up in this unnecessary change.

There is no air safety purpose for this change. Bolstering the revenue of AWAL is not an air safety purpose. Previous in-principle agreements with CASA were that AWAL would assume administrative responsibility for ex-military aircraft in this category, without any suggestion of a category change.

Experimental Exhibition was and should remain the appropriate place for aircraft that qualify, and being the (usually only, to date) choice of the owner.

Part 132 contains a whole raft of new and very prescriptive provision, with quite draconian penalties. There are (and were previously subject to agreement between AWAL and CASA) alternative ways of handling the largely administrative matters covered in Part 132, without resort to the full weight of the criminal law.

For the balance of Part 132, the existing aviation law is quite adequate, and the provisions of CAR (1988) 262AM and AN were to be absorbed into Part 91, a matter also previously agree between AWAL and CASA.

As for divisions on the board of AWAL, the President has done his homework, and extensively consulted his solicitor and others, he sees the position of the members interests quite clearly. He now understands the immediate and potential ramifications of the proposed changes.

In my opinion, other member of the board of AWAL, or the balance of the board collectively, seem to have articulated a position justifying their apparent support for the, in balance, the very onerous proposed changes.

In my opinion, at this very late stage of this regulatory development process, it is not adequate for the board to say they have not formed a view as to support for or opposition to the changes.

This now leaves CASA (who, in my opinion, on very reasonable grounds, undoubtedly believed they had 100% support of AWAL) and AWAL in a very invidious position.

Tootle pip!!

[CrushDepth]

LeadSled,

Thanks for that.

I am aware that there was a meeting scheduled for Sunday 10 February (called by the AWAL board), the idea of which was to get the issues associated with Part 132 out into the open.

CASA are going, all board nominees (including those whom the president has described as 'his team') were invited, as well as a number of prominent warbird stakeholders (HARs, Temora etc). The concept was to allow people the opportunity to question CASA on the new legislation.

Apparently, the President has now threatened to take AWAL to court again, if the meeting goes ahead.

Why would he do this? The only reason I could think of is that perhaps he has been promulgating information that is incorrect and he is now concerned that the truth will come out.....

[Kharon]

I expect everyone involved sees there exists a huge potential for disaster looming. The corporate conflict, requiring Supreme Court intervention, letters flying about the place; and, an in house war do not add up to stable, sensible self administration. If CASA did not have doubts about the organisations ability to 'self govern' previously, there is ample cause, right now.

I hear; and, 'tis only rumour that RA Oz is having similar problems – the common enemy is the CASA micro management of everything. I have no idea where the notion "divided we fall, – united we stand" came from; but holy Kaahboom Batman. There's a lot at stake, freedom of the sky (within reason), self administration, lots of dollars invested - bet against a big potential for enforced bad legislation etc. etc. Lots to play for: cut out the dead, corrupt wood and get on with being a great example of "self administration" that works. There is enough talent within the membership to 'ace' it.

I suggest that with the present CASA outfit, the hard won privileges and freedoms should not be lightly traded off by allowing an in house power struggle to provide an excuse for 'interference' by outside entities. A world without "War-birds Australia" would affect only a few.

Play nice, but play together. There are enough troubles in aviation at the moment.

[Creampuff]

CD

Perhaps Mr R-S is worried there's going to be another breach of the law?

You don't seem to understand what being the elected officer of an entity subject to the Corporations Law means.

Let's assume Mr R-S is "the problem". The solution is to have a proper meeting of the members, have a proper vote and remove him from office. Then the members have determined the outcome (in accordance with their rights as well as M R-S's rights).

Mr R-S goes to court, and the court finds he's correct, and that's his fault?

Perhaps a teensy weensy part of the problem is caused by whomever the court found not to be complying with the Corporations Law (which law, after all, is there to, among other things, protect the members).

[CrushDepth]

With respect Mr CreamPuff, I am a Director 3 times over at the moment! So I have some understanding of the Corporations Act and what it means to navigate an organisation in accordance with it....:) Not that I am an expert by any means, and I am always keen to learn more...

I think we'll find that there is no substantiation for 'AWAL being in breach of the Corporations Act' as a reason for the President commencing this lobbying exercise....and the Court Ruling everyone is referring to is a different matter...he states it was about getting access to the Membership List...after the convened AGM. (Which is months later than he claimed he 'realised' the organisation was in breach of the law).

I agree with Kharon. What is sure is that this public foray does not give the Regulator a very good view of AWAL, which is the real concern. I personally have recently heard CASA describe AWAL as the 'model of Self - Administration', will they think the same thing after all this?

And in any respect, whether or not a meeting held with the intention of allowing members to interact with CASA and learn about new legislation is entirely in accordance with a constitution and therefore 'illegal' is irrelevant. It would only be deemed 'illegal' if someone were to make an issue of it, and who would do so if they were truly acting in the interest of the members and AWAL?

I don't think I've got anything else to say on this matter, I'm pretty sure I know what is going on, and my feeling is (based on the number of people I've spoken to) that most people are intelligent enough to see through the spin that is being thrown around the membership!

[T28D]

There isahellof a lot of difference being a Director 3 times over of P/L companies and being aDirector of aPublic Company limited by Guarantee.

[CrushDepth]

With respect, how do you know what I am a Director of?

[LeadSled]

--- the president wouldn’t accept the method of electing nominees to the board.

Nonosense,
I gotta say, I just love the name!!!

That statement above is correct, he wouldn't accept any of the proposals of the Secretary because his advice was that none were acceptable, as far as the Act was concerned. You don't seem to understand that company Articles are not the only consideration, there is the not inconsequential presence of the Corporation Act 2001.

All proposals presented had one thing in common, they denied a large proportion of the membership, those who could only vote by proxy, the right to vote for candidates of their choice.

If you think the above is the main issue in this whole matter, you are sadly mistaken, the main issue is the proposed legislative change, and its immediate and long term consequences.

