Does CASA Have Serious Problems?

[Sunfish]

With the greatest respect to all of you, judging from posts to this website I wonder if CASA has some pretty serious administrative problems.

At one end of the Continent there is a skydiving operator who apparently deserves to be closed, but CASA cannot succeed (yet) in doing so.

At the other end (FNQ) CASA is apparently trying to close an operator who does not deserve to be closed.

Personally the very limited dealings I've had with CASA have been absolutely great - friendly, helpful and efficient.

What is going on?

[Jawz]

Sunfish.

I am guessing you are not an operator or a/c owner then.

Sure, The nice old lady at the front counter has always been polite to me when i need to change my address.

Where have you been the last 10 years?

JW

[Sunfish]

Nope, not an owner or operator, just a newbie PPL holder who has been working his @ss of for the last ten years in order to have the time and money for a little flying.

[Ultralights]

CASA Does have serious issues, being an aircraft owner, and ex Qf engineer, i have had me fair shair of casa brick walls! no real reason, just that they can.

still waiting on my medical! 105 days! now, and since 90 have past, i am grounded in all VH rego aircraft, so i am getting a lot of RAA time!

as far as im concerned CASA has no relevence , only hinderance, to the general aviation community, and CASA should be scaled down to look after Airline operations only.

[11percent]

Ultralights,

It seems funny that the area of aviation you appear to be involved in has the worst safety record, and CASA's mission statement is to improve aviation safety through education etc.

It would therefore seem to be advantages to work together?

[Chimbu chuckles]

There are now and always have been very good people working for CASA....unfortunately the critical mass of unemployable, dishonest, incompetents was passed many years ago and there effect is the one most often felt by the industry.

My personal experience of CASA over the years has been more bad than good by a considerable margin.

Ask anyone who is, or has ever been, a Chief Pilot what they think of CASA over a few beers...sit back and be stunned by the stories of incompetence, dishonesty and sheer bastardry.

A Chief Pilot is supposed to be CASA's representative within the company...this supposes a level of trust and support for the CP against sometimes aggressive management.

The last time I was a CP, and I'll never accept that post again, my tenure ended after collusion between an ex mil CASA FOI and ex Mil management because I wouldn't lower my standards and do things like "Tell your pilots they can't say no to flying on their day off"...even when the only instance of that ever happening was an individual who was having his only rostered day off in 7 after the other 6 being on call 24 hrs a day. Or insisting that the jet we operated stay grounded until an undercarriage problem was fixed against constant pressure from 'management'.

After 6 months of digging my heels in over a raft of issues I was sacked and CASA immediately approved the most junior and inexperienced Captain in the company (<3000TT) over a 16000hr ex airline Fleet Captain and jet C&Ter as the new CP...even when they knew, as one CASA FOI admitted to me, that he was just a yes man for the management. Even when they were shown where to look to see evidence of his logbook command hrs being a work of fiction...even when it was proved that he had taken off 9000lbs over RTOW at night in high terrain...and on another occasion caused another jet to take evasive manouvres to avoid collision becase he wanted to argue with ATC rather than follow his clearance....when they were given evidence that he had been involved with the operation of another aircraft, on behalf of the company and after I left, completely illegally with a stretcher tied across the seats blocking the only emergency exit...etc etc. My efforts to sack him being blocked by his manager mate.

6 months of being backstabbed by this young pilot who was winding up a similarly incompetent, dishonest manager and pointing him at me (and the other 16000hr Captain).. was then approved as CASA's 'representative' within the company. The company imploded a year later and everyone was sacked, including the 'manager', by the parent multinational.

That individual is probably reading this and knows I am talking about him....think you won? Have you worked since in a corporate jet? Wonder why no-one will employ you in Oz? There's a reason for that you know....not that I'd know what that might be:E

Still CASA will employ you...you're probably already there although I don't know that for a fact.

He is the type that gets into CASA as a FOI on a far too regular basis...and why CASA is as it is.

[Ultralights]

It seems funny that the area of aviation you appear to be involved in has the worst safety record,

I think recent research will show "ultralights, and GA have pretty much equal safety records!

Ultralight crashes only end up in the papers more often because they sell more papers than if just a light plane crashed.

not only does the RAA fleet have an equal safety record to GA, but it runs at less than 25% of the cost! which means more money for newer more modern aircraft, and more money for maintainence!!

[Sunfish]

The sad thing is that this sounds like it is only going to end one way- witha royal commission after a major accident:sad:

[Mainframe]

Sunfish

A Royal Commission is the only solution,

Only in that environment can the factual and meticulously documented evidence
of numerous operators and pilots be tabled, evaluated, cross examined and validated.

Corroborating this would be the damning evidence as contained in the "Phelan Papers".

Then the witness statements, given truthfully and free of duress.

However, a Royal Commission cannot be allowed to happen, and won't be allowed to happen.
The repercussions are too frightening.

The industry can only hope that BB alternatively initiates a proper investigation of the FNQAO,
and when finished there, moves on to investigate other offices with a questionable track record.

BB, after all is the one who espouses Natural Justice, Fair and Impartial treatment, model litigators.

He can't just keep saying these things and not be seen demonstrating them.

refer to the other threads on CASA within D&G General Aviation.

[Onthegear]

I once needed a answer from CASA on an important airworthiness issue.................

After thinking about it for a while, I decided to talk to my next door neighbours 4 year old son to get his opinion first.

After talking to CASA, I was very glad that I had talked to the young lad next door as I at least had a sensible answer by the end of the day. :\

Wish a tidal wave hit every CASA building sent the silly peeps who work there out to sea.

.........yes, that would be nice I think........:E

[Gear in transit]

Hmmmmm, it appears to be getting worse too. Particular individuals in certain offices appear to have some sort of agendas to fill.

What ever happened to the days of assisting companies with things and offering pointers on areas they would like to see improved rather than 'enforcing compliance' as one FOI said?
CASA is all to quick to pull out the big bad book of RCA's and hand you a wad of meaningless notices that don't effect safety.

I don't think I've seen an FOI pop into the office for a friendly chin wag and a coffee for years. It's all about compliance nowadays.

I really hope this thread gets a response from someone in the ivory tower.

/rant

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

On the gear,

unfortunately i don't prescribe to your view.

From my experience a fair majority of CASA staff are fantastic, unfortunately there are a few that fall very far short of reasonable.

The CASA folk i have dealt with that have come from the industry, i.e. experienced GA and Airline pilots, are absolute assets to both CASA and the industry.

