Merged: Airtex/Skymaster AOC suspended

[kimwestt]

Tell me it's not true - - that CASA have done their usual 5pm Friday stunt. Oh, I'm sorry, it was 4.30, letter under the door, and a phone call telling the operator to read the letter!!!!!!!
Passengers stranded all over Australia - from Darwin to points South and East.
CASA again proving what a bunch of unmitigated ars---------s that they are!
But wait there is more - and you think that Polar Air case was/is a big one - you ain't seen nothin yet!
:mad::mad::ugh:

[snoop doggy dog]

Two accidents in a relatively short period of time.................. :mad:

O, we didn't see that one coming :ugh:

Let us all hope their doors stay closed :ok:

[Rose_Thorns]

Kipling's poem about smugglers springs to mind. "Them as ask no questions, is' nt told no lies". etc. It will depend on who's lies create the 'best' reasonable doubt in a court of LAW, not in the minds of CASA.

Mandatory reading for all Australian operators is the Polar Air saga in WA. Read carefully, then draw your own conclusions children. This is what the industry has, and is forced to deal with on a daily basis.

The Airtex story will become part of our Australian aviation legend, make no mistake. It all depends on what flavour you like your spin, just like coffee. Do not believe, for one moment that the 'authority' has got it right. They are so very much like the gutter press, sketchy proof, big headlines and no apologies issued. What happens , years after the headlines, it turns out that when, proven beyond a reasonable doubt (in a court of criminal real law, with barristers and everything) they were wrong, again. Any changes - not since 1922.

It is fairly sad that this is what Chief Pilots and ATO' s have to live with every working day. It is not for the money God knows. The Airtex case will, eventually, prove to be the basis for a Royal commission into the absolutely immoral behavior and poor performance of the authority over the past few years.

OK. For a 6 pack; who said (public record) ? " The authority is not responsible for safety, but for ensuring a safe verdict for judges".
No criticism, bollix. Churchill - " Bugger on!". P.S. He won.

[kimwestt]

I wonder. . . :(

Before taking action to vary, suspend or cancel a certificate, CASA provides the holder with written details of the facts and circumstances that CASA believes warrant the proposed action and, except in a case involving an immediate safety threat, provides them with a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the action should not be taken.

[thorn bird]

This should be a wake up call for every operator in Australia. We are not dealing with anyone acting with probity, mostly industry rejects with inflated ego's out to prove a point, therebye increasing their likelihood of promotion. There are various Dubious characters out there trying to make a name for themselves, beware! Its a very sad to say but it would seem that the days when one could seek advise and council from our regulator are long gone, unless your prepared to pay for it. With the current regime to seek council and advise (without your lawyer present) is at your peril, anything you say can and WILL be twisted out of context, massaged to make the "evidence fit the crime" and used against you in a court of law. Disagree with them or critisize and mate you are out of business!!Anyone talking to CASA today should remember three replies "Yes".."No" or "cant remember" then find a good lawyer if you can afford one.

[RatsoreA]

CASA is not there to guide you and help you and make aviation safe for all. They are there to punish you. And like most government depts, they are largly laws unto themselves.

I cannot believe that this would happen without issues a statement to show cause.

Snoop dog, you really are an ill informed ignoramus.

If you would just go shove your head back up your ass, and leave that sort of ignorance out of it.

[thorn bird]

:D well said that man

[oneday_soon]

snoop doggy dog, you are right on the money. I know of their practices and procedures. And yes, it will be much safer for the public and for future and current pilots if their doors never open again.

[assymetric]

Snoopy doggy dog and oneday_soon,

You say you know of their practices and procedures.
The pay was not the best, but I spent two years working for them and I tell you, you couldn't be more wrong.
I guarantee you, no operator will beg you to write up snags and ground their aircraft. It is up to the pilot. I grounded those a/c whenever they needed to be. Have stopped and overnighted at times because I was fatigued, even though "CAO's and Fatigue Management" said I could continue, and I can promise you not one word from ops, the hangar, or the Austrian as to why, not once was I asked to explain myself.
Now if you would refuse to do it because you were worried about your job, then don't blame Airtex for that.

Hope they are up and running soon and everyone has their jobs back, but I am afraid CASA's tricks may force them out.

Assy

[dhavillandpilot]

There is a very famous scene in the movie Tora Tora Tora, where Admiral Yamamoto say " I fear we have woken the sleeping dragon who will take a terrible revenge"

This time round CASA has perhaps woken a man with both the resolve and the resources to see justice as an end.

To those two on this thread who for personal reasons - envy or revenge want Airtex etc closed remember there are some 70 families that depend upon them for their livelyhood and well being. This has been arbitarily taken away by a few who appear to have no reason except to get "a notch on their belt" and to further a dubious career.

These CASA gentlemen should be aware that Dick Smith did one very good service to our Industry that has yet to be used. CASA employees may be personally liable for their actions. It will just take one person to proceed against a CASA employee to bankruptcy to bring this point home.

[tiger19]

I noticed Skymaster were advertising for PA31 drivers yesterday.

[remoak]

some 70 families that depend upon them for their livelyhood and well being. This has been arbitarily taken away by a few who appear to have no reason except to get "a notch on their belt" and to further a dubious career.

You want to be very, very careful saying stuff like that. Despite the ever-popular swipes at CASA and their motives, they simply cannot take the well-being of employees into account when making safety-related decisions - their job is to protect the public, not the company. Despite the way some people love to hate CASA, and despite some past indiscretions, they always look at the legal side when making these decisions and I doubt they would have acted without serious and substantial concerns.

In this case, there seem to be rather too many issues in too short a time for comfort.

CASA may sometimes overstep the mark, but many of the companies they take action against are far from blameless.