Leadsled and T-28D now claim the current AWAL Secretary is the one with the idea of grabbing experimental aircraft into Limited, to boost AWAL coffers. Read on:
That is NOT what we have said, what we have said is that there is no need for aircraft to be denied a certificate in the Experimental Exhibition category, if they are to be administered by AWAL.

We have further said, time and again, that denying aircraft a certificate in the Experimental Exhibition category, and forcing the change of category is a regulatory change that is not for an air safety purpose. On that grounds alone, this change is unlikely to see the statute books.

We have further pointed out that it was the Secretary who made the statement,(which is not the same as thinking up the idea, was that statement a Freudian slip ) at the AWAL AGM, that the reason for the regulatory change was to bolster AWAL funds. That is not a proper purpose for regulation making under the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

We have also pointed out that a CASA representative at the AGM made the statement that the change to Part 21 was because "Experimental" was not a permanent category for an aircraft.

If that is one of the "test and development" or "show compliance" sub-section of "Experimental" , for example, that is certainly true. It is certainly not true for aircraft in the Experimental Amateur Built or the Experimental Exhibition/Air Racing categories, where it is quite clear that the certificates are permanent.

Bill Hamilton proposed that AWAL formally approach CASA to transfer exp exhib category to AWAL self admin. Resolution no. 11, Bill Hamilton/Kim Rolph-Smith/unan.

"Oh Dear" indeed. What's the issue, no mention of forcing aircraft out of Experimental Exhibition here, is there??

If you told the whole story, (that is, if you know) it would include subsequent CASA senior management agreement with that proposition as part of the phased transfer of administrative responsibilities for certain aircraft to AWAL. It also included a parallel path for people who wanted to have nothing to do with AWAL, nor was there to be compulsory membership of AWAL, just a member's discount on administration fees to encourage membership. And a ripper deal for passenger insurance, moderate in costs and paid by the passengers, that most Adventure Flight operators on the board rejected out of hand.

Did you bother to read the documents posted here, now distributed to all AWAL members, it's there! All without the radical changes now proposed, change that, as Creampuff rightly forecasts, are unlikely to make it onto the statute books.

As for you reprinting that internal board email purportedly from Mr. Rolph-Smith, so much for the so called code of conduct and confidentiality.

However, I don't doubt its authenticity or content,but could it just be that some of the board members mentioned were sold a bill of goods, to come to that view. Just who brought the story to the board?? I can say, without fear of contradiction, that Dines and Hamilton were never actually informed of what heinous crimes they had allegedly committed in Canberra. Were Dines and Hamilton ever given the opportunity to put their version of events?? Or was it just a lot of assertions and pseudo-legal waffle.

Much like the pseudo-legal waffle that preceded the recent the court appearance in Brisbane, and the very expensive loss suffered by AWAL, as a direct result.

----whether or not a meeting held with the intention of allowing members to interact with CASA and learn about new legislation is entirely in accordance with a constitution and therefore 'illegal' is irrelevant. It would only be deemed 'illegal' if someone were to make an issue of it,


CD,
Do you have any understanding of the limitation on board activity in "caretaker mode" during the adjournment.

I just love the concept that breaches of the Act are only breaches of the Act if "someone were to make an issue of it". I wonder what ASIC thinks of that concept, I think AWAL might be going to find out.

As to interacting with CASA", any CASA persons discussing the meanings of the propose changes will only be stating opinions as to what the regulations mean in practice, and they will most certainly NOT be the people enforcing the regulations.

Ultimately, what they mean will be decided by the AAT and the courts.

Tootle pip!!

[tail wheel]

Nononsence

I removed your last post as it contained quotes from the War Birds Association internal documentation and correspondence. I do not believe you have the authority of that organisation or the authors of the documents to publish it's internal correspondence, I do not believe it appropriate you post that on PPRuNe and neither I nor the other Mods are interested in you or anyone else hanging the War Birds Association dirty washing out in our Forum.

PPRuNe is predominantly a forum for professional pilots, not a forum for a bunch of school girls to stage a hand bag punch up.

Having sorted out the AOPA wars a number of years ago, we are not interested in the problems and issues of another organisation's internal bickering being posted here.

Toe the line otherwise you or anyone else that can't play the game, will lose their thread access (or even PPRuNe access) so fast it'll make your eyes water!

And before the old Mod bias thing gets dragged out, no I have no involvement in any way with war birds or anyone that posts in this thread. No interest. Nada. Zip.

[gerry111]

Well said, tail wheel!

This thread has become just a little bit too personal in my view, as identified by Creampuff.

Play the ball, not the man, please everyone.

LeadSled and Creampuff are both accomplished aviators. But LeadSled has the jet hours!

Those of us that have a passion for General Aviation, are not well served by the continual bickering that goes on behind the scenes. Sadly, that never seems to change. If only private aviation in Australia could ever speak in unison, we might finally have some political clout...

We really know how to be our own worst enemies.

[Sunfish]

Crush Depth:

LeadSled,

Thanks for that.

I am aware that there was a meeting scheduled for Sunday 10 February (called by the AWAL board), the idea of which was to get the issues associated with Part 132 out into the open.

CASA are going, all board nominees (including those whom the president has described as 'his team') were invited, as well as a number of prominent warbird stakeholders (HARs, Temora etc). The concept was to allow people the opportunity to question CASA on the new legislation.

Apparently, the President has now threatened to take AWAL to court again, if the meeting goes ahead.

Why would he do this? The only reason I could think of is that perhaps he has been promulgating information that is incorrect and he is now concerned that the truth will come out.....

Crush Depth, it appears to me that a reasonable explanation for your Presidents opposition to such a meeting is that its purpose is to railroad the Board nominees into accepting the CASA position - setting up a fait accompli.

Furthermore the nominees have no legal status, so any member should be able to attend, not just a select little group to get "the good oil" like a certain NSW politician appears to have got..

