Wow actus rhesus...more monkey business ! Are you quite sure of that.? Proof positive ? etc...after all this is a rumour network
That might be you story, but I heard another from an impeccable source...that differs, greatly.

Never mind, Ive long understood with CAsA to make a 'case' or bolster their bastardry or denigrate the victim, any old BS will do.

When I was a kid, I always wanted to be a pilot. I thought that those guys (and girls) must be so smart.

Then I became a pilot, and occassionally read prune, and I realise that the spread of intelligence amongst pilots is no different to the normal population. Some pilots are super smart and some are just bloody ignorant.

Hempy - obviously you weren't born when Dick flew his tiny little 206 (low skids) VH-DIK around the world ?

And weren't watching the news when he did lots of other cool aviation stuff.

Now I don't always agree with Dick, and sometime I argue with him (which he encourages), but there is no taking away from the facts.

Have a read - and then google more.

Richard 'Dick' Smith AC - Australian Museum

And it quotes Dick "flying solo around the world" - as usual, no mention of the support team that paved the way and assisted him throughout (the best money could buy). As with all self-promoters, all is not at seems...

D-9,
As I said to Hempy, that's another subject.
Start another thread, if you like.
What's really being discussed here is a bit more important.

Fight you bastards! That's exactly what CAsA want you to do.


Divide and conquer. Well, we're already divided by the "small poppy syndrome".

Well Skidmore at least can still fly legally without being a member of AOPA. Everyone should have the right to resign from organisations whose methods, ethics, views and honesty he or she disagrees with.
Unfortunately Mr Skidmore, you and your organisation demand that thousands of Australian citizens remain members of various private aviation bodies in order to carry out their favourite aviation activity and have thus removed this right that you just exercised.

Well, it's either belong to a sport aviation association type body or fly on the VH register with a CASA licence, so overall the choice isn't so bad. What's the alternative, to fly with no regulatory framework or supervisory body at all?

aroa,
What really happened, did it run out of motion lotion, and the illegal "run on air" mod didn't work, or wouldn't the engine run with the fuel tap in the "OFF" position??
Tootle pip!!
PS: To be fair to CASA, it is often sworn bullsh1t, that makes it more credible, doesn't it??

AOTW,
Have a look at part 61 and you'll find for example that there is no such thing as a PPL (G) (for glider) in Australia. Yes there is a CASA issued PPL (G) but it is NOT valid for use in Australia. It is issued by CASA on request and after jumping through many hoop,s for use overseas so that Australian glider pilots can fly gliders in other countries for contests etc. Everywhere else in the world wants a government issued licence not some piece of paper issued by a private body.
In fact, as overseas authorities issue temporary permits or licences on the basis of your home country qualification (that is good for use in your home country), I doubt that this subterfuge by CASA/GFA would in fact be recognised by anyone else if they knew it wasn't valid in Australia).
I've got no problem with flying a VH registered aircraft on a CASA licence (gliders and motorgliders are VH registered aircraft) but CASA says you can't do that as they don't have the licence.This is a result of some nasty collusion between CASA and the GFA to maintain the GFA in a monopoly position. Negotiated in part by CASA officers who were GFA members. Nice, eh?
Until 2009 you could fly a glider without actually being a GFA member and there was a process in place to formally allow this in future. McCormick ordered this to cease.

Yes, something about 500 hours in glider command before you can fly a motor glider comes to mind, but that's probably frog$hit as well.

Thanks Eyrie, I didn't know that. So are there alternative glider groups to the GFA in a position to have similar standards oversight? I can see why the nomination of a particular group as the representative one would make sense from a standards and communication point of view, but if there's infighting and power struggles between groups it's obviously not good from the user point of view.