[snoop doggy dog]

Your an idiot assymetric. You had best open your eyes and read when quoting who has said what :rolleyes:

It is your responsibility to not fly fatigued and stop if you are, so you are not endangering the lives of people. Hence the need for a good safety culture to educate people like yourself. No one forced you to work there mate. Working sixteen hour days for one hundred and fifty dollars. Good luck to you, it was your choice mate :mad:

They certainly operate differently now they do not have their own maitenance, or is it the pilots' working there are willing to fly aircraft with multiply snags to get the job done? :ugh:

Best to clean the industry up, and have operators that respect their employees and have a good safety culture in their operations.

[tiger19]

RATsoreA, snoop doggy was flying for this mob directly/indirectly when you were still on your mummas tit, fortunately for him he moved onto the shiny jet. Snoop doggy tried in the past to bring one dodgy operator to the attention of CASA ( I was witness in one of the meetings ) but they refused to step in, he resigned from that mob just before they drove an aircraft into a hill. So RATsoreA, although this is an anonymousrumour mill, he has had more to do with CASA and trying to prevent (unsuccessfully) fatals before they occurr than you have probably had hot dinners. snoop in the end found it easier to walk away from GA and join an airline. RATsoreA, if you tried to bring an accident waiting to happen 10 years ago mate to the attention of CASA, you would known what balls it took to risk ending your own career so you could sleep at night with a clear conscience.

[snoop doggy dog]

How do you get envy or revenge out of the above threads dhavillandpilot? :rolleyes:

Was there a Metro and recently a PA31 that killed people from this company? :rolleyes:

If envy or revenge is wanting good operators to service people in Australia, whilst cleaning out the rest, I guess it is as you say.

Having casual employees who will tow the line (because they want the twin hours or whatever), do what is required (long hours, low pay, work fatigued, etc) is not at all conducive to a good safety culture. Sooner or later the latent failures line-up and disaster strikes, as it has with this company :mad:.

The good thing for the seventy families is that they will have their loved ones coming home tonight, as CASA is doing what it should have done a long time ago. The regulator acts too slowly and should have guided this company on a tighter rein it seems. Example, Transair operated for some time before they were finally closed.

It will be interesting to see what safety culture changes the company put in place since the first disaster. If the company employed people full time since disaster one, then I guess the were moving in the right direction. I doubt it though and what have my money on the line drivers still being casual so they are at the companys' beck and calling :=.

For the record mate, I have always choosen where I work and walked away from operators when it did not seem right. I had a good bit of advice when I started out twenty years ago and have used it as a measure;

"If someone asks you to do something that's not right or fly an aircraft that is not serviceable, don't do it and walk away. Even if they say there are people to replace, walk away, you keep your good reputation and a better opportunity will come your way."

[oneday_soon]

for personal reasons - envy or revenge want Airtex etc closed


Mate, there is no envy or revenge here. I am out, I have chosen not to fly anymore for a living. But I have been in and around the industry for 20+ years now, an emotion plays a big part in people's thinking. People are so desperate to fly, that they will compromise there own lives to get into the air. They justify what they are doing or are just so blinkered by what they are trying to achieve that they convince themselves companies such as the ones in question should continue to operate. It is Tunnel vision.

My God, it is amazing to me what people are prepared to do to fly.

Just remember there is so much more to life than flying. It took me a long time to realise that, but i am lucky i did.

Good Luck all.

[Les Norton]

CASA’s decision to suspend Skymaster Air Services and Avtex Air Services is also based on issues relating to the safety culture of the operations, aircraft maintenance control and pilot training.



Now tell me who couldn't see that one coming.... The person concerned is just about on his last legs with ANY Australian operator. I know we made that mistake once, Airtex was probably the only mob who would touch him - or maybe they never reference checked him.

Dieter and SD, you don't deserve this, it was brought to you by the other two industry lightweights concerned. I wish you the best.

[GADRIVR]

Les,
Whom are you referring to... the current Skymaster CP or former incumbents?

[magritte1982]

:ooh: Anyone knows what's wrong with this operator???

[Rojer Wilco]

Link to CASA press release is here

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Two Sydney based air operators suspended (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100195)

[kimwestt]

Well . . you got it half right! Dieter certainly didn't deserve all this, as for SD - when you play "cute" within the "knowledge is power" scenario, I guess you could say that the results speak for themselves. Karma will prevail.
P.S. Rumour has it that this info is first hand, not hearesay!

[Desert Flower]

Well it's sure put a stop to their Lake Eyre flights!

DF.

[Rose_Thorns]

We have the snipers 'in the back of the crew bus' (slightly smug for being there) or people hiding behind 'Dirinbandi' locations (sod the spell checker) or some such ridiculously far fetched part of the planet, happy to deride, delight in criticism and run down an industry which, despite all the inherent, inflicted and regulatory problems, survives.
Almost everyone here had a start in GA, some had a charmed run, some fell at the first fence. But every pilot reading this (bar a few) has held their breath over a 'rough engine', gripped the seat with their buttocks during a close call for fuel or dragged a pig through a fence on a hot day calling loud and long, to whatever Gods they believe in, the pilots eternal prayer .
"Just let me get this one home and I'll never infringe a regulation again". The second line is
" Please help me survive my first 500 hours multi, and I will live in 'Dirinbandi' for ever, always humbly ride in the back of the bus (crew only) and never stuff up like this again so help me".
This newly discovered piety always lasts until slightly after the second beer.
GA runs on enthusiasm, adrenalin and precious little else. The guys at Airtex are no worse and probably better than a lot of operators. It is grossly unfair to criticise young Andy Wilson, a three legged dog, or a two legged bar stool without you knowing the story. ALL the story, warts and all.
It is quite a story. Wait for the evidence and the judgements. It will be worth it.
To those who allow the 'authority' to rule their every waking minute remember the bit in the book about throwing the first stone (it is Sunday after all).
Tailwinds – Lilum (inter spinas).

