[Peetwo]

Beyond the current (CASA enforced) GA Great Divide?   

 From AOPA member Nicholas Christie, an excellent well articulated big picture view of the current state of affairs of the RAAus dominated General Aviation industry in Australia...  

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia
7 hrs

RAAUS - A 'MAJOR PLAYER' WITH A POTENTIALLY 
MAJOR SET OF PROBLEMS.

AOPA Australia - Member Opinion
September 25, 2018 | Nicholas Christie

We uncover the complexities of a new era in Australian aviation and explain how ‘kicking the can down the street’ might simply delay the inevitable for RAAus.

Formerly the Australian Ultralight Federation - and operating under a myriad of exemptions and delegations - the privately operated not-for-profit company has a membership of around 9000, and a board of Directors who are charged with the responsibility of steering the RAAus company towards the vision of ‘SAFE’ Aviation (Safe, Accessible, Fun, Educational).

The board is elected and its role is to direct the organisation to achieve its stated aims while working on serving the interests of its membership. While Section 6 of the company’s own constitution doesn’t mention its members, its strategic plan does state that everything RAAus does should be ‘member-centric’. So it would be reasonable to conclude that it has consulted widely on the opinions of the membership as it has pushed through the regulatory red-tape they say is holding Australian aviation back from the brink, over the last few years. Or have they?

Corporate spin or effective management?

While we can’t definitively answer that question, what seems clear is that the ‘PR machine’ powering the organisation has its ‘Rotax’ at full ‘noise’. Michael Monck, (the ‘other’ Michael on the board who holds the position of Chairman, as opposed to Michael Linke, it’s CEO) regularly peddles a notion that RAAus is a “major player” in Aviation in Australia. Many contest that as simply a matter of opinion, and, frankly a whole lot of corporate-style spin. Others disagree and accept Mike’s claim that because “RAAus makes up 7% of all general and commercial flying” in this country, it has a right to call itself a “major player” and therefore should push hard to get what it wants from CASA, quickly (before, they say, the Aviation world as we know it ceases to exist).

The fact remains that whether the nay-sayers like it or not, the RAAus organisation is pushing forward with reforms and has the ear of CASA. Moreover, CASA seems to be peddling the notion that the organisation should take on the responsibilities (and costs) that CASA itself used to reluctantly muddle through in times gone by. In other words, what’s actually happened is that CASA has given RAAus – many would argue with a level of glee – the right to run and administer Recreational Aviation in Australia and, in time, bear both all the responsibilities and associated costs.

The current regulatory situation

While we find that CAO 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55 effectively provides the authority for members to operate their aircraft under the RAAus rules, CASA still maintains the authority to direct that amendments be made to the RAAus Operations and technical manuals. And importantly, CASA has authority over ALL recreational aircraft under the requirements of the CAA, CAR’s, CAO’s and CASR’s.

The RAAus company has made waves in the industry, and spectacularly negotiated its way through ‘self-governance’ in being accepted by CASA under the current regime. It has increased its membership (fixed it’s financial problems) and recently spent a whole heap of member’s money on IT systems that it says pave the way forward.

But now that it has CASA’s ear, many argue that RAAus seems permanently entangled in a sticky web that the CASA has weaved to either guarantee a way to better control RAAus and its member's activities, or - if one was to take a more cynical view - to plot RAA’s ultimate demise. Any other option seems too unrealistic to be feasible.

The RAAus shopping list: CTA, Weight increase & Part 149

In the August edition of Sport Pilot, the controversial ex-RSPCA boss (and now current RAus CEO), Michaal Linke, boldly declared that RAAus “need(s) to further progress our push for CTA”. He also said that the company “needs to push for increased weight” (and) that it further “needs to transition to a part 149 organisation”.

To explain from where Michael’s ambitions are derived, one needs to perhaps to look closely at why he’s pushing the organisation down this path. Some implications could have members very concerned, if not for themselves, for the RAAus organisation as it currently exists – perhaps not in the short term, but down the track a few months, and years. From a short term perspective, while the current board sits, the view is good, the books are black and the membership is growing. But the plans for more and more, might just be the strategy that leads to the RAAus company’s ultimate demise.

