[Peetwo]

Submission 70: Jim McDowall

Via the 20/20 Inquiry submissions page: 70 Mr Jim McDowall (PDF 388 KB)

Conclusion

Despite numerous claims by CASA that safety outcomes will be improved, there has been no evidence presented
that this regulatory model will result in any improved safety outcomes. Part 149 is simply an administrative rearrangement.
Further “The Australian Government Guide to Regulation” Edition 1 (p.4) observes:
“The Government has a clear approach to regulation: we will reduce the regulatory burden for individuals,
businesses and community organisations.
From now on, cutting existing red tape and limiting the flow of new regulation is a high priority.
Every policy option must be carefully assessed, its likely impact costed and a range of viable alternatives considered
in a transparent and accountable way against the default position of no new regulation.”

This was amplified in the Statement of Expectations issued to the CASA Board by the Minister in 2017.
Obviously, this regulatory approach has an increased complexity and cost that can only been borne by the members
of those organisations that choose to participate in the scheme.

Towards a simpler arrangement

The USA has the largest privately operated aircraft fleet in the world and yet does not have a system similar to our
Part 149 approach. It is hard to compare safety statistics as data is not uniform across jurisdictions but it arguable
that the US safety statistics for privately operated aircraft are at least as good as Australia’s if not better. So CASA’s
totalitarian approach to regulation cannot be argued to be producing superior results.

A simpler approach could be:
1. Aircraft registration - Registration has nothing to do with airworthiness. Currently RAAus is required to maintain
a register of aircraft for which it charges annual fees and allocate registrations like 24-9999. VH registered aircraft
do not pay any fees once registered. In Germany, for example, ultralight aircraft registered as D-1234 are
distinguished from other aircraft which registered as D-ABCD.
The solution - transfer the RAAus register to CASA and remove the costs associated with annual renewals from the
owners and RAAus (ie collection costs)

2. Aircraft operations - all RAAus aircraft are operated under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) as are most privately
operated VH aircraft. RAAus aircraft are currently limited to 600kg MTOW and have some operational limits placed
on them. These is no reason that these cannot be codified or reviewed as required. In addition if these details were
codified CASA would not be required to renew exemptions bi-annually. This also apples to gliders.

3. Pilot licencing - CASA already approves RAAus training material. CASA could adopt those sytems and issue
delegations to individuals to oversee the training system and issue authorisations in a manner similar to the
delegations issued for CASR Part 21 authorisations for the issue of special airworthiness certificates (AKA
“certificates for experimental category aircraft”). CASA already has systems in place for the auditing of delegations
and audits the GFA and RAAus.

4. Maintenance and repair - private operations
CASR 201.003 provides:
Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases
(1) Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage
incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance
or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission
of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things. (emphasis added)

EASA has recently enacted Part ML which provides for owner maintenance for aircraft upto 2760kg MTOW in
private operations. CASA is proposing to issue Part 43 arrangements that will provide less stringent maintenance
arrangements for experimental and LSA category aircraft. Canada has had owner maintenace provisions for nearly
two decades. The US FAA holds the Canadian model in high regard.

Proposal - make all RAAus and GFA privately operated “experimental aircraft” unless owners elect to have them
maintained under the CASA managed Part 43 system (ie LAMEs) . Existing commercial RAAus and GFA
maintainers can be “grandfathered’ into the CASA system with restrictions.

5. Maintenance and repair - commercially operated aircraft (training and hire)
Existing commercial RAAus and GFA maintainers can be “grandfathered’ into the CASA system with restrictions.
Otherwise LAMEs will be required to undertake maintenance (as many already do for RAAus aircraft).

6. Outcome - GFA and RAAus become true advocates for their sectors of aviation without the fear of causing
offence to CASA which may cause loss of priveleges. GFA would continue as a sporting body. All CASA has to do
is register aircraft (once) and manage the delegations which is what they do now under Part 149. If pilots or owners
commit offences they can be dealt with according to their policies and procedures in a manner which Parliament
intended their role in aviation.

At the very least:

If we must have P149 organisations then the regulations should be amended to provide that:
1. Organisations must accept membership applications from any person without restriction.
2. Organisations may not expel any financial member
3. Organisations may not require membership of any other organisation as a condition of membership
4. Make provision in Part 149 covering the event where a Part 149 body becomes insolvent or legally incapable.

Organisations issue authorisations and the only way to lose an authorisation is by a breach of operational rules or
breach of aviation law. The loss of an authorisation is appealable to CASA and AAT. Expulsion from organisations
can only be challenged by court action which is Dr Aleck's claim that P149 avoids.

CASA must deal with all comers, irrespective of their personal qualities or views. The Part 149 organisations should
mirror this position. Clearly if you lose an authorisation and can longer fly you won't renew membership

Jim McDowall

Well said that man! -  

Also on the 20/20 McDolittle WOFTAM inquiry an update from the resident GA rumour-monger EWH:

At the time of writing this I am waiting confirmation that more public hearings of the senate GA inquiry are scheduled for December. At the moment, there are indications that a hearing will happen on 7 December and streamed online via the Australian Parliament House website. No other details are to hand right now, but I am expecting something more solid very soon. This is good news; as I wrote last week time is the enemy of the inquiry at the moment and we need the senators to get their skates on and take more evidence. Right now there isn't enough for the government to take notice of a report that they didn't commission. Having put that out there regularly, I am seeing signs that the current minister may be more receptive to a report that recommends immediate reform than some who have come before. As soon as we get more details on the hearings we'll get them to you.

Ref: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...ember-2021

MTF...P2