The minority that are lamented within these topics are not experienced from within the industry.

The new AM seems like a nice honest bloke with a very hard job, good luck to him.

[J0N0]

The CASA folk i have dealt with that have come from the industry, i.e. experienced GA and Airline pilots, are absolute assets to both CASA and the industry.

The CASA folk I have dealt with that have come from the industry, ie experienced GA and Military pilots are not assets to GA at all. With all that GA experience its been interesting to watch how unrealistic they can be. Maybe this is a fault of the individuals or perhaps a fault higher up in the system. Maybe in this world of litigation they are not given enough protection by the system to be able to make decisions that don't take months and months while costing the Struggling GA operator thousands.
Handing out Show cause notices to some opperators while others pass inspections with flying colors, with obvious safety concerns highlighted.


The minority that are lamented within these topics are not experienced from within the industry.

Gee wiz Lefthanded_Rocker_Thrower
Thats a big call mate, with all due respect do you know that for certain or is that speculation???

I did a 2 crew flight a while ago with a CASA FOI sitting behind us to get the company its RPT license. When we got back the FOI debriefed us on various things we could do differently and generally it was good constructive criticism. Then he asked for my license and medical. I had forgotten to sign my licence and yes I know I should have at I was in the wrong but the guy threatened to RCA me. Could not believe he was serious, rather then sliding it back across the desk and getting me to sign it he went the hard line? For the record he did not RCA me but why the threat over a signature???

[Aquaboy]

Hey Sunfish,

Didn't I see you taking on the Maxies to the north east of Tasmania the other day? :D

Direct hit...:ok:

AB.

[Deaf]

J0N0

Seems to me you put the FOI in a difficult position. While the error seems minor the safety theorists would say it reflects not only on you, but the CP and the whole company system. Consider a not impossible senario, approval is granted, accident leads to court action:

Barrister "So Mr FOI you approved the operation to carry this trusting member of the public (points to plaintiff in wheelchair) despite one of the pilots not having a valid licence"

[Gear in transit]

Barrister "So Mr FOI you approved the operation to carry this trusting member of the public (points to plaintiff in wheelchair) despite one of the pilots not having a valid licence"

Unfortunately this is what everything appears to be coming to in aviation lately. And our FOI has used this to back up his RCA's. :rolleyes: "You need to cover yourself" :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Dick only wanted us to adopt the U.S.A's airspace system, hurrumph, we appear to be adopting their litigation system as well :yuk:

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Are not RCA's issued for the breach of legislation ?, i.e CARs, CAA, then where is it a condition of holding a licence a requirement within the "Legislation" to sign the front page of the licence ?.

Anyone know if there is a definition for " Legislation" ?.


Or lets say 20.11 training, the legislation requires the CAO 20.11 training is conducted every twleve months, if you put it in your ops man to do every six months, if one of your pilots has been 9 or 10 months since last 20.11 check, he/she still meets the requirments of the "legislation", how can this be an RCA, no legislation has been breached.

Torres will best answer this one, what is a fixed terminal ?, ( refer CAR 206 ).

[OpsNormal]

Lefty. Your Ops Manual is a document (or rather, a series of documents) that CASA signs-off on as your operating procedures that govern exactly how CASA will expect you will conduct business and operate your aircraft and oversee your aircrew. Part of your AOC requirements are that you operate solely within the envelope of your Ops Manual, as its very approval is the only guarantee that CASA has that your operation knows exactly how to operate legally, or at least in a manner that CASA approves of. If it is in your Manual that CASA has signed-off, then it is reasonable to expect CASA to expect you to comply with your own manual.

Unfortunately, that makes it another stick that can be used against you.

I cannot remember reading anywhere that it is a requirement to sign your licence upon reciept to make it any more valid either?

(edited to read more like what I was trying to say)

Regards,

OpsN.;)

[Torres]

Leftie. I was trying to avoid engaging in this thread as well..... :ugh: Personally, I wish Woomera would combine all three CASA bitch threads into one thread...... :confused:

There is no legal definition of the term "fixed terminals" within the present legislative framework. However, Creamie would point out that certain judges have ascribed a meaning to the term, based on fallacious advice from CASA Counsel, which I am sure he would now determine are precedents.

I suspect the term, which originated from the pre 1988 ANR's, refers to a designated, substantive passenger terminal, at a designated airport serviced under the previous two airline policy, which is/was the property of the Commonwealth and leased to the two designated airlines under that policy, Trans Australian Airlines and Ansett Airlines/Ansett-ANA.

If I am correct, then the terminal at, for example, Kubin and "terminals" at Mabuiag and Yorke (and I use the term "terminals" very loosely!) are not "fixed terminals". However, the passenger terminals at Sydney and Melbourne airports would have been "fixed terminals" under the old ANR's.

Similarly, "specified routes" were designated airline routes which were marked and specified on navigational charts, pre 1988. An operator, not being TAA or Ansett, could not conduct a commercial flight (whether ANR 203 exempt or charter) over those "specified routes" more than once in 28 days (later reduced to eight hours prior to, or four hours after the designated time of an approved airline service.)

You made a sweeping generalisation regarding ex military FOI's with which I do not agree. The abominable mess in the Torres Strait was created by FOI's drawn generally from commercial aviation and airlines, one at least being best described as an airline reject. The FOI from Canberra who finally sorted out the mess and was one of the few who displayed any form of common sense, was ex RAF and ex RAAF. Similarly, I know of other FOI's with both military and civil backgrounds who are excellent, and FOI's with both military and civil backgrounds that are worse than useless. I am aware of one ex RAAF Caribou driver (whose Caribou needed very extensive panel beating after one escapade in PNG) whose knowledge of the Act and CARs is abysmal, but who continues to be promoted well above his maximum level of incompetence!

If CASA was required to hold an AOC and perform to the same level of accountability expected of the aviation industry, their AOC would have been suspended or cancelled many years ago.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Ops,

I would agree, it is reasonable to expect, but, the CAO 20.11 example, still meets the legislative requirement, therefore is not a breach of legislation = does not meet the criteria for an RCA.

Thanks Torres

[oldrotorhead]

CAR 253 is the head of power for the requirements of CAO 20.11 (ie. the annual proficency tests). If an operator specifies more frequent tests for his crews in his particular Ops Manual, then, as I see it, the requirements of CAR 215(9) would apply and an RCA could be issued on the grounds that there is a non-compliance with the instructions in the OM.....