What standards oversight is required when Aus glider certificates are not ICAO recognised and CASA requires an instructor with no ICAO recognised qualifications to sign out a ICAO recognised PPL holder with 2500 hour glider time and 1000 hours PPL time to fly an ICAO recognised registered aircraft?
The accident record of GFA is nothing to be proud of (witness coroners comments about glider admin following Goulburn crash) so standards is hard to argue. Communication WTF? The least safe place to be under instruction in an aircraft is a glider.
There is absolutely no need for an organisation, just a commercially based system of delegations like that which has worked for years in GA

Sled,

The rumour from the owner was:

1. Modification to the carburettor, (apparently to stop excess fuel consumption?);

2. Modification with some sort of fuel cock mechanism under the cockpit floor (your guess is as good as mine); and

3. Modification to the fuel baffles in the tanks (to increase the useable fuel capacity?)

Lots of people will have an opinion I imagine because lots of people were shown all sorts of bits of wood etc (well, that is the rumour, right?)

But then again, as Aroa says, it is all bulls*&t and no doubt, CASA's fault.

Whilst I realise that posting comments on PPRuNe are personal therapy for many, I have a question.


What has ever changed for the better with CASA from all the comments here?

Just asking a couple of questions GGC, that's all. I don't fly gliders but I assumed from what Eyrie said that the GFA were the body designated by CASA to be responsible for glider ops and standards, but that some people didn't like it (by the comment about nasty collusion between CASA and the GFA).

The communication I refer to is from CASA to glider pilots and back via the designated sports aviation association, again the GFA (I assume), for better or worse, seeing as CASA has devolved its direct running of sports aviation type activities to the user associations in recent years as I understand it. Not saying that's good, bad or indifferent, just that as they are required to basically be in charge of all aviation in Australia there would have to be a means of them imposing various requirements and disseminating them down to the people doing the actual flying.

The problem AOTW, is one of "regulatory capture" - the GFA, SAAA, RAA, etc. become "arms" of CASA and cease to be representative of the views of their members, instead they become instruments by which CASA imposes its own policies on its subjects.

The first symptoms are when members notice that CASA imposes some new and onerous regulation (say the fuel reserves one) and your association, instead of vigorously opposing it all the way to the Minister, "explains" the regulation to you and mealy mouthed says it tried very hard to change things without success.

What happens next is that you discover that your association is meeting regularly in Canberra with the regulator and it is you are bluntly told by your national committee that THEY are running the show and your input is both unwelcome and unnecessary.

It happens regularly. Its happened to Yachting Australia which no longer represents yachtsman's concerns.. I've even done a bit of regulatory capture myself when working for Government.


To put it another way; you cannot serve Two masters, CASA and your members.

Arm out the window, ever been involved in a sporting club and fallen foul of the managing clique? I know far too many people who have been involved in gliding since 1960's who have given up (and they still own gliders) because the regulatory burden imposed by the GFA - often quite independently from CASA's strictures - gets in the way of flying, something that they have done quite safely for decades. So what happens is those who want to be amateur regulators build paper road blocks to the growth of the activity resulting a decline in membership over the past 30 years of 50% and an even larger decline in hours flown. Have a look at the age profile of the gliding clubs and I seriously think that gliding will not exist to any meaningful extent with the next 10 years. The model is broken and unattractive to those living a modern life.

All of you getting upset the man has resigned.

I'm surprised he didn't do so upon taking office as it could be construed as a conflict of interest being a member of AOPA and being the head of CASA.

And before anyone says I'm on CASA's side DONT. Anyone who knows me knows my attitude.

Skiddy has quit because he doesn't like the way AOPA has behaved. I am not upset about that. The thing I note on this thread is there are several CASA apologists.

AOPA seems to have finally realised that CASA is beyond fixing. Without a complete change of direction general aviation in this country is doomed. IMHO, CASA is broke, damaged beyond repair, unfixable and a total disaster for general aviation. Perhaps Mr. Skidmore realises this and is taking the only side he can.

If the original email content is as presented here, it shows seriously poor judgment by a person holding such position of responsibility and power.

A more mature and even-handed approach would have been something like:

"Dear <AOPA>

As you will understand, my current position and membership of AOPA may be perceived as a conflict of interest. Resultingly, I am compelled to resign from my membership of AOPA with immediate effect.

I wish AOPA and its members the best in the future.

Sincerely....."


NOT

"....Please cancel my membership with immediate effect as I no longer want to be associated with AOPA....."

If this is representative of the attitude and response of CASA at the highest levels, no wonder the level of distrust is at such a level.