INTERPOSED THIRD PARTIES and the new POLICY

[schoolboy]

Well now it's time to fight!

If you (or your boss) have received the magical letter from CASA about your SUSPECTED interposed third party operations, now is the time to band together and fight for our well being. Those who have received the dubious post out will have our own issues in respect to this dilema, but we can't fight them on our own.

PM me if you wish to collectively rebutt this crazy policy. I am sure with enough of us (and I know there are some who up until today didn't think it concerned them), with a bit of help from the likes of Slater & Gordon or similar, maybe a Class Action, we might just turn things around.

[j3pipercub]

Forgive me for being thick, but could you elaborate?

[tmpffisch]

I'll take a stab j3pipercub that it's to do with http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/385698-classification-regulation-closed-charter-car-206-a.html

[bushy]

I thought CASA was supposed to be a SAFETY organisation.
If the bookings are made through a third party or the united nations or Disneyland what does that have to do with safety????
This appears to be gross misuse of the regulations to influence commercial aspects of the industry.
CASA should not be doing this.
Someone should be encouraged to find alternative employment.

[triadic]

Should be called "CARA"

They seem to be all about "regulation" and not "safety"

Of course we all know that 100% compliance does not = safe!

:ugh::ugh:

[tail wheel]

It is very frustrating and annoying when threads of this nature are commenced without full details or a link to the particular web site policy document! :ugh:

It would appear schoolboy is referring to the first document on THIS (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?wcms:PWA::pc=PC_91190) list.

This is the Adobe Acrobat pdf document CEO-PN007-2009 for download (http://www.casa.gov.au/corporat/policy/notices/CEO-PN007-2009.pdf).

Document Summary:
It is anticipated that the current distinction between charter and regular public transport (RPT) operations will disappear and be replaced by one category, Passenger Transport, with operational standards specified under proposed Parts 121 or 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). Until these proposed new regulations are enacted, however, critical safety-related and legal distinctions between charter and RPT operations remain, and are governed by the provisions of regulation 206 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).

"...maybe a Class Action, we might just turn things around"

Dream on! :hmm:

[Torres]

Another knee jerk, Band-aid, subjective Policy Document from a regulator which consistently brings you Third World legislation, policy and regulatory implementation standards!

It is anticipated that the current distinction between charter and regular public transport (RPT) operations will disappear and be replaced by one category, Passenger Transport, with operational standards specified under proposed Parts 121 or 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR).

I would support that very sensible legislative change. The same common sense approach was suggested to CASA fourteen years ago, however the then Director disagreed.

Removal of scam or sham “interposed entities” from pseudo RPT operations for the purposes of circumventing RPT operational standards is long overdue, however it must be achieved via sensible legislative change which recognizes community needs and facilitates appropriate, safe, reliable, scheduled air services for all Australians. The obvious outcome of this new Policy will be further loss of air services to many rural communities and a rash of applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal testing CASA’s subjective administrative decisions.

Interposed entity charters (by companies such as Thomas Cook (http://www.thomascook.com/holidays/summer-holidays;jsessionid=D88DE28DE3B4BB723A2E4B0721C2764D.appa17? intcmp=hp_02_promo_s10)etc), are publicly advertised and available to “persons generally”, are common practice overseas, particularly in the UK overseas holiday market by operators such as Monarch Airlines (http://flights.monarch.co.uk/). These charters operate because their regulatory authority has in place appropriate legislation to facilitate popular holiday charter services and ensure these operations are conducted to an acceptable safety standard.

How will CASA react when one of these international charter flights visits Australia, as occurs every year?

I'll be interested to see whether CASA intends destroying important sectors of our tourism industry, including sightseeing flights, air safaris, seaplane tourist flights etc, often operated by single engine, VFR charter aircraft, all of which are available to "persons generally", via "interposed entities" simply because legislation to facilitate and regulate these type of operations has not existed in Australia for twety one years!

Cleaning up unscrupulous sectors of Australia’s charter industry is long overdue, but by sensible legislative change - not subjective administrative policy.

The Australian public, our tourism industry and aviation industry expects and deserves nothing less! :=

[dhavillandpilot]

This new direction with regard interposed entities, read as travel agents, will back fire on CASA badly, when a certain large airline realise it also effects them. Basically the policy, from how I read it, states that an operating AOC holder cannot own a Travel Agency to sell seats on their own aircraft.