[Gear in transit]

And just to throw another clanger in, I was told that CASA don't approve ops manuals anymore, even though you are still required to have one!
:confused:

[Time Bomb Ted]

CASA has never "Approved" Ops Manuals. They only ever "Accept" them. Something to do with the legal problems if a company does something in the Ops Manual and hava an accident. CASA "Approved" it, so it must be OK!

The trouble is that if there is no AOC or OC, or Ops Manual, the industry would go berserk! Even with massive restrictions, we still find ways to circumvent the system to our own advantage, to try to make bucket loads of money. Never works. Self Regulation wouldn't and couldn't work. Get used to more stringent rules in the future.
Due to a small proportion of the industry, we all have to pay for it.

TBT

[tipsy]

Leftie, not wanting to be pedantic or be like the spelling police, but:

An RCA is only a Request for Corrective Action. Not usually associated with a legislative instrument/document. Probably a spelling mistake or something equally inane.

A Non- Conformance Notice is issued where an action does not conform to a document (eg Op's Manual).

You will receive a Non-Compliance Notice if there is something that does not comply with the law in whatever form.

Torres, I fully endorse you comments re the Military or Civil backgrounds of CASA staff, there are good and bad from each.

The East-West LOCO will know the ex F28 driver that caused all the angst in Torres Strait (and elsewhere).

I also know that the Caribou driver you refered to is not the current CEO of CASA.

tipsy

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

oldrotorhead, thank you.

so from these four examples, 1) CAO 20.11 training, 2) the definition of "Legislation", 3) no definition for " Fixed Terminal" and 4) RCA for not signing licence, some confusion may be experienced ?.

1) CAO 20.11 mandates, using head of power CAR 253, that training is to be conducted at periods not exceeding 12 months, which CASA has decreed as the period between training that would allow a acceptable level of currency

CASA allows you to do it more frequently if you like, but will hang you on a apparently oscure CAR ( 215 (9) ) reference, if an operator was to try to be proactive.

Will this RCA ensure safer aviation, i think not.

i would imagine the reference to any other than the maximum period would be removed from their COM, so such for CASA and the industry working together.

2) Definition of "Legislation", does this cover other document such as CASA Flight safety type material, how about the AOCM, is this legislation, perhaps it draws its head of power from some where ?.

3) Definition of " Fixed Terminal ", well at great cost to many operators some remote "Mail Runs" have been forced to align to RPT standards, even though they do not meet the basic criteria for RPT, as defined within CAR 206, i.e. its own head of power.

Quote from Torres:
There is no legal definition of the term "fixed terminals" within the present legislative framework. However, Creamie would point out that certain judges have ascribed a meaning to the term, based on fallacious advice from CASA Counsel, which I am sure he would now determine are precedents.
End Quote.

4) not signing flight crew licence invalidates licence, theres not even a head of power for that one.


Lets not even start to look at the commercial harm that has been perpetrated organisations under the Part 28 of the Act, " The delegate must be satisfied", is this based on a feeling in his/her water, the operator meeting the requirment before operating or will be able after receiving his/her AOC, how vague is that ?.

We need realistic person at the helm (TLFO) and implemented by experienced personable chaps/chapettes (FOI) in a supportive and open constructive non-arse covering environment.

As has been stated,

Quote from Tipsy:
Torres, I fully endorse you comments re the Military or Civil backgrounds of CASA staff, there are good and bad from each.
End quote.

so what is the missing ingredient to date in FNQ ?.

[Stink Finger]

LHR,

These points of inconsistency are just the tip of the ice berg.

I would agree with the guys earlier, there are some good and some bad in casa, not from any particular background.

Being compliant is not even in the same category as safe, safe appears to be an after thought,

1. ass covered - check,
2. paper work in order - check and ......ummm...,
3. Safe.

Re: RPT " Mail Runs", the aerodromes are not certified, most do not meet the CAO 82.3 app3 ( how many strips on the Cape are 1600 metres long, very few), the aircraft do not meet the CAO 20. 7 performance requirments and the type of operation does not meet the basics to qualify for RPT IAW CAR 206 ( 1-fixed terminals "and" 2-fixed prices "and" 3-available to the General public "and" 4-on a fixed schedule), so, yes a joke.

My answer to your question: Bad Management, the AM's, to date, appear to have a rather short shelf life, and still the problem remains, mmmmmm ?.

[Torres]

LHR.

Go back into antiquity and read the pre 1987 ANR 197 to 203. All will be revealed! Then accept the ANR's are no longer valid..... and CAR 206, on it's own without inclusion of certain phrases in the definitions, really has little meaning.

leg·is·la·tion

Pronunciation: "le-j&s-'lA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the making or giving of laws; specifically : the exercise of the power and function of making rules that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of the state
2 : the enactments of a legislator or legislative body
3 : a matter of business for or under consideration by a legislative body <recently proposed legislation>

No problems there. Certain CASA employees seem to have problems with the definitions.... In Far North Queensland, CASA staff make them up as they go along.... Just like what happened in the Torres Strait. :yuk:

Stop asking sensible and sane questions........... :\

[bushy]

Ex military pilots can be good or bad, but the military philosophy is totally out of place in civil aviation.
We pay the military to be ready to enforce, dominate, destroy,kill and intimidate That is their job. And we also have a huge psychological program which tells them they are the best, god's gift to the world, infallible, and anyone who challenges them will be severely dealt with.
I have seen the miliary mafia operate.
There is no place in civil aviation for this distorted thinking.
Our regulator should be a service provider which is helpful, knowledgeable and should have the respect of the industry. Like the police.
The word "safety" should be removed from their title unless they pay some attention to it. It is an emotive tool that is misused to scare pollies and the public. They seem to pay more attention to commercial regulation of the industry. Also the word "authority" should be replaced by the word"service"
.Let's stop trying to fool the public that all air services are the same as long as they are scheduled. We always needed three levels of commercial aviation and we still do. People of the outback are being denied good low capacity airservices because of the distorted thinkig of our regulators. Military style thinking.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Stinky,

Another point that illustrates is, lets compare the friday mail run out of Cairns to a Bungles Scenic Flight out of Kununurra:

1) Mail Run out of Cairns

Fixed Terminals, no, for example: Rutland Station, standing in the middle of a paddock with a 1000 m dirt strip with cows and horses milling about

Fixed Times - yes, once per week at a forecast time.

General Public - Station staff generally, in the past tourist have paid for the ride ( no different in essence to a Kununurra Bungle scenic Flight ).

