I despair - RAAus Chair Michael Monck doesn't support changing the Act
If you understand the inglorious history of the so called CAGRO, you will understand that it was a rejection of the idea of a Unicom, common and proven elsewhere in the world, and a way of creating jobs for retired/redundant ATC/FSO perX.
And why was it rejected --- in part because of the attitude of the union alluded to above, to quote their then "Technical Director", more or less verbatim: "I don't care if it is fXXX safer in the US, we are not going to do what the fXXX septics do". In part because CASA was "culturally" opposed, the anti-FAA "culture".
And mostly because the use of Unicom was proposed by Dick Smith.
Tootle pip!!
I'm pretty sure that runway collision happened about the time DS was in CASA. He was certainly there when the decision to almost halve the number of controllers was taken. What influence if any he had on this decision I don't know, perhaps he can explain.
If there had been a CAGRO at PJKT who issued a 'Clear to Land' and it wasnt ...who's ultimately responsible for the bingle ??
The PIC, even having been issued with a clearance, and who is is ultimately responsible to the safety of the aircraft... and has ensure that the landing path ahead IS clear, as stated by the Controller/cagro.
Having only just avoided a collision with a person on the runway, just off the keys, walking in the landing direction with a noisy putt-putt paint machine. and a dead radio in his pocket...was because I checked the threshold with abt 100yds to go. Lucky I did because there would have been more that just white paint all over the runway..!!
The PIC, even having been issued with a clearance, and who is is ultimately responsible to the safety of the aircraft... and has ensure that the landing path ahead IS clear, as stated by the Controller/cagro.
Having only just avoided a collision with a person on the runway, just off the keys, walking in the landing direction with a noisy putt-putt paint machine. and a dead radio in his pocket...was because I checked the threshold with abt 100yds to go. Lucky I did because there would have been more that just white paint all over the runway..!!
Folks,
Back to the original thread ---- in my view it is quite spurious to equate "promote and foster" by whatever description, and the primary purpose of changing the Act.
The primary purpose of changing the Act is to force CASA to use genuine risk based analysis for proposed regulation, that result to be cost/benefit justified ---- that is, the benefits (costs savings, including the cost of lives saved using the conventional Commonwealth estimates) is greater than costs imposed on the aviation sector.
As many of you know, CASA is supposed to do that anyway, to follow the various Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation guidelines, which is applicable to ALL Australian Government departments and instrumentalities, but CASA simply refuses to comply, based on their current interpretation of S9A of the Act.
CASA also ignores the guidelines for the classification of offences, making use of "strict liability" over a range well beyond the guidelines for regulation making.
What is so dumb about the apparent position of the management of the RAOz is that the proposed changes to the Act would be incontestably very beneficial to the 10,000 or so members of RAOz, if not to the perceived benefit of the current management.
Minimum regulation benefits the whole aviation sector.
The answer to this is in the hands of the members, the board can be voted out.
Tootle pip!!
Back to the original thread ---- in my view it is quite spurious to equate "promote and foster" by whatever description, and the primary purpose of changing the Act.
The primary purpose of changing the Act is to force CASA to use genuine risk based analysis for proposed regulation, that result to be cost/benefit justified ---- that is, the benefits (costs savings, including the cost of lives saved using the conventional Commonwealth estimates) is greater than costs imposed on the aviation sector.
As many of you know, CASA is supposed to do that anyway, to follow the various Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation guidelines, which is applicable to ALL Australian Government departments and instrumentalities, but CASA simply refuses to comply, based on their current interpretation of S9A of the Act.
CASA also ignores the guidelines for the classification of offences, making use of "strict liability" over a range well beyond the guidelines for regulation making.
What is so dumb about the apparent position of the management of the RAOz is that the proposed changes to the Act would be incontestably very beneficial to the 10,000 or so members of RAOz, if not to the perceived benefit of the current management.
Minimum regulation benefits the whole aviation sector.
The answer to this is in the hands of the members, the board can be voted out.
Tootle pip!!
A CA/GRO can't issue a landing clearance.