The organisational behaviour term f.or that is "Co-opting" and it appears that is exactly what CASA has done to the existing Board of AWAL if they have participated in rule development without the knowledge and full understanding of each and every member of AWAL. The desired intent of CASA was obviously to preclude much opposition to new regulation on the simple grounds that: (a) Your organisation already approves of them and no opposition will be forthcoming from it. (b) Your organisation has already consulted you, so shut the &*&* up..

And furthermore, the proposed meeting is not capable of making decisions since it ain't a Board meeting as you would know from your long experience as a DIrector of a public company.

If I were a member of AWAL, which I'm not, I believe I might be forgiven for thinking that a cosy little group is trying to ram through something in the way of regulation that would not stand up to the scrutiny of the members if they knew about its full implications.
.
To put that another way, the process of establishing new regulations, if required, needs to be transparent to all affected and provide all with an avenue to contribute and if necesary criticise.

It would appear that your President believed that there were sufficient failings in transparency to go to court over the matter. This is not a light decision.

For the record, transparency requires that anyone with a vested or conflicted interest in the proceedings has to declare it. I hope that no such conflicts exist.

[Creampuff]

To put that another way, the process of establishing new regulations, if required, needs to be transparent to all affected and provide all with an avenue to contribute and if necesary criticize.Hear! Hear!

I’m saddened to be witnessing the dirty laundry of AWAL, but I’m not surprised because, as I’ve observed earlier, it’s a fairly common malaise in these kinds of organisation.

However, what really p*sses me off is that the consultation process for Part 132 has not been public. CASA should have disclosed the same information to everyone – ie the public – at the same time. If someone in CASA chose to disclose the draft regulations to AWAL, that’s completely inappropriate. If someone in CASA chose to disclose the draft regulation to a select few within AWAL, with a view to co-opting the organisation, that’s not only completely inappropriate but also a corruption of the legislative development process.

CD: Being the director of 3 companies does not necessarily result in you understanding anything about the rights and obligations of company officers and members. However, I’m confident you do have a good understanding of those matters, and I’m confident I know where you fit into this (very messy) picture. You might do the membership of AWAL a favour if you have a whisper in the ears of Mr R-S’s colleagues, to confer your understanding. You could start with this:Furthermore the nominees have no legal status, so any member should be able to attend, not just a select little group to get "the good oil" like a certain NSW politician appears to have got..

[Nononsence]

Tailwheel, I'd be 100% in favour of your censorship, but you allow Leadsled and T28D free kicks with all sorts of rubbish, including the long winded rant by Kim Rolph Smith. When I put some indisputable facts that show Rolph-Smith, Leadsled, and T28D are total hypocrites, you censor me.

Shows the value of this forum!

[tail wheel]

It is one of those days again! :suspect:

I will make it very clear, no one gets a free kick here to post comment which is in bad taste, contrary to the rules of PPRuNe, or contrary to the laws of Australia.

When I put some indisputable facts that show Rolph-Smith, Leadsled, and T28D are total hypocrites.

Whether your statement is correct or not, I will tell you is that you can not post a comment that any PPRuNe users is a "total hypocrite" and expect to remain a registered PPRuNe user.

T28D posted a letter to Members of the Australian Warbird Association Ltd by M.P. Rolph-Smith who I understand is the President or Chairman. I assume it is a not for profit public company limited by guarantee? Having far more than a passing knowledge of not for profit incorporated associations and not for profit companies limited by guarantee, I see no issue with the President or Chairman's public letter being published in PPRuNe, if that accesses more of the Members, provided the letter does not contravene the rules.

Your posts which I removed appear to be selective copy and past from the companies internal correspondence which were probably confidential to the author and intended recipient only. In my opinion you came here solely to throw a little sh!t, hoping some would stick.

If the document author and the intended recipient send me an email granting their express consent to those comments being published, I wil reinstate your post.

I have already clearly indicated by email to some who have posted in this thread, that any PPRuNe forum will not become a battleground for the Warbirds internal disputes. They have agreed to limit their comments and if the thread gets out of hand, it will be closed. I expect you to also respect those boundaries.

I don't make a habit of deleting posts, removing thread or banning users as in general there has not been the need. However, over many years a few miscreant users, habitual trolls and wannabe jerks have been banned, without fear or favour. I can confirm that some users who have posted in this thread have previously been banned, learnt a valuable lesson and now contribute value to our Dunnunda Forum. :ok:

I think that makes our position clear?

[Cloud Basher]

Having been involved in numerous not-for-profit clubs and associations, nearly all of them have internal politicking with some seeming to get out of hand. One very very simple solution in any organisation where the board is voted in is to simply:

1. Hold an EGM, with appropriate notice and agenda in-accordance-with all rules nd regulations, to ALL members and declaring all positions open.
2. All issues are put to the membership
3. The membership votes.
4. The membership/AWAL then put up with whatever is decided by the board after this point.

QED

This is the only way to solve these problems and if the membership is apathetic, then they deserve whatever outcome they get. If they are active and involved then I am sure they will achieve the best for AWAL and the Australian warbird movement.

Really the rest of what has been written here is just posturing and chest beating. Some if it is undoubtably true on both sides, some is undoubtably untruths and some us undoubtably outright lies. The truth ALWAYS lies somewhere in between. It is up to an interested and active membership to work it out and vote in the board that will look after the interests of the Australian warbird movement, not individuals.

Such a simple solution.

Cheers
CB

[T28D]

Cloud Basher sadly this whole saga may well get to the EGM point, there are simply too many shiboleths in the saga to see an equitable ending under the current circumstances.

It all sends a really poor message to those who have come to warbirds lately and who have little access to the history of the organisation and those who put the original self admin process in place.

Asthe fat lady saga says, it ain't over yet, sadly.