Fixed Prices - Yes

2) Bungles Scenic Flight out of Kununurra

Fixed Terminals - Yes, in and out of Sling Air or Alligator terminals.

Fixed Times - 6am, 930am, and 230pm everyday

General Public - any johnny that walks in off the street

Fixed Prices - As per the brouchure

Conclusion:

It is ludicrous to suggest these Bungle Scenic flights are an RPT service, but the scenic flight out of Kununurra closer conforms to the basic criteria for RPT ( refer CAR 206 ) than the mail run flights into and out of the Cape or Torres Airstrips.

in addition none of the aircraft meet RPT performance requirements, C207, C206, C208, PA31, BN2.

This also a little baffling !.

[Captain Starlight]

TIPSY

RCA's are the main weapon used by CASA to revoke AOC's, approvals, ratings, licences etc.

Although, as you correctly state, it is a "Request for Corrective Action", it is actually a gotcha that will be used against you.

It has replaced the NCN "non Compliance Notice" to give the appearance of a less intimidating document.

Nonetheless, when you front the AAT, the judiciary will be impressed at the number of RCA's issued to you
and CASA will use this to demonstrate that you are a risk to safety.

That some of the RCA's are extremely frivolous is of no concern,
FOI's are required, in some offices , to collect as many as possible.

It makes the court work better in their favour as they will be used to discredit someone.

[tipsy]

Cap'n Starlight you have hit the nail squarely on the head

QUOTE
It makes the court work better in their favour as they will be used to discredit someone.
UNQUOTE

CASA is a regulatory authority and is only interested in
1: Enforceable Legislative Powers
2: Preferably with punitive measures

it has no interest in safe operations. Safe, Compliant operators never enhance the tough regulatory image 'cos they don't finish up in a court and allow the OLC's "resource pool" to play Perry Mason,

As a QA Auditor I am disgusted at the abominable manner in which FOI's and AWI's ply their 'craft'.

Properly implemented and managed, a QA audit program is a powerful and inexpensive safety and business enhancement tool. Unfortunately these same audit skills having fallen into the hands of the FOI/AWI ranks, some of whom have bastardised and brought into disrepute an otherwise usefull process.

Regulators the world over are naturally viewed with some degree of jaundice by those they purport to regulate, there are some however that are actually a pleasure to deal with, and then there is CASA.

tipsy

[Arm out the window]

Bushy,
Military people are just the same as everyone else; you get some goats and some good guys.
The Hercs, choppers etc that are currently flying Tsunami relief are doing the typical Aussie military job of the last 15 years or so. The idea that there is some kind of instilled mindset to kill, destroy and so on is utter crap. Safety is the first priority.
Same with the 'God's gift' idea - also total bull. Some people, as in any walk of life, think they're a bit good; most just do their job.
There are quite a few ex military people in CASA so I can understand the feeling that there's some kind of old boys' network, and it sounds like you've had bad experiences with some of them, but how about keeping the sweeping generalisations out of your statements, unless you're just trying to sh!t stir.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Arm out the window,

you might want to read bushys post again,

quote from Bushy:
Ex military pilots can be good or bad, but the military philosophy is totally out of place in civil aviation.
end quote.

Bushy is more commenting on the military ethos, being ineffective in civil industry, i would agree with what bushy is saying.

[Arm out the window]

No, I read it OK, I'm just referring to the idea that there's some kind of 'military style thinking' that can be used to describe how someone operates.
I was military and now in GA, and the same style of thinking and operating that I always had works for me, that is, work hard, fly safely and treat everyone as you would like to be treated yourself; well accepted and regarded, I like to think; the same would be able to be said for a lot of people who have moved into the private sector.
I'm just objecting to Bushy's use of this so-called 'military philosophy' to describe what's wrong with CASA; from what's being described in these posts it doesn't sound much like the culture that existed when I was in the military, which I would describe as 'get the job done efficiently and safely using the generally OK but sometimes limited resources that you've got'.
His post is basically saying that your standard military ethos is to produce intimidating killers who are up themselves! That's a generalisation if I ever heard one, and I object to it.
I fully agree that people who hold positions of responsibility in CASA should be well acquainted with a wide range of civil ops, which many ex-military people wouldn't necessarily be, so maybe employing a disproportionate number of them has been the root of some problems, if that's the case.

[185skywagon]

hope this doesn't backfire on me, but how about ex mil foi's who take 1 1/2 hours to plan a 380 mile IFR trip without landings. i think the point some are making is that some of the guys that have come from mil backgrounds straight to casa do not have any idea what we have to do to get the job done legally.
i will add that the foi's that look after our region are approachable and good to work with. i also sympathise with them in that they are not allowed to do enough flying within their job, so any chance they get, they tend to file IFR twin, everywhere so as to keep up their IFR qualifications, rather than go VFR and smell the countryside.

[Sunfish]

I don't know about the military pilots, but two out of the three the ex military aviation officers/engineers I've had the pleasure of working with (not with CASA) were absolute shockers.

Chips on their shoulders you couldn't see over, very very rigid personalities like east German border guards, obsessed with rules and perfection, and totally useless to boot.

I wonder if its just my bad luck or do they train them that way? Are there more of them like that?

[Maximus B]

They train em that way.

The 'ego boosting' that goes on leaves a brainwashed product incapable of even cpntemplating there may be a different way.

I have got rid of the last of mine as of 18 jan, I won't be hiring any more.

Max

[Manwell]

To answer the original question simply, yes.

We can only hope that Bruce can reverse their course before they crash in spectacular style.

Looks good so far.

[Chronic Snoozer]

MB

Sorry you feel that way given the experiences you've had with ex-mil guys. Your comment

The 'ego boosting' that goes on leaves a brainwashed product incapable of even cpntemplating there may be a different way.

is almost worth comment.

bushy,

We pay the military to be ready to enforce, dominate, destroy,kill and intimidate That is their job. And we also have a huge psychological program which tells them they are the best, god's gift to the world, infallible, and anyone who challenges them will be severely dealt with.

Are you talking about flying or what? I think I missed the program you're talking about.

Some comments on this thread are pretty inflammatory and wildly general so ya gotta expect a reaction.

[Sunfish]

Chron, both of these guys were ex RAAF engineering officers.

One used to boast about not having his first pair of shoes until he went to secondary school and was as mean as catsh!t to the point where his cost cutting totally disrupted the business and actually cost us money.

The other was a stickler for presentation of anything and obsessed by the organisations rules. In situations not covered by "the rules" or where we had to deal with uncertainty, he just froze up and did nothing - to our cost.