CTA Restrictions lifted

Currently, if you hold a current CASA issued License and medical with appropriate endorsement, you can fly an approved RAAus aircraft into and out of controlled airspace. But if you have a CTA endorsement from an RAAus approved flying school, you can fly into CTA under direct supervision. Not great if you want to go directly to where you need to go – and find yourself navigating around those big blue lines to get there.

RAAus is pushing to change this so that RAAus members can fly approved, appropriately equipped aircraft in and out of controlled airspace, provided they have the RAAus endorsement in their logbook. Sounds logical and should be a blessing to many without too much administrative burden on the company.

Weight Restrictions increased

Now we start getting into more sticky territory. Because the RAAus MTOW restriction currently stands at 600kg for aircraft registered and administered through RAAus, the RAAus board has initiated an agreement in principle with CASA to begin increasing this weight towards 1500kg, in two or three stages.

It’s likely the first stage will be 760kg (or similar) which will bring the likes of the Victa Airtourer, Grumman AA1, Cessna 150, and Van's RV-6 into the bosom of the RAAus company.

But, the downside of opening the ‘administrative umbrella’ too wide is potentially significant, if not immediately clear to the membership right now. And it comes in the form of the increased administrative and regulatory burden that will be placed on RAAus when all those new aircraft come in to ‘play’. At 760kg or so, it’s probably manageable with an incremental increase in staff and administrative capability (all other things being equal), but at 850kg and then over 1000kg, owners of other Cessna, Beechcraft and a heap of other types, old and new (the list is very long) will be ‘rushing’ to take advantage of the reduced medical and other fees – and before the board knows it, they’re spending more than the membership fees to administer, record, investigate, support and sanction members, aircraft and flight schools around the country.

If it doesn’t bring the RAAus organisation down financially, some argue that it will potentially bring membership and registration fees up quickly, and simultaneously create an unsustainable burden on its capabilities; the result of which will be increased CASA scrutiny and an atrophic cycle that may eventually render the organisation either defunct or far less relevant.

Applying for Part 149

Here’s the real show stopper. It’s important to all members to try and understand Part 149, and it's doubtful that even CASA and the board at RAAus truly do. We still don't have all the details to provide a full commentary but we will do our best with what we know (now’s the time for a cup of tea if you’re ready to take it on board).

CASR Part 149 refers to an authorisation that Sport Aircraft Organisations (SAO’s) need to apply for in order to make them ‘co-regulators’ alongside CASA.

It means that the board of RAAus (and the management of any other SAO taking on Part 149) will have to put in place the proper instruments and capabilities to deal with issues relating to administration, complaints, accidents & incidents and (often complex) regulatory issues that might arise along the way. Essentially, the obligation shifts squarely over to RAAus to act effectively when investigating all suspected and reported regulatory breaches and to establish a robust system of sanction management, similar to that you might expect in a tribunal, for instance.

But whereas now RAAus has an internal member process for administration, incident reporting and sanctions, (like any privately run club or organisation), the organisation will be forced to comply with a Part 149 ‘co-regulation’ regime that would effectively mandate it to investigate and report incidents, accidents and other breaches to CASA, where CASA will determine the outcome, or advise on a course of action.

Where the internal regulatory regime is deemed inadequate by CASA or where there are complex issues to deal with or challenges to defend, the real risk is that those organisations would probably have to employ the services of expensive legal teams, consultants and experts to fix them or run them in a way that's deemed to satisfy CASA.

Part 149 is something that’s happening because CASA is effectively imposing it on the industry, and perhaps more importantly, because the industry, in turn, is accepting it as inevitable.

If RAAus rejects Part 149 as unacceptable (not their current trajectory), CASA will likely remove the exemptions that the company operates within currently and allow only Part 149 approved organisations to operate instead of it. That means that RAAus (and possibly other organisations, such as the Australian Warbirds Association) could cease to exist, at least in their current form.

One school of thought on Part 149 is that RAAus has been over-zealous in their ambition of late, and perhaps less focussed on thoughtful consideration of what's best for the members that are “central” to everything they do. They may have pushed the throttles forward towards a legislative nightmare; one that sees CASA demand to take over the proverbial controls while they 'threaten' to fly that aircraft into the ground, if RAAus dares to touch them.