[CrushDepth]

Tailwheel, in defence of NoNonsence...you posted a letter from the President of AWAL that may have been written by the President, but was not posted by him, and as far as I am aware....has not been posted anywhere else (or even issued to members).

Did the president give you permission to post that?

How is the posting of that letter by T28D any different to the posting of the email excerpts by NoNonsence?

[CrushDepth]

Sunfish, ta..

Good to see then that the meeting invitation has been extended to all members....so they are obviously trying to ramroad the regulation through...because as aircraft owners themselves, I am sure they must really enjoy helping CASA implement regulation that makes their own lives harder...

I have a number of good friends on the board and as they are quite clearly the victims of skullduggery in this whole arrangement I will be lobbying to get them as many votes as possible at the upcoming AGM.

[tail wheel]

One document is prefaced and clearly intended for general distribution:
Members of Australian Warbird Association Ltd

The other excerpts are prefaced:
I still have some papers from my brief time on the inside with AWAL a few years ago. Here are some extracts:

One document was specifically intended for general distribution, the other appears to be extracts from private, personal correspondence between two individuals which were accessed by a third party, presumably without their knowledge or consent.

This thread is not available for personal attacks on or insults to individuals, by either group of protagonists. You are welcome to dispute and logically argue against the views expressed by the Association President, Leadsled, T28D et al; you may not attack and insult individuals personally.

That is my final comment. You know the rules…….

[Sunfish]

Crush Depth:

Good to see then that the meeting invitation has been extended to all members....so they are obviously trying to ramroad the regulation through...because as aircraft owners themselves, I am sure they must really enjoy helping CASA implement regulation that makes their own lives harder...

I have a number of good friends on the board and as they are quite clearly the victims of skullduggery in this whole arrangement I will be lobbying to get them as many votes as possible at the upcoming AGM.

So lets get you over with first because there is a bigger issue here.

Taking the last matter first, the "skullduggery" victim is Mr. R-S, as the Supreme Court has decided.

I have been a member of enough clubs and societies to have seen any number of "Kitchen Cabinets", Cabals of all sorts, Dictators and would be dictators, axe grinders,, psycopaths and downright loonies and I have sadly participated in their execution on more than one occasion, so I think I know a smattering of their tricks.

To put that another way, I think I have a fair idea of what has occurred just be reading between the lines if there is some truth in them, so don't try that "victim" BS here.

Secondly, Ah Yes! "The meeting" if I have my facts straight, this was supposed to be for a select invited group, but now is open to "All members". That strongly suggests to me that a certain amount of backside covering is going on and that members interest has been piqued to say the least, but what would I know?

What I do know is that you cannot and better not call it a "meeting" implying that it is a meeting of members with the power to make a resolution, vote of confidence, expression of support for something or someone or anything else. All you can have is an information session that takes no action whatsoever unless you fulfil the requirements of your constitution and the Corporate law about notifying all members, tabling of motions, etc.

The intent I've occasionally seen in the conduct of such meetings, called in haste and attended by a minor portion of the membership, is to use the outcome at a latter date to intimidate the rest of the membership through such assertions as "That was explained at the meeting"/ "didn't you attend the meeting? If you had you would know,blah,blah". In other words suggesting that the meeing was the definitive decision point for action - which it cannot be. In other words, part of an attempt to railroad the membership.

In other words, call it an information session, distribute an attendance list to all members along with whatever Q & A, presentation transcripts you have, or better still, don't hold it at all until there are discussion drafts sent to everyone, but even then , it can only be a Q & A session. Railroading is not a good tactic.

As for the motives of the Board, I cannot comment, except to say I have seen "clubs within clubs" before with the strangest of ideas.


But now the big issue: Exactly what does CASA think its doing? Is CASA aware of the likely attitude of the average member of AWAL to it's proposals? If that attitude is likely to be negative, how did it think it was going to convince the Board of AWAL to engage with it and possibly support it? What is the safety case for changing the rules - apart from the obvious one that if all flight is prohibited, accidents will not occur.

The only "safe" thing for CASA to do now is not to engage with AWAL in private or to wait till there is a new Board after a meeting, as well as fully disclose their proposed regulations and the associated safety case.

[T28D]

Sunfish, a great summation of the position at present, your management expertise allows you as usual to present a succinct summary without involving personalities.

Well done.

[Creampuff]

Sunfish: :D:D

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,
Well said.
As for the proposed changes, both to Part 21 and the proposed Part 132, they speak for themselves.
Tootle pip!!

[PAIN_NET]

Gentlemen – in the interests of being accorded the pleasure of making your own decisions:-

Proposed - Part 132 (http://www21.zippyshare.com/v/42232502/file.html) - legislative changes.

Click the blue Part 132 link, this will take you to a download page. Click the "Download" big red button on the top right corner and the document will appear in wherever you keep your down loads (or, get the kids to do it).

PAIN_Net does NOT track downloads.

P18 –AKA - Blind Freddy

[LeadSled]

Folks,
There has been much said about what is in the proposed legislative changes, those in favour suggesting those against don't know what they are talking about, but never with any details of why. Often expressed in somewhat stronger and more lurid terms.

In contrast, those opposing the new rules have presented fact and detail.

Now, here is the actual draft legislation, to read for yourself.

To understand the full impact of the new proposed impositions, you do need a working knowledge of the current rules, so it will help to understand the new impositions by using Stephen Dines overview as a guide as you have a look at the major changes.

This will not prevent you also making a judgement about the accuracy of Stephen's overview. We are still working our way through some of the details, but there is nothing that mitigates the major new imposts and the whole raft of new offences created, and the radically new styles of offences.

It's not easy reading, but the serious ramifications of this proposal getting onto the statute books cannot be overestimated.

As I have stated, time and again, this represents an attempt at a major winding back if the (then) new rights and freedoms represented by the changes instituted by the Government, with bi-partisan political support, in 1998.