Both of them are still out there - one busy destroying a Kiwi public company after successfully finishing off an Australian one.

[Mainframe]

Chronic Snoozer

Yes, there will be some reactions.

However, let's look look at the simpler statistics.

Firstly the entry source for CASA.

Anecdotal evidence and careful scrutiny suggests there are two main streams into CASA.

One is from the industry.

Two is from the Australian Defence Force.

No problems so far.

It is generally accepted that a high proportion of the industry source will a have a demonstrated record of failure in that sector of the industry.

The ADF source can be further broken down into the three services, Air Force, Army and Navy.

Of the three services,
the Navy sourced FOI's appear to be both very professional and very fair, with high skill levels.
( Carrier pilot quote "Flaring to land is like squatting to pee !)

The Air Force is the most represented in CASA and there is a reasonable spread of professionalism and ethics, with slightly lower skill levels.

The Army, the only service that has a similar flying scenario to GA,
(Single pilot, operates primarily below the flight levels and lacks the logistical and tactical mission support of the other services.)
seems to have average skill levels and lowered standards of ethics.

Combining all three ADF streams, it will be found that, like the GA stream, there will be cases of personal failure in the ADF.

Both GA sources and ADF sources also have committed aviators who were not failures and who wish to make a positive contribution.

There are obvious cultural differences between GA and ADF streams.

The ADF stream will have been accustomed to being saluted and not being questioned. "Do as I say", "When I say jump" etc.
There is a cultural change required to readapt to civilian life, for some this is easy, for others, nearly impossible.

The failed sector of the GA stream will have an axe to grind and an opportunity to punish the industry in which they failed to achieve.

OK so we have established that there is the possibility of balance in the characteristics of the two streams.

Now comes the reality.

The ADF stream is disproportionally represented in CASA, some would suggest a figure as high as 80%.

Given that proportion, we see the spread of the capable and of the dysfunctional and not surprisingly, we notice the dysfunctional more readily.

We seldom notice the professionalism because they get on with the job fairly and impartially.

I too had an ADF background (Army) and had to make the cultural leap back to civilian life and behaviour.
(you would not question that entering the ADF required a significant cultural change, and that some fail to adapt to the ADF ethos)

It took me years to fully achieve, even now a trained observer would pick up on traits that would identify my earlier life,
yet I would like to think that I have made the transition successfully.

OK, so here is the cruncher.

you are more likely to be dealing with an ADF sourced FOI than a GA sourced FOI.

Would you prefer to deal with a GA failure or an as yet unadapted ADF recruit?

Psychological screening of all CASA recruits would identify positive traits as well as negative traits.

CASA could profile the desired FOI traits into an entry assessment and reduce the possibility of misfits entering it's ranks.

[Arm out the window]

Mainframe, I fully agree that the cultural leap back into civilian life is one that is harder for some than others; as you say, for some, nearly impossible.
Those that tend to cling to ingrained habits in new situations distinguish themselves by inappropriate behaviour, which then tends to tar everyone from a similar background with the same brush, unfortunately.
I know that when you operate to one set of rules for a long time and switch to a new one there is a tendency to feel displaced and uncertain, and this leads some personality types to act defensively.
This isn't to say that a lot of the military operational flying rules are greatly different to the civil. The AIP is a major reference for many military pilots, but there are significant legal and operational differences that a long-time military operators are likely to take a while to get a handle on.
My gut feeling is that this lack of familiarity is the source of a lot of the kinds of problems that are being spoken of here. It's one thing to read orders, and quite another to be familiar and comfortable operating under them after years of experience.
Perhaps minimum civil commercial operating experience requirements in hours or years terms would go some way towards a solution. I notice that most of the CASA ads you see asking for FOIs quote certain civil requirements or 'equivalent military experience'.

[Mainframe]

Arm out the window

Yes we are getting to the core of the problem.

I have long subscribed to the belief that any recruit (including ADF aspirants) have a minimum exposure to the industry they will oversee.

My personall feeling, I would like to see a verifiable 500hrs or 12 months in the industry as a prerequisite.

I am always amused at "equivalent military experience".

Can someone explain to me the military equivalent to a CFI or CP of a civilian GA operation ?
This waiver clause is merely an indication of nepotism being available.

The operating environment is as different as chalk and cheese.

The civilian has to meld commercial reality and operational safety.

The benefit of an imposed verifiable GA / civil aviation background would mean that some balance in the ADF / GA streams may be achieved.

It also means that ALL applicants have an industry background, some then will also have, in addition, an ADF background as well.

The recruitment process is where the problem starts and is also where the problem may be fixed.

[Icarus2001]

It is generally accepted that a high proportion of the industry source will a have a demonstrated record of failure in that sector of the industry. This seems a little harsh. Whilst I can think of a few that fit this description surely you need to define "failure in that sector"!?

Given that GA pilots need either CP, CFI or ATO experience to get a job with CASA are you saying that being a CP, CFI or ATO represents a "failure" level occupation in GA? If so then does that mean that the only "above failure" level occupation that a young commercial pilot can aspire to is an airline job flying heavy metal?

For what it is worth I find that the FOIs I deal with are reasonable people who are trying to make a difficult and flawed system work. Their hands are often tied by "the system' that they operate under and no doubt they have to cover their @rse, so that if a serious accident happens they are squeaky clean. My frustration is more that the shonky operators seem to continue to operate and CASA does nothing to stop them. When they do get operators to court their success rate is not very encouraging. That said our local guys seem to prefer the coffee and a chat approach.

[Mainframe]

Icarus2001

There was no implication that CP / CFI / ATO is a failure level in GA.

That some FOI's were CP's, CFI's or ATO's and consistently being sacked in the industry is an indicator of failure.

There are some FOI's who have exhausted all possibility of employment by their repetitive sackings in the industry such that CASA is the only aviation career left to them.

It is great that you have FOI's that can have a chat and a cup of tea. That's exactly what BB wants.

Townsville had three such FOI's who could and did have a chat, a cup of tea and also had a mentoring role.

They were all bastardised.

Coincidence ? no, just a clash of cultures.

Because of their record, the Townsville office now only has one or two FOI's trusted or respected enough to be welcome for a chat and a cup of tea.

That Bruce Byron's new culture will be instilled in that office is a given.

It is now 2005. Watch for changes early this year, They can and will happen.

This dysfunctional office will again have staff that will be welcome for a chat and a cup of tea.

It will be reformed.

There is commitment.