To accept Part 149, therefore, may be to step into a minefield of red tape, cost blow-outs and lack of sustainability for RAAus. To reject it, is to potentially lose RAAus as an organisation altogether while any number of other groups take the 'big umbrella' and apply to CASA for it instead.

So, the decision to either 'reject' or 'accept' Part 149 becomes, in real terms, a choice between the lesser of two “evils” for the board at RAAus. It's a difficult choice - and perhaps worryingly for many - one it appears they have already made.

But there is another way.

Perhaps now is the time for the board to start consulting closely with important industry players like AOPA, SAAA, AWAL, HGFA and work together, towards an industry-wide rejection of Part 149 to 'knock it on the head', given that there's still some months before the deadline.

That's right - hand it back to CASA, with a “sorry, not sorry” note and a bouquet of supermarket flowers signed by the two Mike's, Ben Morgan (AOPA), the SAAA and the others that really matter in the Australian General Aviation industry.

Just maybe, the thousands of members of these organisations will instead petition our Honourable members in Canberra to change the Civil Aviation Act and finally bring back a sense of sustainability (not just a focus on safety) to the industry? Many would argue that this would be the best way forward, rather than RAAus and the others pursuing Part 149.
While the risk is that other groups might come along one day and snuggle up to CASA’s 149 project, it may be in the interests of aviation in Australia that RAAus stands up now with everyone else - and says no. To do nothing and simply accept Part 149 could be a case of kicking a problem ‘down the street’, just to trip over it later - and fall face down in a deep, muddy puddle.

If RAAus continues their current strategy of industry dominance through division, it won’t work, say their detractors. And there’s more detractors now, all paid up and speaking ever louder. The question for these members is whether RAAus is listening to the membership sufficiently to give a damn about the future of Aviation in Australia.
--------------------------------- 

AOPA FB comments:

Andrew Campbell Lol. Omg.. The industry jealousy is thick isn’t it. Ffs. Together we stand dudes... this us and them needs to be done with.

---

Benjamin Morgan Andrew, AOPA Australia couldn’t agree with you more, which is why we are fighting for universal and equal medical rights, regardless of the association the pilot belongs to. The industry does need to stand together, however, how can this happen whilst CASA discriminates and promotes a difference between ‘recreational’ and ‘private’, aren’t they both the same?

---

Andrew Campbell Yes. They should be !

---

Jirik Haselgrove Not really no. A PPL holder can fly a PC12 under private ops. Are you proposing RAAus regulate them as private?

---

Damien Sparky Nott Jirik Haselgrove what's the equivalent organisation in the US? Or the UK? There isn't one, yet they have self-certification medicals with similar restrictions to ours.

---

Benjamin Morgan Damien Sparky Nott there are limitations placed on pilots operating with ‘private drivers licence’ ???????’s that preclude such operations.

---

Damien Sparky Nott Exactly my point, Ben...they all have the same licence, the limitations are on the medicals.

---

Jirik Haselgrove I'm not certain, as I fly commercially here in Aus. I'm not saying the self-certification medicals are a bad idea, I'm saying that Private is not the same as Recreational and comparing regulation of private ops and private licenses (which can include operating something like a Kingair if you've got the money) and regulation of Recreational operations, is like comparing a smart car to F1.

---

Benjamin Morgan Jirik Haselgrove what makes something ‘recreational’ versus ‘private’?

---

Jirik Haselgrove The question I've answered is the reverse. What makes something private rather than recreational. 

Open limits to weight, complexity, configuration etc. if you hold the appropriate ratings/licenses. And, rather critically, maintenance. Surely you're not proposing RAAus regulate high performance turbo-props under private ops?

---

Benjamin Morgan Jirik Haselgrove AOPA Australia is not advocating for that.

---

Jirik Haselgrove Ok, that settles the confusion. To be clear, I'm not saying for a second that I disagree with standardizing medical standards across the board, or a raft of other equalising measures for RAAus and the like. But I do think the division between Private and Recreational flying is quite clear cut, in that Recreational flying is restricted to certain weights/complexity etc. Private ops is not, therefore it is a much much much larger beast.