[RatsoreA]

The guys at Airtex are no worse and probably better than a lot of operators.

This is something that my personal experience can attest to. I have flown with some dodgy operators (Primary flight instruments that may as well have been painted on, 'can you fly this single engine ****box 120nm over a remote area on one magneto to maintence so they can fix it) and I have never been pressured/tempted/asked/coerrced to do anything that wasn't happy with.

DS has his ways about him, but I always found him to be a straight shooter and IMHO, is undeserving of this.

Tiger19, you should have your own pyschic style TV show, seeing as how you can reach out across cyber space and make sweeping statements that make claims about my experiences.

RATsoreA, if you tried to bring an accident waiting to happen 10 years ago mate to the attention of CASA, you would known what balls it took to risk ending your own career so you could sleep at night with a clear conscience.

I have left a poor operator after voicing my concerns, where they then drove a (turbine) aircraft into a hill, fortunatly, empty at the time except for the pilot. And I sleep like a drunk baby at night, thank you.

[threeeleven]

I agree with much of what has been said here, most importantly being CASA's selective and often unfounded targeting of operators and individuals, some based on personal grudges and several FOI's desire to have the last word. Not for a second am I saying Airtex don't have issues, however look at the way CASA have done this again, the friday late arvo shut down.

There are a stack of dodgy operators around, that get away with what they do because they can. Then there are others that are so closely monitored, any glitch (even if outside everyone's control) and they feel the wrath of an angry bunch of little men. Troppos were a good example. Again, not to say they didn't have some issues along the way, but they were undoubtedly the best operator up there, and the only one to be shut down.

If you ask ANYONE in Australian Aviation what they think of CASA, you will always, 100% of the time get a negative response. Why is this continuing on like this then? Why the hell don't we do something about it??

There are a lot of incredibly intelligent, informed and experienced individuals here on pprune, surely there are enough people to get together and get some action going.

We live in a society where we decide who controls what we do. Why do we all complain about these people and do nothing about it?? Unless proven otherwise, I believe we all feel the same about this, so why are we sitting around letting these people continue doing what they do? Where and how do we start??

I'm sure there are people on here who consider this a very naive and uninformed post, however the simple fact is that everyone in aviation here in Australia who is governed by these people all feel the same. So why can't we start to make a change?

[Stationair8]

Dumb question department, but who are Avtex, I have heard of Airtex, Heron and Skymaster?

[LeadSled]

Les,
The following comments apply to the Avtex/Airtex Metro operation only, and the changes required by CASA after the freighter loss about two years ago.

Over a period of 18 months, a new CP and a boss of training ( with long term serious airline training/standards and management experience) were put in place.All the pilots were retrained, two pilot crews for pax ops. (demanded by CASA) became the order of the day.

All the manuals and the CAR 217 procedures were completely revamped, not only to include two pilot SOPs, but a complete overhaul, and all the changes were progressively negotiated with the then CASA YSBK management, and new AOCs were issued, with restrictions progressively removed, as changes went into place. So, at least twice in that period, presumably "--- and CASA is satisfied".

As far as I know, the SMS put in place (before they became mandatory) was the first fair dinkum SMS in a small GA organization. Check out the airline exemptions.

In the 18 months up to last February, there were several CASA audits, and several ACS ( the ICAO/IATA IOSA audit team from Melbourne) independent audits, all probably with a few comments, as there always are, but apparently no show stoppers. The ACS team is internationally recognized by ICAO and IATA, with a long list of very high profile clients, including not just international airlines, but national aviation authorities. One might reasonably say ACS auditors are far more highly qualified and widely experience than all but a few of CASA's inspectors. An ACS audit of CASA would be an interesting exercise.

Then, earlier this year, the CASA management changed at YSBK, and as they say in the movies: "The rest is history".

As I hear it, just about every operator at Bankstown, and most of the local ATOs are all in CASA YSBK sights.

Tootle pip!!

[dhavillandpilot]

Leadsled is correct in what he says.

This has all the appearance of "notches on the belt" to enhance someones career.

If CASA is so determined to "do the job" and be the tough regulator then perhaps they should also look at the Qantas maintenance?

But there again, this would only be a fairy tale as Qantas is in the national interest - read political clout.

This is far from over and the driving force defending it has the will, means and determination to win.

As the chinese say "may you live in interesting times.

[BULLDOG 248]

Any truth to a rumour that this operator had a big win against CASA and in particular an FOI that was hell bent on stopping the turbine side of this operation. From memory, it was over 10 years ago and a LARGE sum of money was handed over by CASA??????? Again, this is a rumour network, so please shoot me down in flames if i'm wrong!!!!!!!! But if it is true, remember, the big old elephant never forgets.

[The Green Goblin]

A young Aviator was being ramp checked by a CASA FOI.
As the FOI walked to the door of his Cessna, flipping open his ticket
book, the young aviator said, 'I bet you are going to sell me tickets to the CASA Flight Operations Inspectors Ball.'
He replied, 'CASA Flight Operation inspectors don't have balls.'
There was a moment of silence while the young aviator smiled, and the FOI realized what he'd just said.
He then closed his book, got back in his vehicle and left.

The young aviator was laughing too hard to start the aeroplane.

[mcgrath50]

GG, I don't care if that is true or not because it is just so beautiful!

[BULLDOG 248]

GG..........:D

[Rose_Thorns]

The CASA has no fear of any opposition, sleeping or not!. Guess what, the dragon is us.

The CASA anti dragon measures are a pitiful, wretched, hidebound, moribund culture which seeks to create fear by perverting flawed laws, to suit it's own sad egocentric ambitions.

It is up to the industry to stop the CASA.

Say (or shout) –'enough'. People power changes communist dictatorships. What chance have this CASA bunch against any 6 pack of determined Chief Pilots in the land.