[Stink Finger]

anyone disagree ?:

Broken Goods:
LK, CM, JC, GR.

the rest "Keepers".

[Chronic Snoozer]

Sunfish,

the characterisations you've given do not lead me to believe they are unique to the RAAF or the military. The two ex-engineering officers could be anyone. How often are people described as 'ex-RAAF' as a form of pigeon-holing their experience? If the guy is a spanker then his previous experience is of little interest. If the guy is a good operator, then likewise. Its a slippery slope when everyone in industry gets characterised as ex-GA/RAAF etc. Of course its common, don't make it right though.

Mainframe et al

Good posts, been wondering about the employment climate in CASA for a while now.

Cheers,
CS

[Chimbu chuckles]

As described to me by an ex RAAF FJ pilot (1950s/60s vintage) and ex DCA examiner/current ATO, CASA is required by law to employ ex ADF people. It's like a super scheme...or work for the dole for those who can't/won't/didn't go straight from the ADF to the airlines....for whatever reason.

I've only known three ex Army pilots...two I wouldn't feed...they were both mates and one was the most aggressive, dishonest, devisive and incompetent individual it has been my great missfortune to work with in 25 years in this industry...the other wasn't a favorite of many either. Most of the ex airforce guys I have flown with have been excellent..one out of 10-12 was a complete C**T. Ditto for the ex Navy guys..all top units in my experience.

Similarly of the ex 'GA' FOIs I personally know in CASA 2/3rds would qualify as unemployable hence in CASA...if they were CPs/trainers in GA it's because they backstabbed their way to the top....and when they ended up on the street for whatever reason were unable to get another job...they'd **** on too many people.

So many of these guys go into CASA with the avowed intention of doing the old CASA two step...get an endorsement on a jet of some discription and issue a bunch of dispos to an operator and then when a slot opens (opened by a 'mate' generally) they go straight in as a DEC/management...as a reward for services rendered while in CASA. It's very common...I guess the ones who have no mates left in industry stay in CASA long term and get bitter...so make the lives of those who genuinely want to help the industry miserable.

There are some very good people in CASA from all the above backgrounds...but the unemployable have them beat for the most part....it has been thus for a VERY long time.

[Arm out the window]

Don't know about the legal requirement to employ ex-ADF people, Chuckles, but there is certainly an incentive to try to get into a government job post military service - the super scheme can be continued on directly, which is (or was on the older super scheme that many people were on, and some still are) quite financially advantageous.

[Captain Starlight]

Stink Finger

Top score ! 4 out of 4 ! You must be in Townsville or Cairns to be able to pick the winning numbers.

Chimbu Chuckles

You must have been in GA for a while.
You've hit the nail on the head in so many areas it's uncanny.

Chronic Snoozer

Wait a year or two until the misfits are all weeded out or under close scrutiny and control.

I too would have enjoyed a career in CASA but kept wondering why so many
six figure salaried CASA guys pulled the pin or were perpetually on stress leave.

The club within takes it's toll, your background or experience count for nothing.
It's conform to the culture, wrong or right, or else!

One would assume that a six figure salary would compensate for the culture,
obviously it doesn't.

Arm out the Window

There are numerous incentives to the suggestion of ADF nepotism,
the most obvious has been the steady rewrite of CAR's and CAO's to accommodate the ADF entrant.

Nothing is more glaringly obvious than granting an instructor rating to an ADF instructor, on the basis of ADF qualifications.

A civilian instructor must perservere and eventually bring out the best in a student.

An ADF instructor merely scrubs a slow learner from the intake and proceeds with the next candidate.
If the candidate has above average ability and doesn't need coaching to make it then all is ok.

The ADF instructor is not normally culturally capable of ab initio instructing per se,
the ADF doesn't need to persevere with a candidate and doesn't have to
while the supply of candidates exceeds the ADF requirements.

Now put him in the civilian training world and watch the training school lose students,
faster than they can be recruited with expensive advertising.

Mainframe

Let's hope your information on reform is correct.
I'm sceptical and will need to view the corpses before I believe it.

[JetA_OK]

Captain Starlight - ADF instructors gain civilian quals (and certainly not as readily as times past) because the level of their training and qualifications far exceeds what is required in the civilian world. Are you comparing a CFS course to 40 hours in the BK training area with a mate on dubious "mutual" rides? Instructing in the ADF world is a respected professional skill. For most in the GA world it is an hours building exercise.

[tipsy]

Whilst we are scrutinising Mil/Civil backgrounds and I know many from both "schools". One in particular that I know (used to work for infact) is ex Caribou (SVN) and ex CFS QFI. He also happens to be one of the most lucid and committed safety managers I know (remember I worked for him), He has also spent quite some time since his mil days in professional jet GA as a trainer and ATO.

I know a few civvy people that carry similar qualifications, experience and skills but then they aren't the CEO of CASA.

tipsy
disclosure: I proudly wore the green 30+ years ago

[Deaf]

My PPL instructor decades ago was RAAF/DCA(2nd div) AFAIK his instructor exprience was v. old, history books said he had instructional 30+ years before that. Much younger wifes instructor was chosen on the basis of being RAAF CFI type.

EX RAAF have ther place and CASA is one of them.

[Captain Starlight]

Jeta_OK

Do you disagree that the ADF scrubs candidates at regular intervals in training?

The candidates that an ADF instructor works with have passed an initial screening that seeks certain attributes.

That screening continues throughout the intake period.

The cream rises to the top, the residue is discarded.

From basic training onwards the ADF instructor is working with above average candidates.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

I was not comparing CFS to BK.

The ADF is all about survival of the fittest, none of us would have it any other way.


The civilian training organisation does not conduct screening of applicants.
Providing they can pass a medical and have the money, they meet the criteria.

Training of the candidate starts and will continue as long as the candidate can pay.
The civilian instructor will use various methods to circumvent learning difficulties.

The end product is more likely a result of the instructor's ability rather than the candidate's ability

A civilian student pilot pays to learn and may forego income to learn.
This is why they are not discarded, they are the source of revenue for the school.

The ADF student pilot does not pay to learn, he is paid while learning.

This is why they can be discarded if they don't measure up, they are an expense.

The ADF does not need to perservere with a slow learner, nor is it required to.

So, if you're instructing at CFS, you are working with candidates that are specially selected and further screened,
they are above average in ability and IQ, and the Government sincerely hopes they are the cream of the crop.

They are usually naturals or quick learners, and they are being paid to be there, not paying to be there.

