posted 15 June 2000 14:02            

On 14th August 1999 all Australian registered aircraft were required to have
a Flight Manual in the aircraft and you were required to use it. On 17th
August 2000 you may not use that Flight Manual. You now have to purchase a
new Flight Manual costing over $200.00 per aircraft.

Bill, why on earth are you and your committee not going ballistic over this
or is this just another one that has slipped past AOPA.

posted 18 June 2000 03:50            

This topic is also covered at www.airsafety.com.au

What is happening here is that CASA's middle management has successfully "tried one on" and got away with it. This CAAP is forcing people to buy quite unnecessary new Flight Manuals at a cost of something like $250 each. The total amount wasted by the Australian GA fleet will be in excess of $2,000,000.

The reason CASA's middle management has done this is to persuade Australian aviators that harmonisation (with USA standards) is a bad thing.

From now on, new aircraft no longer require a special Australian Flight Manual. The Flight Manual that comes with the aircraft is the one you use. So far, so good - and a huge step forward.

But the reality is that there are very few new aircraft coming into Australia. The major effect of this CAAP will not be the benefit it gives new aircraft, but the extra cost it imposes on owners of existing aircraft.

This cost could have been avoided by providing that where an aircraft had a special Australian Flight Manual on 15th August 1999, the operator could continue to use that Flight Manual if he or she wished.

AOPA should have ensured that such a provision was made. If CASA declined to make it, AOPA should have gone straight to the Minister. If the Minister was unreceptive, AOPA should have used its fax brigade to go straight to each and every one of the Minister's backbenchers. Our last resort was to go to the Opposition and the minor parties in the Senate. But in fact a responsible approach to the Minister would have succeeded because no Minister wants things to be done in his name that fail the commonsense test - to say nothing of flying in the face of his party's policy as well.

It is easy indeed to prevent things like this coming into existence - but once they do exist, it is almost impossible to get rid of them. That's why constant vigilance is so important, along with high-quality research and a savvy, well-oiled political arm.

AOPA's stated primary function is "representation to government". It is failing its members in that function if it allows things like this wasteful CAAP54-1(1) to come into existence.

posted 18 June 2000 03:56            

FLIGHT MANUALS

Gees, Boyd, stone the crows, fair suck of the sav., last week you were flaying me for interfering too much in AOPA management, now I am not interfering enough.
Just like Dick at CASA, doesn’t matter what you do, it will upset somebody.

Seriously, I am surprised that Boyd Munro has only discovered “this disaster”, the project was well established when he was President of AOPA. The project has been around for a long time, and the dumping of unique Australian Flight Manuals for ALL aircraft, NOT JUST new aircraft, has been well publicised.

THE BENEFITS OF THE NEW SYSTEM ARE JUST AS APPLICABLE TO THE EXISTING FLEET, AS THEY ARE TO NEW IMPORTS.

What are the changes? For most AOPA Owner/C of R holders, most of whom have aircraft under 6000 lb, all that will now be required is the Pilot Operating Handbook or similar.

Many will already have a POH in the aircraft. Very few aircraft of interest to most AOPA members have or require an FAA (for US built) full house Aircraft Flight Manual, AFM.

In fact, for some aircraft all that will be required will be little more than panel placards. Read the CAAP.

“$400 wasted”, sounds like somebody is ripping off somebody to me, not at all unusual in Australian aviation. Or the cost of not doing your homework.

A short while ago, for study, I bought a Flight Manual (PIH) for the Piper Seneca 11, cost me AUD$70, in Sydney. But the owner already has one, came with the aircraft, he doesn’t have to go out and buy another one.

One member has just bought his new manual for a Cessna twin for US$23, direct from Cessna.

For those aircraft whose manufacturers have long since ceased to exist, we have helped many members by pointing them in the direction of various Type Associations, or commercial providers of reproduction manuals, usually in the US.

Given the benefits of getting rid of the unique Australian limitations imposed on so many aircraft, not one of the members I have personally assisted has subsequently raised cost as an issue.

I would strongly recommend you all read this CAAP 54-1(1). I am certain you will not be depressed by the benefits it brings. I am never depressed by the thought of getting CASA completely out of the loop.

Anybody, who is smart enough to be an AOPA member, or a pilot, will not find it at all complex.

Given the comprehensive coverage of the subject, it is hardly long.

It is no longer than the equivalent FAA Advisory Circulars, ACs.

Boyd, did you really expect me to go along to John Sharp, and Mark Vaile, ( yes, that is when these policy decisions were made) and say “ AOPA wants all these changes, but we want the option for our members to not have to change”

What heart that would have given the CASA bureaucrats who opposed change.