Six good men and true could get rid of this bunch screeching pretenders. Easier than breaking wind. Just explain to the Senate that you, not the CASA bunch, are the legally qualified, everyday managers of real safety in this industry. You may also explain that bullies, screaming skulls, jack o' lanterns, the thing under the bed and Voldemort are always beaten by truth (or a cricket bat). Individual choice there children.

Look at any CASA document; grammar, punctuation, spelling and the use of the English language (as opposed to KGB translation) is not only piss poor, but would hardly qualify as acceptable under the least picky FOI' s idea of 'how it should be writ'. There is always a 'spello' or two, ask anyone who writes or, has ever written a manual. Do not the local FOI. Dollar says they are barely capable of reading it, let alone comprehending changed ideas or the legal/operational complexities of writing the blessed thing.

Remember; CASA/L3. "If not previously approved, knock it back". (Rule three of the CASA approved post lobotomy treatment).

For example, who the hell wrote CAO 40.1, (or part 5) bet you a 6 pack, the native tongue is not English.
Enough frivolity. Get real about changing the culture of fear.

What are you waiting for guys?. The manslaughter charge?.

[Sunfish]

Just remember old age and treachery beat youth and initiative every time.


When you complain to the Minister, remember that your letter goes down through the management chain all the way to the very person you are complaining about. It is that person who then writes the Ministers letter back to you.

That person also has your file on his desk when he does it, and every piece of correspondence your organisation has ever written to CASA is in it, and its all registered and neatly indexed at his fingertips.

Now along with the letter this joker writes for the Minister to sign, he writes a Ministerial brief, no more than Two pages long at the very maximum. The Ministerial brief explains what the bureaucracy has done to investigate the matter you raised, a recommendation about the resolution of the matter, maybe a point of explanation if necessary, perhaps to explain some terminology or construction in the letter, and finally a recommendation that the Minister sign the attached letter.

Assuming your bosses, who all have to read and approve your brief are happy, and the Ministerial adviser is happy it ain't going to cost votes, the Minister is handed the brief and the letter and signs it as well as initialing the brief, which is then returned to you so you can take copies and post the damn thing.

I am telling you this because unless you are absolutely rock solid in your facts, and can prove misdeeds comprehensively, you are going to be hung drawn and quartered very quickly by the very person you are complaining about, and it will be done in the full light of day, watched by senior bureaucrats and the Minister, and there is not a damn thing you can do to stop it once you have mailed your complaining letter.

You have engaged in a dual with a Public servant. His only resource in the public service is his reputation and personal file. If you succeed in besmirching his escutcheon, his career is finished. He will fight you to the death and he has all the resources of the Department behind him.

That is the meaning of the constant use of the word advice by Government Ministers. They always act on advice from a public servant unless they are, to use "Yes Ministers" Sir Humphrey Appelby word "courageous" meaning stupid.

You would need an overwhelming display of industry solidarity to get anywhere with CASA otherwise you will simply be fobbed off as "Several disgruntled Individuals" and dealt with piecemeal in private. Furthermore, your concerns should be couched in terms of helping CASA and the industry improve safety and efficiency, not just carping about one of many administrative decisions that need to be made by CASA every day that wasn't to your liking.




......and finally, I've been a victim of the Friday 4.30 pm letter/fax (in commercial matters, not with CASA or Government). It is a puerile legal insult, since it is extremely unpleasant having to drop everything at that hour and try and find a lawyer and a judge who will give you an immediate injunction.

I would have thought better of CASA.

[kimwestt]

Lead Sled, you are right on the money when you mention an audit on CASA. Some years ago (not too many) I did a Safety/Lead Auditor course. That particular course was held in Brisbane, and the practical part of the course was done live on Virgin Airlines at YBBN.
The course instructor commented, in detail, about previous courses, which, for their practical component, had completed (or had attempted to complete) on CASA (at CASA's invitation).
Every component of the Audit on CASA failed, with multiple RCA's (requests for corrective action) issued for every element of the Audit.
CASA declined to discuss the results of the Audit, and CASA subsequently forbade the Auditing of themselves by an independant auditor.
On the matter of a revised 217 manual, demanded of Airtex by CASA, it would seem that the legal imperative of IPSO FACTO has been ignored. It would seem inconceivable that having accepted a new manual, and re-issuing the AOC on the basis of that new manual, that CASA would then proceed on what could best be described as a witch hunt, using the old 217 manual (or parts from that manual that best suit CASA's purposes) to persecute Airtex.
Or does it suit CASA to mix both Airtex's old and new 217 manuals to produce a bending machine that will allow CASA to massage facts into any shape that might suit their needs.
Reliable rumour has it that both Dubious and Worthless conclusions have been arrived at using the aforementioned tactics.
One would suspect that the matter is being mentioned in legal Chambers.

[Sunfish]

While all this has nothing to do with me, is the CASA gentleman who was involved in some on going West Australian airline alleged persecution legal matter (Polar Air?) involved in this matter? I think I understood that he was promoted into some East Coast management position. Name escapes me.

[ContactMeNow]

Provided that CASA have hard evidence to shut this business down, maybe they should start shutting down a few more?


One operator that way, had 2 major prangs in as many months, but CASA are not knocking on their door?? 2 Dead and one pilot has lost an eye:{

Word going around is "if you fly that much, something is bound to happen eventually", and with that mentality GA in Australia takes yet another step backwards...so much for "moving forward"....:mad:

I personally think that the owner of an aviation business (one with the financial interest in the company) should not be allowed to fix or fly that companies aircraft...

CMN :E

[Howard Hughes]

When you complain to the Minister, remember that your letter goes down through the management chain all the way to the very person you are complaining about. It is that person who then writes the Ministers letter back to you.

Sunfish is obviously very familiar in dealing with Government, this is exactly how it works!:ok:

[RadioSaigon]

The CASA has no fear of any opposition, sleeping or not!. Guess what, the dragon is us.

