Home Built Spitfire
Yes, but like gun ownership, experimental aviation in the US has been there since the the beginning, so taking it away is legally fraught. The precedent has been set.
The precedents in Australia have been set too, but not generally in the ways of liberty and freedom...
The precedents in Australia have been set too, but not generally in the ways of liberty and freedom...
Andy RR,
Not really.
The whole gun issue is bound up in a provision of the US Constitution, and court precedents flowing therefrom. Indeed, the 2nd Amendment dates from 1791, just a wee bit before the Wright Bros. Almost before the Mongolfier brothers.
The FAA Experimental Certificate (including Amateur Built) only dates from the 1950's, after hard fought battles against vested interest with names like Cessna and Beechcraft etc., who only saw reduced sales of their products --- but all in the interests of "safety", you understand, not using "aviation safety" rules for commercial protection, perish the thought.
Indeed, some of the illogical conditions such as the "51%" rule, and how it is defined, and even the existence of the 51% rule are examples of the political compromises to placate the light aircraft manufacturers, that resulted in the emergence of the rule.
Cessna and Beech etc. "agreed" to the 51% rule, because they thought it would be virtually impossible to achieve, and would, therefor, stymie the whole idea.
Even the name "Experimental" was designed to detract from the whole idea, in the minds of the general public, and hopefully (in the minds of the opposition) lead to popular "safety" demands that would kill or severely limit success.
The whole history of EAA, its raison d'etre, is the history of making it work.
Tootle pip!
Not really.
The whole gun issue is bound up in a provision of the US Constitution, and court precedents flowing therefrom. Indeed, the 2nd Amendment dates from 1791, just a wee bit before the Wright Bros. Almost before the Mongolfier brothers.
The FAA Experimental Certificate (including Amateur Built) only dates from the 1950's, after hard fought battles against vested interest with names like Cessna and Beechcraft etc., who only saw reduced sales of their products --- but all in the interests of "safety", you understand, not using "aviation safety" rules for commercial protection, perish the thought.
Indeed, some of the illogical conditions such as the "51%" rule, and how it is defined, and even the existence of the 51% rule are examples of the political compromises to placate the light aircraft manufacturers, that resulted in the emergence of the rule.
Cessna and Beech etc. "agreed" to the 51% rule, because they thought it would be virtually impossible to achieve, and would, therefor, stymie the whole idea.
Even the name "Experimental" was designed to detract from the whole idea, in the minds of the general public, and hopefully (in the minds of the opposition) lead to popular "safety" demands that would kill or severely limit success.
The whole history of EAA, its raison d'etre, is the history of making it work.
Tootle pip!
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This probably is more appropriate here than in the Skidmore rattle out of the pram thread.
Yes the EAA model in the US is a good one, proven successful and as no one points out the EAA cannot be coerced by the FAA by threatened removal of exemptions unlike the Australian situation whee the organisations are always afraid of losing some mostly imaginary privilege.
The problems with compulsory membership of private aviation bodies with delegated powers of the State are many.
For starters, for those who work in the industry it amounts to compulsory unionism, something we aren't meant to have in Australia.
There's a problem if you are refused membership or thrown out of the organisation. This can happen as the people running them carry out their little vendettas against people they don't like, for real or imagined transgressions. Or even for pointing out the unintended consequences of some proposed course of action. Been there, done that, got the T shirt.
There is also the issue of the fragmentation of any political lobbying by splitting up these groups into their own silos. Each group is given some small concession by CASA
which each then jealously guard. The groups won't back each other as a consequence.
It is very bad for the organisation itself. Having a captive membership base and income base makes the organisation sluggish and lazy. You can take it to the bank that CASA will make it impossible for competitive organisations to exist in any one branch of recreational aviation.
Let alone the human rights issue of free association which includes the right NOT to associate. I don't need membership of a motoring organisation in order to drive a car.
Skidmore has decided to exercise this right in regards to AOPA but it is consequence free for him.
Why do we need a series of these private organisations to do CASA's job anyway? It puts a lot of work, responsibility and liability on private citizens for no good reason.
There are alternative models for doing this as is done in the USA.We're not talking about no regulation or oversight.
They have a 115 Kg + pilot class of aircraft that they don't even recognise as aircraft (Part 103 ultralights). Doesn't seem to be a problem. This and the fact the Brits
recently de-regulated ALL airworthiness requirements on single seater aircraft under 300 Kg gross weight, even factory built, roughly correspond to our 95.10 ultralights.