The bureaucrats who want to maintain control by “approving” everything, always slipping in their own additional restrictions and limitations. Unique Australian restrictions and limitations have cost Australian aviators so much over the years.

Out would have gone the message, “ AOPA is not fair dinkum, it talks of change, now it wants its members to be able to opt out of change, this means AOPA members are like us, they don't want change, either”.

All those unique Australian restrictions on our existing fleet went last year.

Boyd, have a look at the fuel freedoms for the old DH engine now, as but one example. No longer do all the MOGAS approvals have to be “approved by CASA”, and so it goes on.

All the unique Australian performance restrictions, so beloved of insurance companies facing a claim, gone. The benefits go right up to the big end of town.

Many of our members have been reaping the benefits ever since these rules came in. Now, as the 12 months transition period comes to an end, it seems a few have left it to the last minute.

Boyd, when we embarked on this reform program, we were not half hearted, and it was never going to be limited by the thought that nobody must ever be disadvantaged.

The only significant groups disadvantaged by this measure are the bureaucrats and their industry delegates who had created so much “make work” with a quagmire of approvals, change approvals, amendment approvals, scratch your nose approvals.

Yes, there is now more responsibility on the shoulders of Owners/ C of R holders, but how many would prefer to have these matters in the hands of CASA, “for approval”, rather than in their own hands.

posted 18 June 2000 04:16            

FLIGHT MANUALS

Gees, Boyd, stone the crows, fair suck of the sav., last week you were flaying me for interfering too much in AOPA management, now I am not interfering enough. Just like Dick at CASA, doesn’t matter what you do, it will upset somebody.

Bill, that reveals the depth of your misunderstanding. I say that you should conduct Parliamentary Lobbying yourself. You can, and should, delegate the running of the office to competent people. You haven't done that. On the other hand if AOPA is to get results in Parliament House, you yourself must go there - and on this issue you haven't done that, either.

Seriously, I am surprised that Boyd Munro has only discovered “this disaster”, the project was well established when he was President of AOPA. The project has been around for a long time, and the dumping of unique Australian Flight Manuals for ALL aircraft, NOT JUST new aircraft, has been well publicised.

Yes, Bill, I am well aware of the benefits that are available to those who wish to participate. But I am also aware of the disadvantages that will be suffered by those who don't.

The disaster which I have only just discovered is the utterly inadequate changeover period. It no more crossed my mind that there would not be decent grandfather provisions than that a battleship would be launched without a bottom.

There is a year of overlap available during which people can use either the old or the new Flight Manual - and that is not nearly enough. Why don't we have 2, or 10, or 25 years of overlap - that's the question. The reason we haven't is that AOPA, under your leadership, has failed its members.

THE BENEFITS OF THE NEW SYSTEM ARE JUST AS APPLICABLE TO THE EXISTING FLEET, AS THEY ARE TO NEW IMPORTS.

Yes, Bill. No-one questions that. But what about the vast majority of aircraft owners and operators who simply do not need or want the benefits of the new system? Aren't you aware that the greatest cause of attrition of Private Pilots is the difficulty of keeping up with constant change? An adequate changeover period would have ensured that those who wanted the benefits could have them without disadvantage to those who don't.

What are the changes? For most AOPA Owner/C of R holders, most of whom have aircraft under 6000 lb, all that will now be required is the Pilot Operating Handbook or similar.

Many will already have a POH in the aircraft. Very few aircraft of interest to most AOPA members have or require an FAA (for US built) full house Aircraft Flight Manual, AFM.

In fact, for some aircraft all that will be required will be little more than panel placards. Read the CAAP.

“$400 wasted”, sounds like somebody is ripping off somebody to me, not at all unusual in Australian aviation. Or the cost of not doing your homework.

Bill, some of us don't spend all day reading CASA paperwork, if that's what you mean by homework. Flying is a recreation we fit into already-busy lives. What a shame AOPA is sneering at us instead of helping us. Can you remind me what AOPA did to educate us about this change? A few magazine articles written in plain language by people who understand the new regime would have been very helpful. There are now only two months left before we MAY NOT use the Flight Manual we HAD TO use 10 months ago. What a screw-up!

A short while ago, for study, I bought a Flight Manual (PIH) for the Piper Seneca 11, cost me AUD$70, in Sydney. But the owner already has one, came with the aircraft, he doesn’t have to go out and buy another one.

One member has just bought his new manual for a Cessna twin for US$23, direct from Cessna.

$US23 is $38. That's not far off half the cost of a year's membership of AOPA.

