Bullets and the dodging thereof.
Whenever Part 149 is dragged out, dusted off and pushed into the spotlight, it always defies clear cut discussion. In some instances, it is as great a concept to some as it is an anathema to others. For instance - the glider sector; they have, for donkey's years now managed their sector extraordinarily well, the products of their training easily defined on any flight deck - first class handling skills. Gliding is a small, clearly defined group which has always 'self administered', developed it's own safety culture, written it's own rules and has a decades long enviable safety record. Clearly defined success and a great example of how a small dedicated group can be 'safely' left to their own devices. Why? Well,IMO the 'operation' is neither 'complex' nor complicated; straight lines all the way.
The question is - can this philosophy and application be applied to say powered flight training? This could be defined as both complex and complicated; once a licence is issued, the holder can carry passengers and travel great distances in complex machinery. The 'liability' equation steps into the mix; and of course, the blame game is always on hand to add more complexity. Stand alone, the two big items make regulators nervous, which makes the politicians nervous, which leads to many layers of 'arse coverings' fabricated in stainless steel and covered in Teflon. Enter the dragon.
In the beginning there were those who wanted to build, maintain and fly their own aircraft, a unique, uncomplicated operation, well qualified to follow the gliding club philosophy and application. History lesson to be avoided so (in simple terms) this has morphed into the RAOz operation. In principal, for those with no other ambition than to fly 'privately' in very limited aircraft, for 'pleasure' with multiple restrictions, then perhaps 'self administration' could work well; perhaps. But for whom? Certainly not the aspiring professional - not the folk who want to take the family away for weekend - not even the committed wanderer who simply wants to explore different places. Apart from the obvious lack of 'freedom' imposed, there is a building body of evidence which divides the two camps; which leaves the 'regulator' in a quandary. Self declared medical for instance; good for Goose must be good for the Gander. Pilot qualified to fly the family almost anywhere (time permitting) under one registration but not under the other? Don't make sense. Why not - fully qualified to fly a Vixen but not allowed to operate a C150 or Piper Cub - bollocks. Fred reckons he's fit to fly on Sunday; Charlie is grounded because the regulator says he's unfit (Tribunal hearing pending). Etc, etc.
Then (last bit) we need to take a quick look-see at inequity. Buckley dreamed up a system which incorporated 'satellite' flying schools, many believe it was a good system, legal, proper, standardised; and, both legally and operationally 'sound'. The regulator, in it's wisdom drove a stake through the heart of what, potentially, could make their jobs much easier, cleaner and cost effective. Yet under the RA banner, satellite schools are springing up like mushrooms. It begs questions - like why not parity for 'private' operations across the board; safe in a 'Jab' safe in a Pa28? Self declared 'Fit' to fly a Vixen - but not the Auster across the field?
I've no quarrel with 'self administration' for small, dedicated operations for for fun or sport, non whatsoever - great idea. But when there is an unfair advantage given to one branch of 'private' operations over the other; then, explanation in detail is required. Particularly if the CASA budget is not reduced in size, commensurate with the size of their abrogation of responsibility.
Toot toot.
CWB - added " To further expand this thought..
An RAOz pilot can fly a Vixxen (it's spelled with a double "x" by the way...![[Image: biggrin.gif]](https://auntypru.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
) all day and.....all day. Provided it carries a postcode on the side.
Register it VH-XYZ, and suddenly they can't. Why not? It's the *exact* same aircraft. No change in MTOW, in power, in carrying capacity, in configuration. Seems a tad inconsistent if you ask me..
Whenever Part 149 is dragged out, dusted off and pushed into the spotlight, it always defies clear cut discussion. In some instances, it is as great a concept to some as it is an anathema to others. For instance - the glider sector; they have, for donkey's years now managed their sector extraordinarily well, the products of their training easily defined on any flight deck - first class handling skills. Gliding is a small, clearly defined group which has always 'self administered', developed it's own safety culture, written it's own rules and has a decades long enviable safety record. Clearly defined success and a great example of how a small dedicated group can be 'safely' left to their own devices. Why? Well,IMO the 'operation' is neither 'complex' nor complicated; straight lines all the way.
The question is - can this philosophy and application be applied to say powered flight training? This could be defined as both complex and complicated; once a licence is issued, the holder can carry passengers and travel great distances in complex machinery. The 'liability' equation steps into the mix; and of course, the blame game is always on hand to add more complexity. Stand alone, the two big items make regulators nervous, which makes the politicians nervous, which leads to many layers of 'arse coverings' fabricated in stainless steel and covered in Teflon. Enter the dragon.
In the beginning there were those who wanted to build, maintain and fly their own aircraft, a unique, uncomplicated operation, well qualified to follow the gliding club philosophy and application. History lesson to be avoided so (in simple terms) this has morphed into the RAOz operation. In principal, for those with no other ambition than to fly 'privately' in very limited aircraft, for 'pleasure' with multiple restrictions, then perhaps 'self administration' could work well; perhaps. But for whom? Certainly not the aspiring professional - not the folk who want to take the family away for weekend - not even the committed wanderer who simply wants to explore different places. Apart from the obvious lack of 'freedom' imposed, there is a building body of evidence which divides the two camps; which leaves the 'regulator' in a quandary. Self declared medical for instance; good for Goose must be good for the Gander. Pilot qualified to fly the family almost anywhere (time permitting) under one registration but not under the other? Don't make sense. Why not - fully qualified to fly a Vixen but not allowed to operate a C150 or Piper Cub - bollocks. Fred reckons he's fit to fly on Sunday; Charlie is grounded because the regulator says he's unfit (Tribunal hearing pending). Etc, etc.
Then (last bit) we need to take a quick look-see at inequity. Buckley dreamed up a system which incorporated 'satellite' flying schools, many believe it was a good system, legal, proper, standardised; and, both legally and operationally 'sound'. The regulator, in it's wisdom drove a stake through the heart of what, potentially, could make their jobs much easier, cleaner and cost effective. Yet under the RA banner, satellite schools are springing up like mushrooms. It begs questions - like why not parity for 'private' operations across the board; safe in a 'Jab' safe in a Pa28? Self declared 'Fit' to fly a Vixen - but not the Auster across the field?
I've no quarrel with 'self administration' for small, dedicated operations for for fun or sport, non whatsoever - great idea. But when there is an unfair advantage given to one branch of 'private' operations over the other; then, explanation in detail is required. Particularly if the CASA budget is not reduced in size, commensurate with the size of their abrogation of responsibility.
Toot toot.
CWB - added " To further expand this thought..
An RAOz pilot can fly a Vixxen (it's spelled with a double "x" by the way...
) all day and.....all day. Provided it carries a postcode on the side.Register it VH-XYZ, and suddenly they can't. Why not? It's the *exact* same aircraft. No change in MTOW, in power, in carrying capacity, in configuration. Seems a tad inconsistent if you ask me..