We could just use our current Recreational Pilot Licence, endorsed for various classes of recreational aircraft, for pilot licencing, with further easing of the medical for gliders/motorgliders and aircraft under 600Kg gross to the current RAAus standard(State driver's Licence for private cars) although given the current US push to abolish their Class 3 medical for private pilots this could be extended to all GA types able to be flown on the current RPL.
CASA can appoint suitable people as testing officers for licence issue. At least that way everyone does the same ground school about the rules of the air and aero theory.
Likewise airworthiness can be deregulated for gliders/motorgliders and aircraft under 600Kg, to owner maintenance, a category which exists in Canada. Again I'd like that extended to the simple GA types as is done in Canada.
That way everybody is brought into the tent instead of existing in their own "silos". Safety information can be shared (it isn't now), the various organisations can better get on with promotion and education (including maintenance and operations) and CASA can live up to its own corporate motto of "Safe Skies for All". It sure isn't now.
Look up the nasty glider accident at Ararat on April 1 2012. I'm unaware of any GFA effort to weed out incompetents like that and to add insult to injury, there is an annual award in the name of the instructor. I was gobsmacked by this.
There are also things missing from the GFA investigation. The whole reason ATSB is meant to be independent of CASA is so that if an accident is at least partly caused by the regulator's own rules and procedures this will be brought to light.
Yes the EAA model in the US is a good one, proven successful and as no one points out the EAA cannot be coerced by the FAA by threatened removal of exemptions unlike the Australian situation whee the organisations are always afraid of losing some mostly imaginary privilege.
The problems with compulsory membership of private aviation bodies with delegated powers of the State are many.
For starters, for those who work in the industry it amounts to compulsory unionism, something we aren't meant to have in Australia.
There's a problem if you are refused membership or thrown out of the organisation. This can happen as the people running them carry out their little vendettas against people they don't like, for real or imagined transgressions. Or even for pointing out the unintended consequences of some proposed course of action. Been there, done that, got the T shirt.
There is also the issue of the fragmentation of any political lobbying by splitting up these groups into their own silos. Each group is given some small concession by CASA
which each then jealously guard. The groups won't back each other as a consequence.
It is very bad for the organisation itself. Having a captive membership base and income base makes the organisation sluggish and lazy. You can take it to the bank that CASA will make it impossible for competitive organisations to exist in any one branch of recreational aviation.
Let alone the human rights issue of free association which includes the right NOT to associate. I don't need membership of a motoring organisation in order to drive a car.
Skidmore has decided to exercise this right in regards to AOPA but it is consequence free for him.
Why do we need a series of these private organisations to do CASA's job anyway? It puts a lot of work, responsibility and liability on private citizens for no good reason.
There are alternative models for doing this as is done in the USA.We're not talking about no regulation or oversight.
They have a 115 Kg + pilot class of aircraft that they don't even recognise as aircraft (Part 103 ultralights). Doesn't seem to be a problem. This and the fact the Brits
recently de-regulated ALL airworthiness requirements on single seater aircraft under 300 Kg gross weight, even factory built, roughly correspond to our 95.10 ultralights.
We could just use our current Recreational Pilot Licence, endorsed for various classes of recreational aircraft, for pilot licencing, with further easing of the medical for gliders/motorgliders and aircraft under 600Kg gross to the current RAAus standard(State driver's Licence for private cars) although given the current US push to abolish their Class 3 medical for private pilots this could be extended to all GA types able to be flown on the current RPL.
CASA can appoint suitable people as testing officers for licence issue. At least that way everyone does the same ground school about the rules of the air and aero theory.
Likewise airworthiness can be deregulated for gliders/motorgliders and aircraft under 600Kg, to owner maintenance, a category which exists in Canada. Again I'd like that extended to the simple GA types as is done in Canada.
That way everybody is brought into the tent instead of existing in their own "silos". Safety information can be shared (it isn't now), the various organisations can better get on with promotion and education (including maintenance and operations) and CASA can live up to its own corporate motto of "Safe Skies for All". It sure isn't now.
Look up the nasty glider accident at Ararat on April 1 2012. I'm unaware of any GFA effort to weed out incompetents like that and to add insult to injury, there is an annual award in the name of the instructor. I was gobsmacked by this.
There are also things missing from the GFA investigation. The whole reason ATSB is meant to be independent of CASA is so that if an accident is at least partly caused by the regulator's own rules and procedures this will be brought to light.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eyrie, a convincing argument well put. You could have also mentioned the coroners comments about the Goulburn glider crash. The coroners description of the gliding operations as ""complacent, overconfident and seemingly confused by their own "fairly amateur rules and traditions", . Sort of sums up the insular attitude that these organisations develop.