This policy effects all those operators who offer Air Tours and have an association with the AOC holder eg Bill Peach, Heron Airlines, Air Adventure, Slingair, Pionair, Dick Lang to name just a few.

BUT here is the catch. Qantas Holidays is a stand alone travel agency, to the best of my knowledge. They sell seats on an interposed entity - QANTAS Airways - now is CASA going to apply the law to a company that probably sells some 20 - 30% of all the domestic travel holidays in this country???????????

Interesting conundrum - I wonder which CASA person is going to have to tell his minister his is shutting down a large proportion of Australian Tourism in a recession.

Perhaps the CASA people who read this may pass these thoughts on to the relevant people in their organisation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[D-J]

For example, while it is
surely a ‘good thing’ to facilitate air travel to and from remote Aboriginal
communities, it may not be such a good thing to allow what amounts to RPT
services for members of those communities to be conducted at a reduced level of
safety

Although rational policy-orientated considerations might well allow for the
identification of ‘closed’ groups of actual and potential passengers with a view to the
achievement of legitimate political, social and economic benefits, these are not the
kinds of considerations CASA can or should be expected to take into account in
determining whether, for safety-related purposes, a particular aerial service
operation is properly characterised as charter or RPT.

CASA will review the situation on its merits, imposing such
additional conditions on the operator as may be necessary and appropriate in the
interests of safety, and with a view to affording highest practicable level of safety to
the persons to be accommodated in the aircraft consistent with the risks associated
with those operations.

With respect to situations of the kind contemplated by paragraph 19.2 above, the sort
of conditions CASA may impose, pursuant to section 28BB of the Civil Aviation Act,
would be designed to bring aspects of those operations closer to the requirements that
would apply, were those operations to be conducted as RPT operations. In
determining whether such additional conditions should be imposed, and if so what
those conditions should be, CASA will consider amongst other things, the following
aspects of the operations in question:
• aircraft maintenance related requirements
• aerodrome requirements
• aircraft certification requirements
• requirements to carry and use specified radio, navigation and other instrument
and equipment
• carriage of specified life saving and other emergency equipment
• number of pilots
• flight crew qualifications and experience (including route qualifications)
• enroute obstacles
• factoring of landing distances
• use and carriage of check lists and load sheets
• training and checking requirements
• authorisation to conduct VFR by night

So in the future to operate seaplane scenic flights such as those offered in port macquarie one will need,
a twin otter on a class A M/R
with 2 crew
carrying life rafts
in & out of casa approved water ways
over seen by a check & training scheme
a head office full of admin personnel to keep up with the paper work

WHEN will this stupidity end :{

Obviously it's time CASA was overhauled there is far to many dicks with little or no practical aviation experience

[tipsy2]

far to many dicks with little or no practical aviation experience

or even

"far to many little dicks with no practical aviation experience"

That has got to be the most accurate description of the OLC I have heard, ever! :ok:

The CASA title erroneously suggests it is an Authority on Safe Civil Aviation, they are regulators pure and simple (and as we all know, not very good at that either)

tipsy
:yuk:furball:yuk::yuk:and a couple more

[Torres]

BUT here is the catch. Qantas Holidays is a stand alone travel agency, to the best of my knowledge. They sell seats on an interposed entity - QANTAS Airways - now is CASA going to apply the law to a company that probably sells some 20 - 30% of all the domestic travel holidays in this country???????????

No, it will not affect Qantas or Qantas Holidays as the operating airline holds an AOC authorising the conduct of RPT operations and utilises airline aircraft.

But it will affect many small business tourist operations (e.g. Port Macquarie and Cairns SE amphibian aircraft tourist flights), tourist Air Safaris, Australia Post mail delivery services (to Cape York and NT) and essential remote area air services (Torres Strait etc).

I don't understand why, after twenty one years, Australia does not have appropriate regulations to facilitate and regulate these essential air services??????? :confused:

CASA has reputedly expended well over $150 million on the regulatory reform process since 1988 - and now intends to regulate by Administrative Policy????? :mad:

[bushy]

Qantas travel also makes the bookings for many (most?) of the charter flights to aboriginal communities in charter aircraft by lots of different companies that hold charter AOC's.
Is this an illegal "interspersed entity"?
This whole business is a nonsense. What has the booking system got to do with safety?

