Could the CEO of CASA give himself an AFR?

[Dangly Bits]

A couple of my mates and I were arguing over this. The CEO of CASA is a pilot and needs a BFR (AFR). As the CEO of CASA can he give himself a flight review?

[capt787]

i guess CASA (or the government) would have guideline regarding conflict of interest. so my guess is no.

[Arm out the window]

You blokes have obviously got too much time on your hands.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Could he give himself an uppercut? Much more beneficial to everyone :ok:

[Fantome]

In similar vein, if he could get his down down far enough he could . . . .

[Benjamin James]

Simple answer, no he can't.

[Captain Dart]

He wouldn't do it. He would scream at himself then give himself a 'Star Chamber' and fail himself 'for no particular reason'.

[Checklist Charlie]

Even if he doesn't have the delegated authority or the appropriate instructors rating to conduct an AFR, doesn't mean he wouldn't:E

CC

[Frank Arouet]

Struth! Why is this thread still going?

[Unhinged]

Struth! Why is this thread still going?
'cos it's fun and a bit light-hearted http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Simple answer, no he can't.
Got a reference for that ? Just because it's common sense, doesn't mean that it's correct.

The general case question would be "Can someone who is authorised to conduct flight reviews (defined in the regs as 'an appropriate person') conduct their own flight review ?" I don't know of anything in the aviation act, regs, orders, aip, etc that would prohibit this, either explicitly or implicitly.

[PA39]

:\ ATO's have to be examined (tested by CASA FOI)....they can't test themselves."gee I have failed because i gave an incorrect answer to a question"........HELLO !!!

[Dangly Bits]

Unhinged you might be onto something. Is there anything in the Regs that says I can't do my own AFR?

Just to make things interesting, the CEO of CASA owns a single seat Aircraft. If he does the majority of the last 10 hours in it, where does the Instructor sit? On his lap?

Remember keep it light-hearted.

[Frank Arouet]

'cos it's fun and a bit light-hearted http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

"Rome burns" and someone is "fiddling".

I suppose it gets your mind off the real issues though.

I remember a past CASA Director of Aviation Safety taking over a C108 up north, doing his thing then persecuting the owners. Bloke needed a 9mm UZI up his arse. But please lets not go there it spoils the "fun".

[Freewheel]

You guys are so silly.


He'll just get somebody from the ICAO to do it.......

[Unhinged]

Hi Frank, If you do a quick search on my posts in other threads you'll see that I have openly posted my reasoned opinions about the current Director and what he's doing. It is not a light-hearted situation in any sense - I have given it very serious consideration and set out my position plainly.

However, there's a lot of too-serious stuff on Pprune some days, and in this case, I think the original question has unexpectedly identified a real deficiency in the Australian aviation regulatory framework.

Let's keep this thread for what it is - An interesting question that started with the Director but has moved on since then.

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

F.F.S. some of you guys need to lighten up. Yes it's jetblast but do we think that the rest of the non Dunnunda mob want to read propwash about our Canberra brass.

Nobody made you read this thread.

~FRQ CB

[Benjamin James]

Got a reference for that ? Just because it's common sense, doesn't mean that it's correct.

The general case question would be "Can someone who is authorised to conduct flight reviews (defined in the regs as 'an appropriate person') conduct their own flight review ?" I don't know of anything in the aviation act, regs, orders, aip, etc that would prohibit this, either explicitly or implicitly.

Well these are the regs, to me it clearly means that someone else needs to be in attendance, whether you do is up to you.
Of course having a CASA inspector review the boss may mean a conflict of interest, afterall not many employees are going to fail their boss :oh:


5.108 Commercial (aeroplane) pilot: regular flight reviews required
(1)A commercial (aeroplane) pilot must not fly an aeroplane as pilot in command if the pilot has not, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight, satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note A pilot who flies aeroplanes for an operator to whom regulation 217 applies will be required to undertake proficiency checks at more frequent intervals.
(2) An aeroplane flight review must be conducted only by an appropriate person and, unless the person otherwise approves having regard to the circumstances of the case, must be conducted in:
(a) an aeroplane:
(i) of the type in which the pilot flew the greatest amount of flight time during the 10 flights the pilot undertook as pilot in command immediately before the flight review; and
(ii) unless the type of aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph (i) is a single place aeroplane — that is fitted with fully functioning dual controls; and
(iii) unless the type of aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph (i) is a single place aeroplane or is not fitted with wheel brakes — that is fitted with dual control brakes; or
(b) an approved synthetic flight trainer appropriate to the type of aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph (a) (i).
Note For appropriate person see subregulation (8).
(3)If:
(a) a commercial (aeroplane) pilot undertakes an aeroplane flight review; and
(b) the requirements of subregulation (2) are not satisfied in relation to the review;
the pilot is taken not to have satisfactorily completed the review.
(4)If a commercial (aeroplane) pilot satisfactorily completes an aeroplane flight review, the person conducting the review must make an entry in the pilot’s personal log book to the effect that the pilot has satisfactorily completed the aeroplane flight review.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(4A) An offence against subregulation (1) or (4) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(5) A commercial (aeroplane) pilot who has, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight:
(a) passed a flight test conducted for the purpose of:
(i) the issue of an aeroplane pilot licence; or
(ii) the issue, or renewal, of an aeroplane pilot rating; or
(b) satisfactorily completed an aeroplane proficiency check; or
(c) satisfactorily completed aeroplane conversion training given by the holder of a grade of flight instructor (aeroplane) rating that authorises him or her to conduct aeroplane flight reviews;
is taken to have satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review.
Note Conversion training given by a person who does not hold a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating must not be substituted for a flight review.
(6)For the purposes of paragraph (5) (b), a commercial (aeroplane) pilot is not taken to have satisfactorily completed an aeroplane proficiency check unless the organisation that conducted the check has made an entry in the pilot’s personal log book to that effect.
(7)CASA may approve a synthetic flight trainer for the purposes of paragraph (2) (b).
(8)In this regulation:
appropriate person means:
(a) an authorised flight instructor who holds a grade of flight instructor (aeroplane) rating that authorises him or her to conduct flight reviews in aeroplanes; or
(b) an approved testing officer; or
(c) a CASA flying operations inspector.

[Unhinged]

Don't have any problem with any of that.

You certainly need an "appropriate person" to conduct a BFR/AFR/HFR. But, I am an appropriate person within the meaning of the Regs, so is there any prohibition on me (as a 'appropriate person') reviewing myself (as a licensed pilot) ?

Analogous situation not so long ago when I had to write a letter from myself (as the managing director), to myself (as an employee), with instructions that limited the use of a company vehicle. One person, two different hats. The action was required and endorsed by the Australian Tax Office.

I know what should happen, it's obvious. But obvious isn't always right, and I still think it's a fun question.

[goldypilot]

grow some hair on your balls and harden the f@#k up. Its just a lil fun and i am someone that enjoys haveing a laugh on this site and i must say i got a laugh after reading this thread. keep it up boys

[Benjamin James]

Did I miss something? Who are you directing your post too Goldypilot?

The only people whinging are the people whinging about whinges :}

[goldypilot]

BJ if you think it is directed at you then it can be but otherwise just cop it on the chin and have some fun prune.

PS not directed at you, im just stirring **** up

[Frank Arouet]

Yes, when people are really hurting it's always good to stir **** and have fun. Remind me to laugh at the next traffic accident I see.

[Benjamin James]

Goldy, I didn't think it was directed it me, I thought perhaps a post had gone missing :ok:

[gupta]

FFS Francis
What is getting up your nose?
Since when are you Chief Commissioner of the Fun Police?
Yes bad things are happening at Bull**** Palace, but if you can't have a laugh then you'll just go mad(der)

Owen - another hint please, your post is not fully clear :ooh:

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

Like my very nimble dog?

[VH-MLE]

Dear Frank,

The mighty C108!

Quote from Frank: "I remember a past CASA Director of Aviation Safety taking over a C108 up north, doing his thing then persecuting the owners. Bloke needed a 9mm UZI up his arse. But please lets not go there it spoils the "fun"."

Please read details on the C108 below, I don't think any exist in Australia to my knowledge but am happy to be proven wrong, unless of course you are referring to a [B]C208 [B] which is an entirely different beast - either way please get your facts straight!
__________________________________________________
XC-108
The first C-108 built (designated XC-108) was a B-17E (41-2593) converted to a V.I.P. transport for General Douglas MacArthur in 1943. With the exception of the nose and tail turrets, all armament was removed, as was all armor. The interior of the plane was made into a flying office for MacArthur, with extra windows, cooking facilities, and living space. To facilitate entry and exit, a drop-down door with steps was installed in the rear fuselage.
__________________________________________________

Cheers.

VH-MLE

[Frank Arouet]

VH MLE;

Yes the Cessna Caravan. Apologies for the digital dysfunction. I am now fully cognizant of where the 1 and 2 is on my keyboard. (I must watch that). Was the 9 mm UZI too cryptic? Try Monarch, Ord Air, or just read Paul Phelans informative papers.

gupta;

People who don't reply to correspondence, act as an arm of the regulator, accept one sided arguements, and treat the rank and file who pay their wages with contempt. They get up my nose.

One more thing: All jokes aside that is. .. No forget it....