---

Jirik Haselgrove And increase of the weight to include types commonly used for more recreational style flying i.e. weekend warriors, $100 hamburgers etc. like 172's doesn't seem like a bad idea. But private ops covers a lot more than 172's.

---

Sandy Reith There’s no “clear cut” between recreational and private flying. Think about your definitions. We want increased freedom and sensible, minimal and proven regulation just as we have on the roads. We don’t want government, or through them, special interest groups conjuring up regulations that suit themselves and the make work regulator.

---

---

Carl Eksteen Gawd CASA doesn't have to shut down private aviation, the children squabbling amongst themselves will do it all for them. Sickening!

---

Benjamin Morgan Carl, I disagree. Open and fearless discussion regarding issues that impact communities, are the very foundations of democracy and free speech. There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about respectful debate regarding aviation industry concerns - regardless of how sensitive the topic is.

---

Carl Eksteen Key word; "respectful", I'm seeing very little of that in the commentary, which in most cases defaults to a them and us attitude and sniping from behind the barricades. I don't have much time for the way RAAus have conducted themselves of late, but I would have hoped that somewhere in the mess a "bigger man" would have shown up and I'm not seeing that.

---

Benjamin Morgan Carl Eksteen which is exactly why the unnecessary dual standards must end. Unity has never been achieved, by one group seeking to disadvantage another.

---

---

Sandy Reith Well thought and written Ben. The real problem with CASA’s scheme of separating segments of aviation and have a high degree of self management through a private company setup is that they are creating divisions that should not exist. Already it seems RAOz is not happy with VH pilots getting the same reduced medical standards. In truth we should have a single government set of simple rules graduated to the aircraft and pilot qualities. This creates a fair and rational environment for all types of aviation, not artificial barriers and several monopoly administrations with paid CEOs vying for influence and position with CASA and causing divisive competition. Here’s my take on the overall picture

---

---

Rob Matthews The only noise we want to be hearing is the sound of our engine.
Do you ever wonder what the perspective of a young person is of the Australian aviation industry? 
I am here to tell you, as a 20-year-old who is highly motivated by aviation, the aviation industry in Australia is a mess. We are not hearing the engine – we are hearing the discord and political infighting. 
Some of you may be unaware that the younger generation take notice of this discord, which is unfortunately evident in today’s Australian aviation industry. 
In a world of social media, where things are instantly and widely communicated in any industry, it is not very hard to miss word on this. 
With the decline of aviation, not only in Australia but worldwide, I am baffled as to why the discord and political infighting even occurs. Is there true care and passion for the next generation wishing to get involved in the industry? 
As someone who inspires to gain a commercial pilot licence I often sit back and wonder if the time, money and effort are even worth it. However personally, instead of “chucking it in the bag”, I am determined to plead for change.
It disappoints me greatly to hear stories of people, particularly young people, who have walked away from aviation, not because of regulations but simply due to the politics. This is a grave time. 
Aviation should not be about politics. It is about getting together as one in the sky, flying, sharing stories and inspiring one another, especially future generations of aviators. 
Sometimes it is hard to remember but it will be people like myself, it will be people in my generation that will be in the decision-making roles as advocates in organisations and companies in the not so distant future. Would you feel comfortable leaving it now the way it is? I hope not. 
What can we do to unite as one? 
What can pilots and members do as one to ensure positivity, growth and enthusiasm occurs in Australian aviation? 
Australian aviation has endless possibilities. Unity is strength, where there is teamwork and collaboration, wonderful things can be achieved. 
Speak up about your ambitions within aviation, get behind the organisation or club, whatever it may be, and speak with them about change and how they plan on working within the aviation industry to implement this. 
Remember not one organisation is doing a “perfect” job – there is always room for improvement. 
I recommend everyone write in or make a comment with your feedback whether it be negative or positive. 
The potential is endless; everyone needs to start respecting one another, engaging with one another and most importantly sharing the sky, stories and successes with one another. 
Together as one and united I hope we soon stand, together as one there is still a chance.
Robert Matthews

---

Richard Talbot Your argument seems to be that everyone must be in harmonious agreement but I challenge you to find a single productive industry where there is no competition. The issue here is we have a government regulator that is deliberately allowing unfair competition and for as long as that continues what you wish for cannot take place.

MTF...P2