So how does this compare to accepting and training any one who wanders in off the street with enough money to pay for what he wants?

There are two different worlds out there, they have different cultures and different requirements.

The instructors in those different worlds are professional in the particular environment that they operate in,
one fails slow learners, the other instructs and develops slow learners.

A civilian instructor would most likely be much out of his depth at CFS teaching fast jet fighter survival skills.
A CFS instructor would similarly be out of his comfort zone trying to conduct ab initio training at a civilian flying school
with some cashed up nerd who walked in and wants to learn to fly.

Advanced training such as aerobatics, formation flying etc do see a merger of ability from the two cultures,
but at the bottom end there is no comparison.

I do not dispute the qualifications and training of the ADF instructor,
as I have tried to illustrate, but they are poles apart from civilian ab initio training,
and I stated the equivalent of that in my earlier post.

One deals with the cream of the crop, and doesn't have to persevere,
the other deals with whatever walks in with enough cash, and needs to persevere.

Horses for courses ? Yes, I think so.

[Arm out the window]

Capt Starlight,

What direct knowledge of ADF flying training are you basing your statements on?
Some of what you’re saying is reasonable; for example, candidates are screened and subjected to aptitude testing, so it’s reasonable to say that some of the really unsuited will have been weeded out by the time they hit the training schools.
However, the results of this testing are certainly not a great predictor of how someone will go when actually on the course. As yet, there is no magic way of telling beforehand how someone's going to go in training.
Also, students at civil schools can learn at the rate that is comfortable for them. For the military people, the pressure is on to get through at the pace of the course (with some extra flying and ground training for those who need it, up to a point), so even if a student has some natural ability, he or she can struggle.
Backgrounds can also vary; when I instructed at 1FTS we had guys from PNG come through who hadn’t driven a car, for example, let alone had a go at flying an aircraft, and also had language issues.
My point is that the full range of skill and adaptability is required in the ADF instructors as well. It’s wrong to say that military instructors are incapable of teaching ab-initio; effects of controls, climbing and descending and any of the other stuff are just as much a challenge for the military student as the civil one, and the same kinds of errors come out.
The idea that the ADF doesn't need to persevere with slow learners is also flawed. Even when they reach basic flying training, they represent a significant investment in time and resources and are not to be let go lightly. Extra training is given up to the extent that the system allows, and instructor diagnostic and remedial skills are often called into play.
You could even say that the military instructor needs to be more on the ball in terms of picking up basic faults because there is only a limited number of remedial flights available in which to do so - the civil guy can keep on coming back as long as he or she wants, as you say.
Now you don't see too many ex-military pilots out instructing in the flying schools because the pay's not good enough compared to what they could be making in the airlines (or CASA for example!). This is one reason why I'm challenging where Capt Starlight's information is coming from with respect to what kinds of capabilities are required of military instructors.
The CFS instructor training course is well able to produce people who can instruct ab-initio; however, as for any military to civil change, the instructor must know the civil regs and ways of operating. Does an ex-military instructor need to do another course of training in how to instruct? No, and that's why the CAOs exempt them from it.
Do they need to be checked in their knowledge of the regs and assessed by CASA or a representative before instructing? Yes, and that's why briefings and a flight test are required before an ex-military person can be awarded a civil instructor rating.
I didn't initially appreciate the need for this when I first got out of the RAAF, but after a few years I do now, and think it is quite appropriate.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Gents,

perhaps it would be prudent to start your own ADF v's Civil instructing type thread and slug it out there, this topic is kinda being hijacked.

thanks
:ok:

[Arm out the window]

Fair enough LRT, but I think there is relevance to the thread in trying to sort through the issues surrounding ex-military people, to cut out the prejudice from the real factors.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Another thread degenerates into an pro-mil/anti-mil slanging match.:(
And as usual the first shot (and most of the vitriole) comes from the anti-mil lobby..........:rolleyes:

[bushy]

I wonder why Captain. Do you think there could be a reason for this??????

[Captain Starlight]

Arm out the Window

I have no direct knowledge, just worked with what seemed a lot of ex ADF pilots who were washed out in training.
Maybe they committed offences or something that they didn't disclose.

I apologise and thank you for shattering the myths.

All instructors are equivalent, regardless of background.

CASA is not over represented by ex ADF

CASA practises natural justice and advocates fair and impartial treatment.

There is no established pattern of CASA misconduct.

No operator has been unfairly treated.

There has been no misconduct by the Townsville office.

There is no truth in the rumour that three FOI's were bastardised.

This year will see reform initiated and achieved.

My aviation background is limited to model aircraft

[Arm out the window]

Well mate, let's not bother using reasoned arguments based on our experiences, shall we, and just get into the sarcasm?
Forget it; when you would like to discuss the issues realistically, I'll be here.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Starlight,

The end product is more likely a result of the instructor's ability rather than the candidate's ability
This statement is as much true for the ADF as it is for GA. The difference is where that end product is going.

Your comment One deals with the cream of the crop, and doesn't have to persevere, simply isn't true today. 25 years ago perhaps, these days undergraduates are given every opportunity to pass the course and far more emphasis is placed on how students are taught rather than simply culling the weak at the earliest opportunity. Your comment merely reflects a somewhat shallow understanding of ADF flying training, not your fault, no need to apologise.

All instructors are equivalent, regardless of background. is simply flippant and unrepresentative of the counter arguments others have put forward. What you have been taken to task on is subtle inaccuracies in your presumptions about ADF flying training, thats all.

Footnote: Anecdotally there are numerous examples of candidates failing screening, basic training and even Wings tests and still going on to have very successful careers in aviation. Obviously very talented, on the other hand there are examples of candidates 'that should never have gotten through'. Shows the ADF isn't perfect, nor the be all and end all of flying training establishments.

[Captain Starlight]

Chronic Snoozer and Arm out the Window

Point taken. I stand corrected and better informed.

Myself and others obviously have preconcieved asumptions about the other world of Defence aviation.
You have rightfully corrected some of my misconceptions.

Is it possible that you guys also had preconcieved assumptions about civil aviation
during you ADF time and initially on entering our world?

Although I'm ex Army, I still notice that the ex Navy FOI's appear to be the most reasonable CASA
people to deal with and the ones who display the least of their ADF backgrounds.

These are merely my own observations.

However, we all deal with CASA and we are not in the ADF.

The two cultures coexist, the civil side should not need to adapt to the ADF culture,
but the ADF side, on joining our world, does need to adapt.