And I get absolutely infuriated when I see them referring to the "levels of safety" instead of what is really "levels of regulation"
Regulation is not safety.
Safety depends on the pilots, engineers refuellers etc who actually do the job, and companies that take this seriously because they know that the alternative is horrendous.
Safety does not come just because CASA regulates. It comes because people work to achieve it. You cannot "regulate" this.

It appears that academia has decided that some of our flying instructors are substandard and not good enough for foreign students. Despite the fact that CASA has issued instructor ratings to them. So much for our "regulation" and the standing of our regulator.

If CASA was really serious about safety, they would be concerned about the fact that most light aircraft are flown by inexperienced pilots, and many chief pilots are also inexperienced.
But the CASA people live on the coast and obviously don't care.

[Torres]

Bushy. The practice has expanded in recent years, where air charter operators have established commercial links with "booking services" or "agents" as a method of cicumventing the requirement to hold an AOC authorising RPT services. Some of these "booking services" or "agents" have been independent service provides to the general public and tourists, some not so independent, often being owned or operated by the air charter company or it's owners under a different trading name.

The reason this has occurred is due to the inordinate time CASA take to process and authorise an RPT AOC, or more generally that the charter operator is providing a tourist or essential air service, which is RPT in nature, but which by virtue of the airstrips involved or aircraft used can not qualify as RPT. (e.g. SE VFR tourist scenic flights etc).

We would not be having this debate had CASA introduced appropriate regulations to cunduct these operations - e.g. air taxi as in the USA.

Regulation by administration policy is nothing short of a pathetic excuse for CASA's twenty one year failure to introduce appropriate regulations and legislation, to facilitate and regulate appropriate, safe air services, particularly to rural Australia and for the tourist market.

[schoolboy]

Tail Wheel,

My apologies for not including the link, but I thought the heading was pretty self explanitory. You are right though, it refers to what all who have subscribed to this thread have acknowledged to date.

This thread: http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...car-206-a.html

This has to be a joke instigated by a CASA employee who has RPT mates hurting because a charter guy is doing a better job, and then they came a running to CASA to complain. (who would this little insignificant RPT individual be?)

Change the rules to what JM showed us in May was the way to the future, and don't persecute those who have tried to make a living under out dated rules that don't apply in other countries who have been flying a lot more than OZ.

Cheers Schoolboy

[tail wheel]

Your thread title would not make a lot of sense to some who visit these forums.

I have no idea who "JM" is.

[schoolboy]

Oh Tail Wheel, are you having a bad day?

Our new CASA CEO!:ugh:

[Joker 10]

In Australia we do not have class actions, the proper term is Representative action which requires a single plaintiff to be joined by 6 others ( 7 needed for the action to commence ) the joinder is that all 7 must have a common cause , in other words they must be able to show they can be bound in the same pleadings.

Just to be all P#ssed off with the actions of the Regulator won't cut it and whomever joins the action needs to be really committed as the cost of legal representation when fighting a deep pocketed Government Department is high then there is the issue of costs of the action being awarded against the Plaintiff and others in the representative action if it fails and the party the action is against wins.

Think very carefully folks.

[tipsy2]

I have no idea who "JM" is.

schoolboy, if you'd called him "JMac or Screamimg Skull" we would have known to whom you were refering:ok:

tipsy
:yuk::yuk:damn furballs

[schoolboy]

schoolboy, if you'd called him "JMac or Screamimg Skull" we would have know to whom you were refering


Sorry!:oh::oh:

[Frank Arouet]

Representative action which requires a single plaintiff to be joined by 6 others ( 7 needed for the action to commence ) the joinder is that all 7 must have a common cause , in other words they must be able to show they can be bound in the same pleadings.

when fighting a deep pocketed Government Department is high

THEY "WILL" DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE TO THE LAST CENT IN THE TAXPAYERS PURSE.

It is generally better to "Ministerialise" them if there is enough outrage and enough political points to be gained in say, Senate Estimates. The Minister for "things flying" is probably the WRONG person to talk to.:(

[Lodown]

The way things are going CASA will have general flying activities grind to a halt in two years and they'll replace the CEO about three years too late.