For those aircraft whose manufacturers have long since ceased to exist, we have helped many members by pointing them in the direction of various Type Associations, or commercial providers of reproduction manuals, usually in the US.

Given the benefits of getting rid of the unique Australian limitations imposed on so many aircraft, not one of the members I have personally assisted has subsequently raised cost as an issue.

Bill, you are out of touch.

I would strongly recommend you all read this CAAP 54-1(1). I am certain you will not be depressed by the benefits it brings. I am never depressed by the thought of getting CASA completely out of the loop.

Bill, this new provision about Flight Manuals does not get CASA out of the loop. It entrenches CASA firmly in the loop.

Anybody, who is smart enough to be an AOPA member, or a pilot, will not find it at all complex.

Really? Well I find it extremely complex. Take a look at www.airsafety.com.au/caap5411 again. I have asked two pilot/LAMEs about it, and neither of them understand it. Several of your colleagues who fly 747s and also own light aircraft find it complex. I am sorry I am not smart enough to be an AOPA member or a pilot. But I urge you, in your capacity as President, to take your members as you find them, not as you would like to find them.

Given the comprehensive coverage of the subject, it is hardly long.

It is no longer than the equivalent FAA Advisory Circulars, ACs.

Boyd, did you really expect me to go along to John Sharp, and Mark Vaile, ( yes, that is when these policy decisions were made) and say “ AOPA wants all these changes, but we want the option for our members to not have to change”

Yes, Bill, I certainly did expect you to ensure that there were adequate grandfather provisions to ensure that those who did not wish to take advantage of change were not forced to do so.

What heart that would have given the CASA bureaucrats who opposed change. The bureaucrats who want to maintain control by “approving” everything, always slipping in their own additional restrictions and limitations. Unique Australian restrictions and limitations have cost Australian aviators so much over the years.

Yes, Bill, no-one abhors that stuff more than I do. I am in complete agreement with you. But I also recognize that not all AOPA members share our view. If they want to do things the CASA way, why on earth should AOPA prevent them?

Out would have gone the message, “ AOPA is not fair dinkum, it talks of change, now it wants its members to be able to opt out of change, this means AOPA members are like us, they don't want change, either”.

It is extremely important that people be able to opt out of change wherever possible! Very few of AOPA's members WANT change to procedures and documents that they already know. It's up to us to minimize NEEDLESS change, and that you have failed to do by failing to secure an adequate changeover period. What's more, you now show that you don't even recognise the need for one. One year of grandfathering is laughable.

All those unique Australian restrictions on our existing fleet went last year.

Boyd, have a look at the fuel freedoms for the old DH engine now, as but one example. No longer do all the MOGAS approvals have to be “approved by CASA”, and so it goes on.

All the unique Australian performance restrictions, so beloved of insurance companies facing a claim, gone. The benefits go right up to the big end of town.

Many of our members have been reaping the benefits ever since these rules came in. Now, as the 12 months transition period comes to an end, it seems a few have left it to the last minute.

Boyd, when we embarked on this reform program, we were not half hearted, and it was never going to be limited by the thought that nobody must ever be disadvantaged.

Well, Bill, a VERY high priority in any process of change is that nobody should be NEEDLESSLY disadvantaged. In this case, there was absolutely no need to invalidate all the old flight manuals in order that some could take advantage of the new. The two kinds are working alongside one another for a year. If you had done your job properly, they would have worked alongside one another indefinitely. It is very self-centred to force change down the throats of the others NEEDLESSLY.

The only significant groups disadvantaged by this measure are the bureaucrats and their industry delegates who had created so much “make work” with a quagmire of approvals, change approvals, amendment approvals, scratch your nose approvals.

What about the insignificant groups, Bill? For example the large group of YOUR OWN MEMBERS who were happy with the Flight Manual they had and did not want or need any change.

You have been completely outmanouevred by CASA, who have cunningly used this to teach Australian aviators that "Harmonisation is bad".

Yes, there is now more responsibility on the shoulders of Owners/ C of R holders, but how many would prefer to have these matters in the hands of CASA, “for approval”, rather than in their own hands.

Bill Hamilton

President.

Bill, how much better it would have been if you had said "yes, Boyd, now you point it out I see that one year of grandfathering was not enough. In my enthusiasm for change I didn't give enough consideration to those who don't want change. I've learnt from that mistake, though, and it won't happen again."

By denying that a mistake was made, you tell us so clearly that nothing was learned from it and that it will be repeated.

posted 18 June 2000 04:21            

OK

Now firstly the CAAP-54 requirements are a mess. But that is not AOPA's fault. CASA buried these requirements in their web-site, most owners still don't know about them.