I guess we got sidetracked on these issues,
rather than the very serious problem of CASA misconduct and their lack of accountability for it.

It has been established that at least three, and possibly a fourth, of the Townsville Flying Ops staff
are in need of vocational redirection.

It is also rumoured that some will be soon facing a magistrate on civil matters.
The fact that some should also be facing criminal matters must be kept in mind.

Sacking the miscreants is the only way CASA can deflect being vicariously culpable and liable.
Failing to sack or severely discipline them confirms the culpability and liability of CASA.

It's now over to the Director of CASA and the new Area Manager.

Although instinct tells me that things will be set right, I'm not holding my breath.

[Arm out the window]

Cheers Capt Starlight,

I didn't really have preconceived ideas about GA when in the ADF, just didn't know much about it at all; now (slowly!) learning more as time goes by.

I guess it will be an interesting year if these issues of industry dissatisfaction are properly addressed; let's hope so.

[Hudson]

The problem with military trained pilots in GA is that they expect their aircraft to be well maintained. They expect the previous pilot to write up all defects in the maintenance release - just like the Regs say you should. It becomes a shock to the system when these same blokes are given the sack for writing up snags because we all know that is not the way you operate in most GA organisations. I write from bitter experience.

Now put an ex military pilot into CASA and he doesn't understand that in GA you avoid defect reporting as it costs jobs. Your job. Is it any wonder some military pilots in CASA then become seen as mini-tyrants when they insist on keeping the other bastards honest?

[Captain Starlight]

Hudson,

most of the major GA Charter companies have their own maintenance facility
and this doesn't happen, although a possibility in the cash strapped struggling operators area.

Larger companies usually operate with a system of maintenance,
supplemented by a MEL / PUS (Minimum equipment list or permissable unserviceability schedule).

Such a system is mandatory in RPT ops.

So if your electric trim or maybe a landing light is not working, you can
under the guidance and compliance with the MEL / PUS,
fly for a minimum period. The fault, however, will be recorded and rectified in compliance with that system.

to other posters and readers,

see the BB FNQ thread for more on CASA problems and an innovative idea to help them identify and fix the problems

[Mainframe]

Starlight

Seems you're right, no further interest in this thread, and as you say, "problems? what problems".

Apart from the Crane Air mishandling, there are no other problems out there, OK?

[Captain Starlight]

Mainframe

Mainframe and others.

Read the "sticky" on D&G Reporting Points.

There is some rational and reasoned comment to be found.

CASA is sincere in it's desire to reform, but needs our help.

As I have previously stated,
use the "Complaints and Compliments" on CASA's website to either commend or condemn CASA.

If you condemn, present verifiable and factual details.
Nicola Hinder was, in the past, surprised at the animosity held towards CASA.
Now that she is established in her role, she is no longer surprised, but can't deal with what she doesn't yet know about.

Reform is happening, we can't all have our personal grievances attended to,
but a system is being put in place to restore trust,confidence and respect.
BB's initiative of informal visits, a cup of tea and a chat will go a long way towards undoing yesterday's wrongs.

Ultimately we all, CASA, the industry and the general public, want safety to be paramount.

These informal meetings will encourage CASA to help us stay on track and help us keep CASA on track.
Mutual respect will be the fruit of this consultative mutual mentoring.

Just as there will be some CASA staff uncomfortable with this shift in direction,
there will also be some operators initially uncomfortable with dealing with CASA in a non confrontational scenario.

This is the most positive and most commendable initiative that Bruce Byron has introduced.

Please, let's all get behind it and support it,
and let the trust, confidence and respect return to an industry where it disappeared years ago.

We have been offered an olive branch, not a Trojan Horse.
Treat it accordingly.

[Mainframe]

Starlight

Yes, I read the sticky on D&G Reporting Points, and commented there.
I think a ray of sunshine is creeping in.

[Mainframe]

Bit stunned to read in these threads that the Skehill report has effectively wiped the slate clean for the Townsville office.

Exit the ray of sunshine I thought I could see.

The NQ area office investigated itself and found no problems.

CASA investigated itself and found no problems.

As there were no problems, then logically there will be no need for solutions.

Yes, it was a bit unfortunate that all that expense was incurred by the affected,
when in fact there wasn't really a problem after all, just, as Starlight puts it, a silly misunderstanding.

Hopefully someone will have learnt from the problems that never were.

Somehow the old quote "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done" sounds a little hollow.

Now that the problem that didn't exist has been proven to not exist,
we can all get on with our lives and look forward to Fair and Impartial treatment, Natural Justice
and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

[Mainframe]

Posters to this thread

The sticky on D&G reporting points may be the most appopriate
thread to keep this topic up to date.

However, posters should understand the seriousness of this thread
and therefore attempt to post only relevant matters of interest.

The issues at stake are far too serious for flippant or jocular comment.

As has been previously posted, the regulator is listening, particularly since the
head office revolt, and has extended an olive branch to the industry.

Have no doubt that BB, NH and his team want to set things right.
The Skehill report was a possible gaff that is not likely to be repeated.
It was dismissive and offensive to the genuinely harmed

BB has recently demonstrated that decisive action sends a clearer signal to the rogue element,
and they will slowly understand that unless they can change their spots, and the team they barrack for,
their long term career prospects in CASA are severely limited.

BB and NH need feedback to assist in evaluating the reforms, hopefully mostly good,
and if not so good, factual details to help them remedy
any pockets of counter culture.

[Sunfish]

Actually, I think that CASA is doing just fine at the moment. The FNQ investigation didn't produce much ().

Aopa just needs to become relevent again and we can start building a safety culture such as Sunfish remembers existed in the 70'S and 80's , or perhaps I am an optimist.

As Tiny Tim said:"God Bless Us Every One"

[Woomera]

Thank you Mainframe and Sunfish

I have been trying to work out how to merge the various threads on this topic but each has has it's own separate "theme".

The consensus seems to be emerging that the naysayers and blowhards have had their day and it's time to move on.

I think this is probably an appropriate point to terminate this thread and concentrate our attention on the positive results it has produced.

Go here: shall we and lets see what more constructive input we can make.
CASA reply to PPRuNe email re TVL.

Fell free though to start another thread if you have a specific CASA issue to address, we would prefer though that it starts out with a brief description of the problem and a constructive request for input rather than the tired old "we'll all be rooned" polemic and rhetoric. There is another forum available that will love you to bits, if that is your thing.

We are, as always open to your comments direct to us if you feel that we need to reopen or continue a thread.