The decision to land is always up to the Pilot in Command in any type of airspace.
The decision to land is always up to the Pilot in Command in any type of airspace.
Folks,
Back to the original thread ---- in my view it is quite spurious to equate "promote and foster" by whatever description, and the primary purpose of changing the Act.
The primary purpose of changing the Act is to force CASA to use genuine risk based analysis for proposed regulation, that result to be cost/benefit justified ---- that is, the benefits (costs savings, including the cost of lives saved using the conventional Commonwealth estimates) is greater than costs imposed on the aviation sector.
As many of you know, CASA is supposed to do that anyway, to follow the various Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation guidelines, which is applicable to ALL Australian Government departments and instrumentalities, but CASA simply refuses to comply, based on their current interpretation of S9A of the Act.
CASA also ignores the guidelines for the classification of offences, making use of "strict liability" over a range well beyond the guidelines for regulation making.
What is so dumb about the apparent position of the management of the RAOz is that the proposed changes to the Act would be incontestably very beneficial to the 10,000 or so members of RAOz, if not to the perceived benefit of the current management.
Minimum regulation benefits the whole aviation sector.
The answer to this is in the hands of the members, the board can be voted out.
Tootle pip!!
Back to the original thread ---- in my view it is quite spurious to equate "promote and foster" by whatever description, and the primary purpose of changing the Act.
The primary purpose of changing the Act is to force CASA to use genuine risk based analysis for proposed regulation, that result to be cost/benefit justified ---- that is, the benefits (costs savings, including the cost of lives saved using the conventional Commonwealth estimates) is greater than costs imposed on the aviation sector.
As many of you know, CASA is supposed to do that anyway, to follow the various Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation guidelines, which is applicable to ALL Australian Government departments and instrumentalities, but CASA simply refuses to comply, based on their current interpretation of S9A of the Act.
CASA also ignores the guidelines for the classification of offences, making use of "strict liability" over a range well beyond the guidelines for regulation making.
What is so dumb about the apparent position of the management of the RAOz is that the proposed changes to the Act would be incontestably very beneficial to the 10,000 or so members of RAOz, if not to the perceived benefit of the current management.
Minimum regulation benefits the whole aviation sector.
The answer to this is in the hands of the members, the board can be voted out.
Tootle pip!!
What? The media made a mistake, surely not !!!
[QUOTE=Squawk7700;10236955]
7700,
If you read my post carefully, I did say "apparent position".
On the general subject, as with most things aviation, the New Zealanders have got it right, with their Civil Aviation Act 1990.S14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Objectives of Minister
I would also suggest that, re; "promote and foster" and a controversy many years ago in US, the controversy generated by the then Inspector General of Transport (or some similar name) was largely generated to promote a (her) fledgling political career, that went nowhere.
Despite claims to the contrary, nobody has ever established a real (as in proven) case that "promote and foster" ever resulted in "industry capture" of the FAA.
Occasional cases of individual inspectors getting too close to airlines/companies to which they were assigned are not "industry capture".
Tootle pip!!
I would suggest LS that before you twist the knife too far after it has already been inserted, that you check with the Raaus to make sure that the quoted parties haven’t been incorrectly paraphrased and or quoted out of context by the reporter!
What? The media made a mistake, surely not !!!
[QUOTE]What? The media made a mistake, surely not !!!
7700,
If you read my post carefully, I did say "apparent position".
On the general subject, as with most things aviation, the New Zealanders have got it right, with their Civil Aviation Act 1990.S14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Objectives of Minister
The objectives of the Minister under this Act are—
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(a)
(b)
to undertake the Minister’s functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system; and
(b)
to ensure that New Zealand’s obligations under international civil aviation agreements are implemented.
I would also suggest that, re; "promote and foster" and a controversy many years ago in US, the controversy generated by the then Inspector General of Transport (or some similar name) was largely generated to promote a (her) fledgling political career, that went nowhere.
Despite claims to the contrary, nobody has ever established a real (as in proven) case that "promote and foster" ever resulted in "industry capture" of the FAA.