The CASA anti dragon measures are a pitiful, wretched, hidebound, moribund culture which seeks to create fear by perverting flawed laws, to suit it's own sad egocentric ambitions.

BRAVO Rose Thorns! :ok:

A superlative piece of prose -and an accurate summation of "the world as we know it". Well written!

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,
Don't know about WA, but at least one individual CASA employee involved in this imbroglio has apparently an interesting history in Darwin, before he departed for cooler climes, or was it to cool down.
Tootle pip!!

[Rose_Thorns]

The Airtex – Sky Master scrum, better than anything else serves to highlight the inherent flaws in the regulatory system as it stands. The Airtex situation is very different to the Sky Master issue.

Airtex was taking serious steps, under a strict non owner involvement policy towards achieving a very good operational culture and standards. This action is a classic 'much ado about nothing'. (You need a fine sense of the ridiculous).

Sky Master is horse of an entirely different color. It is said, that had the pilots any options other than loose a job or get prosecuted, there may well have been a different picture, other than that of a sad, sub standard, potentially lethal operational culture. I have heard (horses mouth) that two CASA officers had written information related to "trouble at the mill'', they delayed and prevaricated, then rolled over. (Marked - to be dealt with internally?).

Now, no one is going to tell CASA anything. This is a great shame. Had the culture of fear been a culture of respect then, over a coffee information could be exchanged, pointers given and the 'Authority' could, with some precision have effected safety based changes which may have prevented some recent events. Had there been an 'empathetic' authority, perhaps things would have worked out differently.

But sadly as it stands, safety based outcomes are not nearly as much fun as lawyers at 20 paces.

I hope the grown ups at CASA see that perhaps the cases need to be treated separately. Neither, in different ways make them look good. In one, they perhaps embarrass themselves; in the other, they may well be seen as part of the problem.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

[LeadSled]

Lester,
As Rosie says, two different organization with one shareholder, re-read my original post on this subject.

In my opinion, what has changed at YSBK is the CASA management. To say changes have caused " much fluttering in the dovecots" would be the understatement of the week.

Quite apart from Avtex and Skymaster, all of a sudden, most of the local ATOs, people of long standing high reputation, are in trouble --- as a result of some quite bizarre "definitions" and "interpretations" of "the rules" by certain FOIs.

Not limited to "informal" "directions to ATOs" that (asymmetric) handling of a "V1" cut ( no such thing on a FAR 23 aeroplane) "engine failure on takeoff" must be demonstrated by pulling the mixture ---- no wuzzy "zero thrust". This is at the heart of the problems of the ATOs, who, perhaps not surprisingly, have shown no enthusiasm for such bureaucratically directed "techniques".

Other AOCs (and there aren't all that many active left at YSBK) are threatened ---- let's "get tough", close 'em all down, ergo a perfect safety record. Some of the CASA demands of other operators would be funnily farcical, if it wasn't so serious.

It's not just the "industry" record that should be subject to close scrutiny here.

Undoubtedly, the ensuing inevitable court proceedings will do just that !!

Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

Oboy!!!...girls and boys its on again!!
Take one screaming skull..returned from an oriental debacle, heavily spiced with a deflated ego.
Stir in worthless and Dubious " Brown Shirt Industry rejects.
Kneed the Skulls ego in front of a Senate committee, until he loses his rag and reincarnates as "Adolf".Mix in an area manager desperate for promotion at any cost, and lets go bake a cake!!...I can hear the ovens firing up as we speak. Cake will be tasty for some...sour for others.
At the end of the day who will lose??...The industry!!!...note the CASA spin doctors and hollow men that the industries hard earned dollars pay for have been hard at work. All this does incredible damage to our industry. Why after twenty years cannot our regulator produce a set of regulations that are up to date, understandable ( Without the accumen of being a high court judge)..that are not open to many interpretations. Until that happens this sort of Cr...p will go on happening, because one mans interpretation is no necessarily the same as someone else....Why do all the CASR's Cao"s etc have to end up in front of a high court Judge with no aviation background for interpretation. Any one read CAO 40 lately???
Who ever wrote that should get an award for Gobbledy Gook!! Worthless and Dubious FOI's can force their "Opinions" because the reg's are so open to interpretation...the sad thing is people will die and those industry rejects will be blameless because CASA is the font of all knowledge, defy them at your peril, as perhaps we are witnessing in this sorry saga.
Do as your told children!!!even if you know its unsafe...Civil Aviation SAFETY....Authority????....Bul....SH...T

[Worrals in the wilds]

Speaking as an ex Commonwealth public servant Sunfish is on the money. You are probably better off approaching the Shadow Minister or Today Tonight...but make sure it's saleable, includes working families and has good soundbites, otherwise No-one Cares (until there's a distressing number of bodies, a la Transair). Such is modern government :yuk:.

[Sunfish]

Leadsled:

Not limited to "directions to ATOs" that (asymmetric) handling of a "V1" cut ( no such thing on a FAR 23 aeroplane) "engine failure on takeoff" must be demonstrated by pulling the mixture ---- no wuzzy "zero thrust". This is at the heart of the problems of the ATOs, who, perhaps not surprisingly, have shown no enthusiasm for such bureaucratically directed "techniques".

If that is actually correct, then I'm simply flabbergasted. I only fly singles, but were someone to do that to me, the mixture control would be immediately returned to full rich and the test terminated.

I've had the throttle retarded to idle at fifty feet on takeoff, together with "Engine failure, what are you going to do now?" and even that focuses your attention.

[Rose_Thorns]

In connection with the last post?. (No, not the tune. Sit down Joyce).