Tootle pip!!

[Blowie]

Also in the interests of making your own decisions, and now that the draft legislation can at last be viewed, you should cross-check the quotes in Dines' report.

Dines' report: Zippyshare.com - review of 132 consultation draft.pdf (http://www8.zippyshare.com/v/26578507/file.html)



Watch out for the Ad buttons, click the red Download button at the top right corner of the window.

[T28D]

I see that unlike the freedom of speech practiced by Pprune the sitting members of the AWAL board have come out in a rather abrupt rebuttal of the recent criticisms of P132 but have offered no real explanatory material relying solely on the premise each of us can contact CASA and get private briefings or attend a soiree this weekend and listen to a CASA officer try to explain the ramifications of Part 132 .

This ignores the factual position of what is written in the draft, what is on the paper is the position, legal interpretation relies on what is written, not opinions, it is up to each of us to become properly informed and not rely on platitudes.

Provided this debate stays apersonal and is not a slanging match it will remain on Pprune where all can judge for themselves what the actual position is.

[Sunfish]

T28D it's called "abrogating responsibility" in other words, the board are saying " it's nothing to do with us" make up your own mind.

Sorry board, it's your job to convey the news to members, then carry the members views to casa and argue them.

.otherwise you are just a mouthpiece for casa like the union rep who represented me at Ansett.....right up until he joined Ansett hr.

That attitude could be summarized as:

"well we,don't have any problems with the new regs, if you do, well, that is your problem, not ours, you deal with it, don't expect us to lift a finger".

I am reminded of the late Don Dunstan who decided as tourism commissioner for Victoria that he knew more about the subject than the board he reported to and they abrogated their powers to him. There were Two copies of the consultants report that detailed the debacle that followed. The Premier, John Cain, told Donny that he hadn't read it and wouldn't need to if Don resigned. Donny fell on his sword, citing "personal reasons". The Two copies were destroyed. I proof read and contributed to that report. I wish I'd kept a copy it was a hot document for a while.

To put that another way, it is very unwise for a Board to deny that it has carriage of governance and policy, even more unwise to try to delegate what can't be delegated.

To put that yet another way, you are Directors, so start Directing. you cannot delegate.
If there is some obstacle, then remove it.

[Kharon]

Is there a whiff of conflict of interest in the air ? – seems passing strange that a board has not fully informed the members and has their opinion on the impact that a legislative change may have on the operation. Please tell me no one on the board had any part of actually writing the proposed rules and flogging them off to the members. Nah - but then, if it walks like a duck ??? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

[Blowie]

Kharon said

Please tell me no one on the board had any part of actually writing the proposed rules and flogging them off to the members.

Dunno who wrote it, but they sure knew about it.

18/01/13 From a letter e-mailed to all AWAL members

Dear Members

We’ve worked very hard to ensure the net result of these new regulations is positive for our community, and while CASA has not yet given us permission to release copies of the legislation, we can assure you that it is very favourable for us all! Another point worth mentioning is that Part 132 has been reviewed by the whole board on several occasions.

Stephen Crocker CEO

[LeadSled]

Folks,

Both Sunfish and Kharon make some interesting points.

A core issue here is why the AWAL board has acted like it has, until such a late stage of proceedings. At least the current President has woken up to the real results of the proposed onerous changes, and their likely costs and potential outcomes, both short and long term, for AWAL and its members, and the continued unfettered operation of Limited Cat. and Experimental Exhibition ex-military aircraft, now he has access to details, not assurances.

The next issue is why he has encountered such severe resistance in trying to communicate to the members his serious reservations about the proposals, previously sold as an unreserved "good thing". In short, severe resistance to anything but communication of the "party line".

I really am genuinely surprised that some of the directors, even in their own self interest (as they seem to have little understanding of their responsibilities to look after the interests of the members), have not baulked at some of the proposals, that will cost them dearly. I can only conclude they have not read and understood the changes. Or, perhaps, they don't even understand the present rules, so do not understand what a restrictive departure the new rules represent. Or they believe CASA is all powerful, and going along with CASA is going to produce the lest painful outcome.

Remember:"I'm from CASA, and I'm here to help".

As to Kharon's comments, it would be interesting, for example, to read the meeting notes of the CASA Part 132 Working Group, or the reports to the SCC Operational Standards Sub-Committee on the subject of Part 132, and see "who's who in the zoo".

Sound like a subject for an FOI application to me.

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Has the Board been directing the CEO, or has the CEO been directing the Board?
.
.
.Just asking?

[CrushDepth]

You guys would all be terribly upset without some comspiracy theory to throw round the place wouldn't you. Yes, or course the board would be trying hard to implement legislative changes that ground their own warbirds.. do you really think that only the enlightened Leadsled - Dines duo is competent enough to read and interpret legislative changes?

Most members I have spoken to are insulted by the contents of the envelope received from the President of AWAL in the mail the other day. It is patronising and assumes people are idiots.

The review of Part 132 by Dines is inaccurate and an attempt at scare-mongering. I would go so far as commenting that anyone with such a view on responsibility and liability (as highlighted in a number of his points) is naive as to the ways of the world. Try working in most other major industries in Australia. See what happens when you have a workplace fatality and you're in the spotlight justifying why your actions leading up to the accident are reasonable. Believe me, aviation does not have it hard.

The whole attitude of your safety being only your responsibility and therefore proposing that you be left to do your own thing is dangerous in itself. That's all well and good if you are flying your airplane over some property in the middle of Australia where you can't hurt anybody. Well guess what, if you happen to be flying over my children's school then I certainly want some level of checks and balances.

The following comment from the Dines review of Part 132 says it all. "Would - be adventure passengers who are under 18 or mentally - impaired must be accompanied on a flight by a parent or guardian. This will rule out the use of TWO - SEAT aircraft for such passengers." Excuse me? Does anyone think not being able to put a mentally impaired person in the back seat of a two seat aircraft where they can't be supervised or given assistance in an emergency is a bad thing? There are equally silly comments all through the article.

