Australian Warbirds
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!!
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!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 30th Jan 2013 at 06:33.
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. 
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!
Lucky they will never make it into law.
… Most offences and therefore penalties are applied automatically, as offences of ‘strict liability’. Thus, the CASA approach is to charge people with offences …
Stick to the techo stuff, Mr D.
On the techo stuff front, there do seem to be numerous overkills in those draft regs!
Lucky they will never make it into law.
On the techo stuff front, there do seem to be numerous overkills in those draft regs! 
Lucky they will never make it into law.
Lucky they will never make it into law.
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!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 30th Jan 2013 at 05:09.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheat from Chaff.
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.
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.
Last edited by Kharon; 31st Jan 2013 at 01:03. Reason: To find out who to barrack for -
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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]
Yours faithfully,
M.P. Rolph-Smith
Dines was never DSA.
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 BS
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
Whether we like it or not the regulator periodically changes the rules
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.
For the first time, private use will actually be legal. That's big!
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.
It just isn't that simple! Old hatreds and vested interests at work.
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.
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,
Last edited by LeadSled; 31st Jan 2013 at 14:18.
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"?
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"?
Last edited by Sunfish; 31st Jan 2013 at 19:15.
Nononsence said:
Leaddie said:
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?
We don't like strict liability, but it is CASA policy
Sorry, that's wrong as well, but this post is long enough
Perhaps if people knew the truth, they might focus their energies more effectively?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
say it...
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".
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".
By the way, would a Tiger Moth fall under the definition of "Warbirds"?
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!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 31st Jan 2013 at 23:19.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
In aviation, which appears to be the desired result of CASA ministrations.
Avalon is going to be the decision point.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by T28D; 1st Feb 2013 at 11:40.