Heard on the grapevine that 4 BK based senior ATO are all in trouble of some sort; mostly based on one man's interpretations of the CAO as writ. The same rumour describes the FOI involved as being ex Darwin based, (ran out of town on a rail), then rejected by Melbourne and finally being off loaded at BK. Anyone care (dare) to clear this up. It would be a great thing to know more about the people who can, almost at a whim, have such a negative overall affect on the safety of this industry.


I sincerely hope this is not so. There is little enough sense and experience available to the 'kids' on their way to greener pastures than GA. We need the guys with multiple decades and thousands of test hours experience. (Say 4 ATO with 30 years each thats 120 years collective experience gone in a heartbeat).

The great PA 31 type rating saga continues to amuse and delight, (unless your the poor sod paying for it all). As one of the guys involved mentioned. “If I had have done an endorsement as this guy has accepted them done, I would have lost my socks on the way to the AAT”.

Perhaps the CASA grown ups would like to publish a statement about this episode, before it starts to appear in cartoon form in the national press at election time. LOL.

[black magic]

Anyone know who has been operating Airtex medical / other flights in their absence? :confused: I would guess there are few other operators available with as many resources...

[das Uber Soldat]

Saw the YWOL based red and yellow PA31 land and taxi to Airtext today.

Not sure what the go is.

[bizzybody]

Jerez he must be desperate to use them.
Either that or smart for not seeking help from a certain other 2 aoc holders on the paddock

[Joker 10]

Ratwood there is a lot of truth in this
Heard on the grapevine that 4 BK based senior ATO are all in trouble of some sort; mostly based on one man's interpretations of the CAO as writ.
The screaming skull will rush to the defence of the bureacrats, but it is an untenable position.

[bizzybody]

Sure is a lot of new people to pprune on this thread

[kimwestt]

:=:=
Careful, careful, careful - some of the posts might, to a rumouristic way of thinking, resemble very closely questions from dubious and worthless sources. And maybe CASA'ites as well.
Be careful how you pprune!!

[PLovett]

This is not the first time that a change of FOI has caused grief by having a different interpretation of the legislation from their predecessor. :uhoh:

Usually the poor sod on the receiving end just bites the bullet and complies, :ouch: however, I suggest that there is always the option of going further up the chain of command and getting a ruling from head office. :8

I would have thought that there was a basic principle here that a person who has complied with the directions of an FOI cannot be made to change that at the direction of another FOI. CASA should consider that in cases where a FOI believes that the wrong interpretation of legislation has been applied that a ruling should come from higher up the food chain than the FOI level. :ooh:

[LeadSled]

Sunfish,

See the minor edit to my last post ---- "informal" directions about how to demonstrate asymmetric handling.

The fatality record in twin training over the years speaks for itself, with a mixture of under education and overconfidence being a very deadly mixture. It is still going on.

Poor old Green Goblin ---- an innocent abroad ----- or somebody from CASA.

Tootle pip !!

[Howard Hughes]

FOI's should not be interpreting legislation, that is for lawyers, they should be making sure it is applied correctly. If there is any doubt, as others have said, go further up the chain at least until you reach a lawyer!:ok:

[Brian Abraham]

FAA Handbook

The multiengine pilot must keep in mind that the accelerate-go distance, as long as it is, has only brought the airplane, under ideal circumstances, to a point a mere 50 feet above the takeoff elevation. To achieve even this meager climb, the pilot had to instantaneously recognize and react to an unanticipated engine failure, retract the landing gear, identify and feather the correct engine, all the while maintaining precise airspeed control and bank angle as the airspeed is nursed to VYSE. Assuming flawless airmanship thus far, the airplane has now arrived at a point little more than one wingspan above the terrain, assuming it was absolutely level and without obstructions.

With (for the purpose of illustration) a net 150 f.p.m. rate of climb at a 90-knot VYSE, it will take approximately 3 minutes to climb an additional 450 feet to reach 500 feet AGL. In doing so, the airplane will have traveled an additional 5 nautical miles beyond the original accelerate-go distance, with a climb gradient of about 1.6 percent. A turn of any consequence, such as to return to the airport, will seriously degrade the already marginal climb performance.

Not all multiengine airplanes have published accelerate-go distances in their AFM/POH, and fewer still publish climb gradients. When such information is published, the figures will have been determined under ideal flight testing conditions. It is unlikely that this performance will be duplicated in service conditions.

The point of the foregoing is to illustrate the marginal climb performance of a multiengine airplane that suffers an engine failure shortly after takeoff, even under ideal conditions. The prudent multiengine pilot should pick a point in the takeoff and climb sequence in advance. If an engine fails before this point, the takeoff should be rejected, even if airborne, for a landing on whatever runway or surface lies essentially ahead. If an engine fails after this point, the pilot should promptly execute the appropriate engine failure procedure and continue the climb, assuming the performance capability exists. As a general recommendation, if the landing gear has not been selected up, the takeoff should be rejected, even if airborne.

As a practical matter for planning purposes, the option of continuing the takeoff probably does not exist unless the published single-engine rate-of-climb performance is at least 100 to 200 f.p.m. Thermal turbulence, wind gusts, engine and propeller wear, or poor technique in airspeed, bank angle, and rudder control can easily negate even a 200 f.p.m. rate of climb.

I'd suggest that should any FOI or ATO want to pull the mixture, the hospital emergency dept may be seeing an increase in broken arms.

Posted with memories of Les Morris.

[Counter-rotation]

PLovett, you are right on if you ask me...

If two FOIs can't agree, you don't just comply with whoever happens to be in the room at the time!!

They need to go away, sort out the discrepancy (ie. sort your sh!t out CASA), then (this is IMPORTANT) communicate to the industry and each other the results, and apply same.

Is that so freaking much to expect!!!!!

CR.

[Rose_Thorns]

Well. it's been fun but, I ask you. Whats a girl going to do?.

"and CASA subsequently forbade the Auditing of themselves by an independent auditor".