Anyone reading this review in detail and comparing it against the previous regs (and not doing so under a cloud of pre-determined opinion) will come to the conclusion that people are making an issue of this for some other motive.

I personally have only met one person who is sending his proxy the president's way, everyone else I have spoken to in WA isn't fooled and has sent Proxies in favour of the board.

There are two of you contributing to this thread who are far more heavily involved with the President's current course of action than you care to admit, and are using this thread for concurrent advertising in support of your efforts to undermine the board. Advance copies of letters the president is about to mail and email to all members don't fall off the back of trucks.

If people have so much time on their hands that they can engage in this sort of behaviour I suggest it is better spent volunteering to help out the Red Cross or another charity. There are lots of people out there who need help, and don't have the luxury of arguing that they shouldn't be responsible for things that they might do wrong. Get a grip.

[LeadSled]

CD,
Once again, lots of assertions, but not addressing the facts, and you clearly don't understand the liability issues raised by Dines ---- which is all part of the history of how we put the present legislation in place, and a very important part of the "big picture".

The present liability arrangements, as reflected in the current legislation, were subject to full and very thorough public consultation, as a stand alone issue. Both the then Attorney-General and Minister for Transport were aware in detail of what is now in place, and each ticked it off.

What CASA is proposing takes us back to the pre-1998 position, a serious regression, and a serious threat to nearly fifteen years of successful operations of both Experimental and Limited Cat. aircraft.

Why do you think the liability issues are currently addressed the way they are in the present law??

Do you really want to take the risks that the regression entails ??

It is not the same as industry generally, as a section in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and carried over from the predecessor act, makes quite clear. This in addition to the specific aviation regulations quoted by Dines.

Could I suggest you do a little homework on the subject, and address the issues ---- refute with facts, not assertions and attacks on individuals.

Quote the sections of the draft Part 132 where Dines has it wrong, and why he is wrong, don't just assert he is wrong. Who do you think is more likely to be right, somebody like Dines, with his immense background of knowledge and experience ( of which you may or may not be aware, but it is fact) or an ex-LAME who is now on the CASA payroll.

Explain the air safety reason why a lot of "warbirds" should be denied an Experimental Exhibition certificate.

Explain why an "Approved Operations Manual" (even AOC operators don't have that) is necessary for what are essentially private operations (they don't come under CAR (1988) 206), when all the proposed contents is already in aviation law, in existing documents already carried, or in the ESAM, with which AWAL members must comply.

To what demonstrated air safety problem is the proposed Part 132, and the changes to Part 21, the cost/benefit justified answer?

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

I can't comment on the specifics of the legislation and regulations referred to by crush depth, but I know an appeal to emotion ( school children) and an Ad Hominem attack when I see one.

Furthermore, as Crush Depth suggests, if workplace safety laws were applicable to aviation, ALL Aviation would cease permanently for good.

To put that another way, it is precisely because aviation risks cannot be managed via conventional prohibitions that we have CASA and the regs.

To put that another way, that's why ATSB examines accidents and not workcover - it's totally outside their scope.

I suggest CD that you provide some facts please.

[Kharon]

Page 3 – Cancellation of existing etc. (202.612 and 202.613). Will there be any provision made for obtaining a C of A before the expiry date? Given there is a process to be gone through, inevitable delays and expense. If my certificate expires Monday – can I arrange matters so I can go flying on Tuesday against my 'new' pre expiry issued approval, or can I only apply after the 'certificate' has expired and then go through the process?

Page 4 - 132.205: seems to be naive and clumsily drafted, without an increased safety benefit for anyone, particularly the occupants of the aircraft. It is understandable and reasonable that no one wants a Mig lobbing in the backyard, but given a few moments of thought blind Freddy can see the flaws. This part could easily be redrafted to achieve a safe, sensible outcome without the 'unrealistic' amateurish legal posturing . "Stress of weather M'lud", fly over the chook sheds or into the mountain, no other safe option. Fail – redraft.

Page 5 – Repeat for "built up areas".

There are in the Dines presentation some good, solid sensible reasons for all to pay attention, not only to the proposed rule set, but the methodology being applied. If this level of clumsy, naive drafting of regulation is applied across the board through to industry, be afraid. Be very afraid.

AWAL members – I know what a pain in the arse reading "rules" can be, but please carefully consider the ramifications and have your say.

Steam off – coffee on.

[owen meaney]

So some don't like proposed Part 132, but previously others want control by CASA for warbirds to prevent this:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/487144-barry-hempel-inquest.html

[Cloud Basher]

All very interesting.
Two things that concern me as a paying customer of warbirds and occasional pilot of said aircraft - although not a current member of AWAL

Firstly I remember going for a flight in a warbird when I was 14. It absolutely stoked the fire in my belly for these old aircraft. Not possible until I am 18 under the new regs in the aircraft I went up in ( two seats). By then if it wasn't for that flight I may have spent even more time chasing women rather than volunteering to help the local warbird owner.

Which is a nice Segway into my next point. Why get rid of volunteers. You do this you WILL kill warbirds in this country. Almost every single warbird owner, including David Lowy and TAM, rely either heavily or exclusively on volunteers to keep the old birds flying. People with a passion who do it because they want to see these aircraft flying. You get rid of volunteers you will effectively ground the fleet.

I guess this is the ultimate aim of CASA though. All aircraft grounded, we won't have aircraft ploughing into school yards...

I really have no dog in this fight other than a very large desire to keep them flying. I hope whichever way this goes, we can continue to see them in the air, owners can continue to afford to fly them, and passengers can continue to experience the sights, sounds and smells first hand from the cockpits of said aircraft. Mob yeah and I would love to fly the Harvard again one day...