Occasional cases of individual inspectors getting too close to airlines/companies to which they were assigned are not "industry capture".
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
If the RAA Chairman has been misquoted surely he would leap on this site and say so!
I agree with those who say that RAA would benefit from the proposed changes to the act.
I am a member of RAA and would support the Chairman clarifying his position.
I agree with those who say that RAA would benefit from the proposed changes to the act.
I am a member of RAA and would support the Chairman clarifying his position.
Just to be clear, like Dick, I have been a member of RAOz back to AUF days, well over 20 years.
I have supported increased weight limits, indeed had been involved in the 488 to 544 move, and support the move to 760.
What I don't support is the idea of any RAOz registered aircraft NOT being available for owner maintenance, and do NOT support other than "drivers license" medical standard being applied to RAOz pilots. The latter are NOT progress, and such "tightening" of alleged "standards" has no basis in risk management.
Tootle pip!!
And the relevance of that is??
In years gone by, I was a member of SAAA for quite a while, in ABAA days, and became quite disgusted at the way members were being subjected to a "cashectomy" under the ABAA system. And, of course, membership of SAAA was compulsory if you wanted to be an amateur builder. It was made very clear to me, in as many words, that amateur builders could not be trusted to behave in their own interests, only close and prescriptive (and expensive) supervision was acceptable, safety-wise. I can remember the lecture I got on the subject like it was yesterday.
Australia is not the USA, you know!!
None of this damned Yankee "freedom" nonsense.
I had one great benefit, I didn't start flying in Australia, I had time in UK/USA/Canada first, I knew from experience that the Australian approach to aviation in general was nonsense, to this day, far too few understand that, and apparently believe that the general Australia approach is the norm.
The one bright spot, over the years, has been the reforms in place in 1998.
In late 1996 or early 1997, the then President of SAAA presented the CEO/DAS of CASA with a draft "Experimental" category "regulation". First and foremost, it ignored the FAA equivalent entirely, and completely neglected all the other experimental categories. All it was: all the ABAA restrictions re-badged, all to be "enforced" by SAAA.
As some of you will recall, this SAAA "Experimental" was dropped like a hot brick by the Minister's Program Advisory Panel, PAP, and the CASA DAS, Leroy Keith, the policy was less regulation, and less intrusion, particularly where any risk takers assumed the risk voluntarily. Not more.
The Howard Government's approach, under Minister John Sharp, was really quite revolutionary for Australian aviation. In short, for volunteer risk takers, it was not for the Government to protect people from themselves, that is, aviation should not be treated any differently to any other sport or recreation.
And the result was: A Part 21 with LESS restrictions and MORE freedoms than the US or virtually anywhere else, and a few innovations, such as a Limiter Category far less restricted and far more useful than the US equivalent.
And, if course, big time and money savings for amateur builders, SAAA membership was no longer mandatory, expensive SAAA "inspections" of various kinds, all for substantial fees, were no longer mandatory, and you could build whatever you liked, no longer being restricted to "approved" (or whatever the term was) designs.
And bottom line: Contrary to the "expectations" of the "experts", one thing happened, one didn't.
Builder numbers boomed, and:
Bodies raining from the sky, along with bits of aeroplane, didn't.
The 19- (Experimental) register for AUF/RAOz became the foundation of an expansion of a size that nobody, including me, predicted.
Tootle pip!!
Vag277,
And the relevance of that is??
And the relevance of that is??
It is entirely relevant your honour. Those who have been through the system themselves would truly understand. If you haven’t, and you listen to people like Sunfish, you don’t really have a valid reason for your opinion.
LS
Interesting. I have built and flown 2 aircraft, one under each system. My experiences do not match your perceptions. I. have also been a volunteer Tech Counsellor providing support to other builders and have encountered some whose ego substantially exceeded their knowledge and abilities resulting in potentially lethal errors in their build. Oversight/support is important.
Interesting. I have built and flown 2 aircraft, one under each system. My experiences do not match your perceptions. I. have also been a volunteer Tech Counsellor providing support to other builders and have encountered some whose ego substantially exceeded their knowledge and abilities resulting in potentially lethal errors in their build. Oversight/support is important.