I have an old Grumman. The original POH was 25 years old. CASA (management) say that they can't accept the copy that was obviously needed (CASA field staff seem to have a more realistic point of view), for copyright reasons. Rubbish! Copyright is not their domain and the AAT will sort that out.

So, CASA stuffed it up, not AOPA. AOPA will have a role if CASA dare ground an aircraft. Then we should drag them by their balls through the AAT. Until then, this aint such a bad thing.

posted 18 June 2000 04:25            

Now I find I am up for a new manual when mine has served my aircraft perfectly well for 32 years?????

Where was AOPA or are they too busy "arranging" elections?

posted 18 June 2000 04:34            

Mike Kalinowski is not an AOPA member. He may well have a view on this but it is as a private citizen.

Roy Travis, If you read the CAAP which is not the worlds best english but for a technically aware person it is not difficult, it is most probable you don't need a Manufacturers POH as the aircraft is under 6000 lbs and has a fixed system for determining C of G. A placarded instrument panel may well suffice.

posted 18 June 2000 04:38            

Roy

Go to the FAA site and search for Type certificate data Sheets. I cant remember exactly how I did it, but it was easy.

The TCDS will tell you what you need. In the case of a Tiger Moth I am pretty sure Tony is right, you only need placards. These will be specified on the TCDS.

(If there is one????)

posted 18 June 2000 04:43            

Give me a POH anyday to the sometimes torn and tattered Flight Manuals found in many aircraft.

I'm surprised that aircraft owners would not have a copy of the POH handbook for their aircraft in any case. After all it details the aircraft systems, details emergency checklists and generally details all the items that you would want to know.

As for not being informed.......My aircraft is looked after by a very competent group of engineers at Bankstown. They flagged the changes months ago and the process has been flawless and easy.

What is all the fuss about ?

posted 18 June 2000 04:45            

I'm glad to hear that the process of complying with CAAP54-1 was flawless and easy for you. You are to be congratulated, because that experience has not been universal.

I, for one, would like to get constructive about this and minimize the damage that will be done by this ill-planned change. More information on this subject can be found at www.airsafety.com.au

The biggest weakness of CAAP 54-1 is there are no examples of how one complies. Half a dozen examples of compliance for typical light aircraft would have made it much clearer.

AOPA could have helped to make it easy by covering the subject in plain language in the Magazine, and by giving us a few examples of what real people in the real world did to cope with this change. I don't need to tell you that AOPA magazine could do with a few less articles about lawsuits and class actions and a few more about practical aviation matters, such as how to fulfill the requirements of CAAP 54-1. This subject has not been mentioned in AOPA Magazine as far as I am aware.

Barry, would you be willing to share your experience with us? If you set out information like the following it would be very constructive and helpful for all owners/operators of American singles who have not yet complied. You could post it direct on this forum or email it to me on bmunro@airsafety.com.au

_________________________________________________________

Aircraft type: PA28R-201 Piper Cherokee
Registration: VH-FTH
Serial number: 28R-7837092
Year of Manuf:
Modification: ??? (Does VH-FTH have any modifications - if so which)

What I did:

What it cost:

If a person or organization did the work on your behalf, please give their name and phone number:

posted 18 June 2000 12:28         

In the end my method of compliance was to sell my aircraft to the USA.

I owned a 1993 model Beech F33A Bonanza. The trouble came because it had
numerous Australian "modifications". These were not really modifications in
anyone's eyes except CASA's - they were just things like the installation of
a KLN90B GPS, a KCS55 HSI, and a KFC150 Autopilot. This work was done by
the authorised Beech Distributor for Australia, but nevertheless the cost
and difficulty of complying with CAAP 54-1 was overwhelming.

I therefore sold my aircraft to the USA. I intend to keep my next aircraft
on the US register in order to avoid things like this.

posted 22 June 2000 06:32            

As the POH for my Mooney seems to be in order I presented myself at the CASA Bankstown office on 21st June 2000 and asked for someone who could provide me with a copy of the CASA Approval Page.

The CASA official who did this seemed to be not very enthusiastic, particularly when I said that I would fill it in on the spot and asked for his help in doing so. No help provided, but when I called him back to accept the completed form he seemed to agree that I had filled it in successfully.

I asked what happens next and he said that I would be advised in due course. I asked for a copy of the initial Amendment Sheet and he said that I couldn't have that until I received the Approval Page.

I also asked innocently what size the Approval Page would be and would it fit in a typical POH. He said rather impatiently that this had not yet been decided.

So what is going on, and how can CASA expect owners to be legal by 17th August?

Ken Jones