Cheers
CB

[aroa]

Who's been reading the CASA "Threats Manual" 101 page 2.

Want to make a "safety" case against somebody or some type of operation do quote eg.. "What happens if he crashes into a kindergarden?" or "what
happens if this aircraft was to fly over built up areas":mad:

If you follow the CASA logic, all capital city airfields should be moved to the Simpson Desert... no built up areas or schools out there..ie "safe"

Please list the number of aircraft that have crashed into a schoolhouse/yard in Australia since 1911.
And how many "warbirds" have been involved in these accidents.?

[LeadSled]

Owen,
There is no shortage of current rules to cover the actions of Barry Hempel, Part 132 is not plugging a "rule free" area, far from it.

One the face of it, Barry had a long history of non-compliance with existing rules, this is almost certainly the case in the flight that resulted in his and his passenger's death.

I am always fascinated by the proponents of more "new" rules when it is clear that existing rules, that covered the issue, are being flouted --- in Barry's case, with apparent impunity and over a long period.

With somebody who had contempt for any rules, how are more rules going to help?

Tootle pip!!

[rongh]

Probably the best way to try and make sense of the proposed changes heralded by the new Part 132, is to read them for yourself.

I have recently located a link to the Draft and my reading indicates that my 'Experimental' CJ6A Nanchang will be grounded as soon as Part 132 becomes law.
In the Part 132 there should be path for it to go in to Limited, but this may be ruled out as my CJ has an M14P engine.
Read the Draft yourself to see why, and to see the harsh requirement for your own mandatory Limited manual that applies specifically to your own aircraft. You can't operate without it.

Download link to Draft of changes to Parts 21 & 45, plus new Part 132:
http://www21.zippyshare.com/v/42232502/file.html (http://www21.zippyshare.com/v/42232502/file.html)

Download link to stephen Dines report on the Draft:

http://www8.zippyshare.com/v/26578507/file.html (http://www8.zippyshare.com/v/26578507/file.html)

A bit complex to read through, but well worthwhile. You can see for yourself what the concern is about in relation to the operation of your own warbird.
Rgds,
Ron

[LeadSled]

Folks,
A meeting was held in Sydney this morning by AWAL.

We look forward to an account of proceeding, but a brief initial report suggests that the independent chairman of the meeting kept tight control, and a useful discussion ensued.

It seems like the shortcomings of the present proposed changes to regulations got a good airing in a somewhat calmer atmosphere than the AWAL AGM Part A.

We await a full and comprehensive analysis of the meeting, based on fact.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Buck,
Actually, nothing has changed about the unsatisfactory nature of the proposed changes, what happened today was that several senior CASA executives heard the case against what is proposed, and alternative and far more simple ways of achieving the objectives. Indeed, it seems likely they were as unaware of much of the detail, as were AWAL members.

I don't know whether you understand, but regulation should be the last resort, not the first. As is your established modus operandi, you play the man, not the ball, and assiduously ignore the very real issues.

Today changes nothing about the internal AWAL problems.

Maybe AWAL should take a leaf out of Recreational Aviation Australia's playbook, yesterday's proceedings at their EGM were positive and constructive. With no attempt to gloss over or deny the existence of internal problems, but a resolve to fix the problems in a open and transparent process.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Re: Creampuff, whilst we frequently disagree on many issues, I have no problem recognising his qualification and experience, and on this topic, his comments have been apt and to the point.

[Creampuff]

Mr Rogers

Could you quote anything I’ve said about the technical policy of warbird regulation?

Almost all of my comments have been about the governance of a corporate entity and the process of development of regulations – matters on which I’m confident I’m more capable of making objective observations than you.

I’ve made no comment on the argument about the technical policy of Part 132 – I don’t intend to waste my time reading draft regulations that will never be made.

I’ve made one specific comment on the regulations, based on the Dines material quoted in this thread. One. And it wasn’t about the technical policy argument. It was about Mr Dines’s misunderstanding of what strict liability means. As far as I am aware, Mr Dines and Leaddie are of the same mind on this issue. So I guess my one comment on was critical of Leaddie’s position ….

Do you entertain the possibility that it’s possible to have a mature discussion and agree with some points made and disagree with others?

[Wunwing]

Despite almost all of my current aviation activity being based around Warbird/Limited category aircraft, I will not enter this debate except to suggest that the word employee may not be as everyone is interpreting.

For those of us who unfortuntely have to immerse ourselves in the arcane system regs that CASA see as DAMP,the word employee is interpreted by them as meaning anyone in an organisation who carries out an SSAA.

If CASA is to be consistent, then employee should not be a problem in the Warbirds context.

Wunwing

[Kharon]

In my tribe there are two ways to gain knowledge, listening is considered easiest.

Feeling lucky?

[aroa]

1wing..unfortunately CASA is NOT consistent on its rulings or intent of words or meanings.
In fact it is THE most inconsistent bloody bureaucrazy on Planet Earth:mad:
You/orAnybody may call the person that works for free on yr Warbird just a "volunteer"..but in court CASA will say, as it suits for its current 'agenda',BYA or whatever..." This Your Honour, is just an ilegal ploy to rename an unpaid employee"
Dont laugh!..CASA's machinations are as masterful as they are mindless.:mad:

Just dont let truth, sanity, commonsense or reason get in the way when there is an opportunity for CASA to kick ar$e.!:mad:

[T28D]

Definition of employee: A person who is hired to provide services to a company on a regular basis in exchange for compensation

[tail wheel]

"Employee" is not defined in either the Civil Aviation Act 1988 or Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.

Therefore CASA can not attribute any different meaning to the word than the definition of "employee" in other more relevent Australian legislation, as T28D notes.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The significance, in part, of the "employee" in Part 132, whether directly employed or employed under a contract (even if an unpaid volunteer can be included), is that they must all be in receipt of the Approved Operations Manual, with all amendments up to date, and comply with the provisions of the manual, including any required training or re-current training required under the manual. Presumably, each task or "job" will have to be described to an "approved" standard, as will the processes for determining initial and ongoing competence, along with all the necessary "approved" records, created and maintained in a form for auditing, to determine ongoing compliance with the provisions of the Approved Operations Manual.