LS
Interesting. I have built and flown 2 aircraft, one under each system. My experiences do not match your perceptions. I. have also been a volunteer Tech Counsellor providing support to other builders and have encountered some whose ego substantially exceeded their knowledge and abilities resulting in potentially lethal errors in their build. Oversight/support is important.
Interesting. I have built and flown 2 aircraft, one under each system. My experiences do not match your perceptions. I. have also been a volunteer Tech Counsellor providing support to other builders and have encountered some whose ego substantially exceeded their knowledge and abilities resulting in potentially lethal errors in their build. Oversight/support is important.
Sad attitude, Australian can't be trusted, must have oversight and support ---- should be mandatory, of course, in the view of the providers of such "services"??
The "Nanny State" must prevail??
What do you think makes "Australians" so different to citizens of the US???, Said US citizens manage quite well to voluntarily seek whatever assistance they feel they might need, and provided so well by EAA ( of which I have also been a member for many years).
Tootle pip!!
PS: It is NOT my "perception". I have been very close to this issue for a long time now, 25+ years.
Last edited by LeadSled; 4th Sep 2018 at 03:12. Reason: PS added
A few facts:
Membership of SAAA has never been mandatory.
The charges levied by SAAA have always been to recover the costs incurred in exercising delegations or approvals issued by CASA.
Most builders do seek advice and assistance but not always.
My grounds for these views are:
45 year membership of ULAA/SAAA
2 aircraft designs taken through the previous ABAA process for ABAA to be issued, before the advent of EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR BUILT category and
as previously noted, two aircraft built & flown - one under each system.
What have you done in this field, other than criticise?
Membership of SAAA has never been mandatory.
The charges levied by SAAA have always been to recover the costs incurred in exercising delegations or approvals issued by CASA.
Most builders do seek advice and assistance but not always.
My grounds for these views are:
45 year membership of ULAA/SAAA
2 aircraft designs taken through the previous ABAA process for ABAA to be issued, before the advent of EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR BUILT category and
as previously noted, two aircraft built & flown - one under each system.
What have you done in this field, other than criticise?
Vag277,
Re. membership, pre 1998 and ABAA, check your facts.
Yes, I am criticising SAAA, with bleeding good reason, but you see things through a "traditional Australian" lens.
What you and your cohort never answer is the question:
Why should Australian builders not have the same freedoms as their US peers??
At least have a go at answering it!!
Why are you so afraid of answering this question, what is it about freedom that so worries you, frightens you, that you will (and have here) come down on the side of restriction and supervision. And generally this attitude is pretty selective, it only applies to aviation, or do you believe supervision should be applied to any voluntary activities that can be lethal.
What have I done: Played a major role in dumping the SAAA proposal for an "Experimental" category in 1996, and putting in place CASR Part 21, with the US freedoms and more, which the SAAA has tried to undermine for years, by reimposing various "mandatory" processes. And thereby reimpose a rent seeking cash flow.
Tootle pip!!
Re. membership, pre 1998 and ABAA, check your facts.
Yes, I am criticising SAAA, with bleeding good reason, but you see things through a "traditional Australian" lens.
What you and your cohort never answer is the question:
Why should Australian builders not have the same freedoms as their US peers??
At least have a go at answering it!!
Why are you so afraid of answering this question, what is it about freedom that so worries you, frightens you, that you will (and have here) come down on the side of restriction and supervision. And generally this attitude is pretty selective, it only applies to aviation, or do you believe supervision should be applied to any voluntary activities that can be lethal.
What have I done: Played a major role in dumping the SAAA proposal for an "Experimental" category in 1996, and putting in place CASR Part 21, with the US freedoms and more, which the SAAA has tried to undermine for years, by reimposing various "mandatory" processes. And thereby reimpose a rent seeking cash flow.
Tootle pip!!
Of course RAAus want CASA to continue over regulating GA. The more hoops and hurdles CASA put in the way of an aspiring pilot, the more of them will join RAAus. So it suits them for CASA and the Act to remain as is.