"Don't know about WA, but at least one individual CASA employee involved in this imbroglio has apparently an interesting history in Darwin, before he departed for cooler climes, or was it to cool down".

"It's not just the "industry" record that should be subject to close scrutiny here".


"You are probably better off approaching the Shadow Minister or Today Tonight".

"The screaming skull will rush to the defense of the bureaucrats, but it is an untenable position".

"This is not the first time that a change of FOI has caused grief by having a different interpretation of the legislation from their predecessor".


"The fatality record in twin training over the years speaks for itself, with a mixture of under education and overconfidence being a very deadly mixture. It is still going on"

"I'd suggest that should any FOI or ATO want to pull the mixture, the hospital emergency dept may be seeing an increase in broken arms".

"communicate to the industry and each other the results, and apply same.
Is that so freaking much to expect!!!!!".

Have a good weekend guys. Tailwinds. Lilum (inter spinas).

PS. If for nothing else this thead has been valuable just to show the level of industry dislike and distrust of the 'authority" which exists and, worse, that we continue to struggle on despite them. How many guys have accepted the dictates, bitched about it later, but still grinded out the changes in the COM. It's a worry.

[fencehopper]

Just read this thread right though, freaking amazing. the only thing that has seemed to have changed in the last two decades are the names. there still seems to be dodgey operators and dodgey servants of the crown.
I can't see that the industry is any safer than what it was back then. aircraft are still crashing for the same reasons, businesses are still being shut down for the same reasons and no two minds can come to the same interpretation of any rule for the same reasons. and MPs still don't have a clue about how to make aviation a real part of commerce.
since i started playing the aviation game in the mid seventies i have lost track of how many blow in CEOs have come and gone in how many name changed depts. they have either fallen on their own swords or been stabbed in the back or rolled over in a change of Govt. I wonder what fate has in store for 'The Skull' (who came up with that name?, i love it).
One thing for certain CASA must be put on a leash. The CEO removed and replaced by a board with at least one member a high court judge. way to much power for one man to play with.
surprised someone hasn't caught up with "them" in the carpark.
FH

[LeadSled]

I'd suggest that should any FOI or ATO want to pull the mixture, the hospital emergency dept may be seeing an increase in broken arms.Brien,

Usually the hospital emergency department remains undisturbed, because there are no survivors.

Not always the case, the last one at Camden, (pulled the mixture at night) the check pilot died the following day, but the pilot being checked ( an American airline Captain in Australia for a flying holiday) took about three months to die of burns.

Since that one, we have had another fatal on twin training at Bankstown.

What a dreadful waste of life, and all completely unnecessary.

And the undereducated but overconfident dingbats want to still tell us about the "training value" of "real" engine failures ---- not zero thrust, and the "confidence building" alleged to result from landing with one feathered ----- your not a "real multi-engine pilot" if you haven't landed with one prop feathered.

With not a clue about the certification criteria for most (ex. "Commuter amendment") FAR 23 aircraft, which means, in reality "a single engine aeroplane with twice the chance of engine failure".

This garbage has been going on for years, how many more do we have to kill, before it stops????

Tootle pip!!

[Brian Abraham]

Not always the case, the last one at CamdenLeadSled, see the last two words of my previous post. A man I knew well, had worked with, vast experience, and admired. The grim reaper is always only too ready to strike.

To which I might add, Trevor Brougham, another fine gentleman, friend and aviator, who came to grief at Port Lincoln.

[Jack Ranga]

If anybody was to read the full article (very well summarised by Brian) you would wonder in god's name why anybody would mess with those figures by deliberately failing an engine so close to the ground rather than setting zero thrust :ugh:

And to have the regulator re-inforceing such practice is mind boggling. One would think that at some time in the future when it next happens (and it will) that anybody related to the 'victims' will sue the regulator.

What a disgraceful practice.

[Rojer Wilco]

Is Airtex back in the air yet?

[black magic]

As far as I am aware the answer is no...

[Brian Abraham]

Do they read their own material?

CAAP 5.23-2(0): Multi-engine Aeroplane Operations and Training

3.1 Why this CAAP is issued
3.1.1 An Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) Aviation Research Report analysed accidents and incidents over a ten-year period caused by power loss in twin-engine aircraft weighing less than 5700 kg. Of the 57 accidents investigated, one third were double engine failures, the majority caused by fuel exhaustion due to mis-management. Eleven of the accidents were fatal and 10 of the fatalities were caused by loss of control of the aircraft. Forty-six percent of the engine failures happened during take-off, rather than any other phase of flight. Additionally, 16% of reported multi-engine accidents were associated with planned power losses during training.

3.6.4 At practical operating weights, light multi-engine aeroplanes do not have climb capability with one engine inoperative after take-off. It is usually not until the propeller has been feathered, the aeroplane’s undercarriage and wing flaps have been retracted and it’s airspeed reaches the optimum speed (VYSE) that light multi-engine aeroplanes have the capability to climb with one engine inoperative.

3.6.5 This is most significant for pilots of light multiengine aeroplanes. It means that if the aeroplane suffers an engine failure shortly after take-off it is unlikely to be able to climb. It is more likely that the aeroplane will descend and the pilot will have no alternative other than a forced landing.

4.17.6 Any flight operation at low altitude has potential dangers. Trainers have debated over the decades on the value of practicing engine failures after an actual take-off, that is, near the ground. The general consensus is that despite the risks, pilots must be trained to manage these situations in multi-engine aircraft.

However, instructors should consider not simulating engine failures below 400 ft AGL to provide a reasonable safety margin.

5.5.1 ……..Do not simulate an engine failure using procedures that may jeopardise the restoration of power. It would be folly to simulate an engine failure at low level by selecting the mixture to idle cut-off or turning the fuel selector off.

5.8.1 Flight instructors often simulate an engine failure by rapidly closing the throttle or moving the mixture control to idle cut-off. The latter method should never be used at low altitude.