Non-compliance is a criminal offence, and potentially creating offences by the operator and the individual.

Anybody involved with AOCs ( although NO AOC is involved here ---- just all the trappings and traps --- how do you think NCNs/RCAs/Safety Alerts/current name of choice against an AOC are established) will be all too familiar with what I am getting at here --- Kharon??

A good reason to take off in the opposite direction, rather than help your mate with his "whatever" pride and joy.

Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

Whoa – big subject, thanks Leadie. I was tempted to duck this and pass it off with a flippant remark or two. However, with the CASA gargoyles breathing down your neck and the internal malarkey – off the top of my old wooden head, as a discussion start point only:-

Crock 'o ****e; or, a bloody good idea ? My battered two bob's worth weighs in on taking a measured, responsible, outcome based approach. Accepting prescriptive, complex regulation will not get you there; you will however cover the well padded CASA arse by accepting it.

Take 'volunteers' for example. Father and son team, Dads going flying, Junior is going to do the hand start, or plug in and remove the ground power. I doubt anyone 'off the street' could amble airside and do it without an unacceptable risk level; so it becomes reasonable that a degree of training is required. Here is where the problem begins; in the "operations manual" AOC type of system, there needs to be a presciptive system for qualifying and certifying the trainer, that requires oversight to ensure the trainer is doing the right thing, then you need a system for recording and monitoring that. Then come the 'training' course syllabus, training, qualification and recording; all available for audit. Now if there is a problem, (real or imagined) at audit, is the whole AWAL outfit at risk? The short answer is Yes, under the proposed rule set.

Leadie – It's a big subject - I am not sure what procedures are currently in place for AWAL, but I think we can acknowledge that there needs to some form of control document; lets call it a procedures and policy manual (PM). The manual could be exactly that; to be a member of AWAL the procedures and policy must be complied with. Then, the PM could carry an outcome based policy section related to "Volunteers". The section could identify high risk volunteer tasks like hand starting and low risk tasks like removing the Minty's wrappers from the cabin.

The AWAL policy makes the 'operator' responsible for providing a training section for the 'aircraft' i.e. – Hand swinging for DH 82 – then for ensuring the 'aircraft' listed volunteers were, indeed trained and qualified. I don't believe they need to be 'employees'; but they do need to properly trained to avoid the dangers. This probably 'informally' occurs every time two people decide to go airside, like taking the kids into the hanger – my boys knew the rules by the age of seven. Formalise this and you have the basis for a safety training case.

I'll bet my hat that AWAL could run a hand swinging course, combined with hand signals and ramp safety course; take a day with a BBQ afterwards. Pretty certificate for the dunny wall, valid for 5 years.

In short, the Organisation needs a general policy and procedures manual which provides and expects a safety 'outcome', the aircraft operator provides type specific procedures. It may seem like a lot of work – but it beats, hands down adopting an AOC type of control.

Invoice for four pints following – two for the words – 'tuthers for sticking out neck.:D

[LeadSled]

Kharon,
Very interesting answer ---- because the AWAL does have a document called the ESAM, their self-administration manual.

In the original policy agreements with CASA, going back to about 2007, control of the operations of aircraft administered by AWAL was to flow from the SAM (now ESAM) , and enforcement would have been by withdrawing approval to operate.

Generally, an outcome based approach, and it complied with Bruce Byron's Directive 16, a document less than popular with a certain section of middle CASA.

Now we are to have an expensive and cumbersome Approved Operations Manual specific to each aircraft, mandated approved inclusions will undoubtedly grow like Topsy, as they have with current operations manuals. What is already required by Part 132 is bad enough. Elements in CASA seem unable to get their minds around the idea that repeating regulatory requirements in manuals will somehow improve compliance. I have never seen any believable evidence to support this approach.

That AWAL manuals will be "approved" and not "accepted" has some interesting ramifications for AWAL, particularly when it come to negotiating their next PLI insurance premiums.

Indeed, the proposed Part 132 very unwisely re-introduces liability issues for CASA that are explicitly excluded by present legislation --- why would anyone in aviation, including CASA, knowingly take on additional liability ---- I would think it is "unknowingly".

"Tweaking" Part 132 will not fit the bill, the policy behind the proposals is the core problem. The original policy agreements with CASA achieved the same objectives, without any of the presently proposed legislation, undermining the intent of a large slab of Part 21.

Tootle pip!!

PS: You have very thoroughly outlined the potential nightmare of accountability for training "employees", and Part 132 explicitly excludes volunteers, but the old adage:"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a concept unknown to the "born regulator".

[DBTW]

The news from the AWAL AGM looks like things have stabilised and the world did not end. Are we allowed to all pull together now?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadie, maybe start a separate thread re-part132. My son is directly affected by this change to the regs.

[LeadSled]

OZ,
Good idea, and we should include the very adverse changes to Experimental as well, which, once again, sees Australia departing from long standing international practice, particularly US, where our present rules came from, more or less.

At lest the fracas has had at least a temporary result, CASA are now publicly saying the published draft regulations are just a consultation draft, which is not what the CASA representative at the AWAL AGM Part 1 said.

Not to be ignored is cost shifting, given the taxes we pay, directly (fuel levy) and general taxation, to fund CASA.

Some years back, Bruce Byron thought the Ag. operators were good candidates for self administration, and he was right.

The Ag, Association was not adverse to the idea but they, not surprisingly, had no interest in paying twice. At that stage, their combined fuel taxes were something like $900,000 a year, so their answer was, refund out fuel taxes, and we will consider self administration.

That is where the idea came to an abrupt halt.

Tootle pip!!