ATSB study "Power loss related accidents involving twin-engine aircraft"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36444/Power_loss_twin_engine_aircraft.pdf

[SuperStinker]

OZG was in the air today sounded like training

[thorn bird]

Perhaps in this case, where a worthless or Dubious FOI continue to attempt to impose their opinions,not regulation, and force us to conduct training in an unsafe manner a little passive resistance may be in order. Technically a multi engine aircraft with one engine feathered is in an emergency situation, therefore it follows that prior to every single engine training event a May Day call is made, and ATC advised that the aircraft is about to be placed in an emergency situation. Once the engine has been successfully unfeathered and restarted the MAYDAY can be downgraded.
Me thinks a paper work war would subsequently occur, and I'm sure the ATSB would be really pissed, and just maybe the press might start asking some sensible questions for a change:rolleyes:

[Sunfish]

Clinton:


As a matter of interest, who believes that the mixture control on all GA piston engines creates a fuel-proof seal when set to ‘idle cut-off’?

Wrong question. I don't care if it produces a fuel proof seal, all I know is that every time I've pulled to ICO from ground idle, the noise has stopped within Two seconds.

I somehow think our CFI would be annoyed if he heard me do it while airborne. I have never had an instructor pull to ICO on a PFL either, but that is with a single engine.

[43Inches]

Maybe it’s more about the altitude at which the failure is simulated, the (non-)performance of the aircraft when the failure is simulated, not the method of simulating the failure
This is the real problem with most assymetric training accidents. Simulated engine failures at night must be performed at a minimum altitude, mixture cut or throttle does not matter. The Camden accident may not have occured if this AIP ENR section was observered.


66.3 Circuit Training Operations at Night
66.3.1 Aircraft engaged in training operations at night in the circuit area
must not, when below 1,500FT AGL, carry out any manoeuvres
which involve:
a. the simulation of failure of an engine; or
b. flight in a simulated one‐engine‐inoperative condition; or
c. the intentional shut‐down of a serviceable engine.


I think all multi-engine trainees should complete at least one shut down and feather in flight with a restart in each aircraft they are endorsed. If a proper type simulator is available use it. If in the real aircraft do it on a good weather day at 3000agl or above and fly around on the engine through a few maneuvres to see how it performs, especialy in climb. In a 4 seater like the Seminole or Dutchess you can load the aircraft to MTOW quite easily with two on board, full fuel and some ballast.

There is no need to return to land with one feathered. If you really need to just do a simulated circuit at altitude.

Do not practice any near stall manuevres or VMC recovery while actually on one engine.

If the student has bad habits like picking the wrong engine don't enter the circuit until they have proved they can handle the situation at altitude.

Never play tricks on the trainee, especially during circuits.

If you are a multi-engine instructor or trainee have a good read of the CAAP.

[Ando1Bar]

The inconsistencies across CASA are astounding. One CASA rep, who had been involved in the instruction standards revamp, ridiculed parts of the CAAP claiming it had been written by a jet-jock with no real multi-engine training experience in pistons. He was particularly frustrated with the notion of setting idle power rather than mixture ICO - pulling the mixture was 'better' for the engine, provided a more realistic training experience (particularly the whole identify/confirm part of the drill) and power could be quickly restored by setting rich (no safety issue). Many pilots, particularly single engine pilots, are a little reluctant to pull the mixture as they think the engine will stop dead - fortunately it doesn't.

Anyway, regardless of what instructions were passed down to me from FOIs, CAAPs, CFIs and Ops Manuals, I set my own limitations:

No simulated engine failures below 400ft
No feathering below 2000ft
No simulated engine failures without sight of the ground, or at night
No playing 'tricks' i.e. turning off pumps, tanks etc (and every simulated engine failure was announced).
No pushing Vmca demonstrationsI didn't give a crap whether I was seen as pissweak by the crusty old pilots who'd been doing 100ft engine failures for years. Setting my own limitations got me through my multi-engine instructing career safely despite students stepping on the wrong rudder, pulling the wrong throttle while confirming, not lowering the nose during EFATO etc.

It is disgusting if the allegations about FOIs on previous posts are true.

[Ando1Bar]

Oh, and no asymmetric stalls!

Or did the FOI in question request that as part of a pilot's training as well?

[The Green Goblin]

I've had the mixture control on an engine jam in the ICO position on a mulit engine aeroplane.

Luckily it was after shutdown on the ground and I just couldn't get the engine restarted. It would have been less of a non event if it were an intentional shutdown in flight for assy training.

[LeadSled]

One CASA rep, who had been involved in the instruction standards revamp, ridiculed parts of the CAAP claiming it had been written by a jet-jock with no real multi-engine training experience in pistons.Folks,
Gung-Ho again ---- maybe, just maybe, the CAAP was written by a highly experienced pilot, across all types of propulsion --- but clearly wiser than the CASA FOI mentioned.

the whole identify/confirm part of the drill) and power could be quickly restored by setting rich (no safety issue)Not if it's been feathered, it won't.

I worked for an organization with an excellent safety record. Their rules for base training were simple --- and this all well, well before Level 5 simulators.

1) No shutting down and feathering engines below 3000' AGL.
2) No shutting down engines at night. On pistons, no practice/training asymmetric at night --- at all.
3) Very great care in planning an exercise if there was ANY crosswind
4) The Check Captain "blocking" the rudder pedals so "wrong rudder" cannot be applied.
5) Extensive and careful training and indoctrination of the Check Captain ---- and anybody who didn't stick to the script went back to the line.

Thus, all low level asymmetric training training was conducted well above Vmca, and with a power setting that was "not quite zero thrust", to further reduce the probability
of low level loss of control.

That ramping up the risk produces "training value" is quite simply unsupportable.

But, as most of us know there is a dangerous percentage of pilots in both CASA and industry who are still gung ho ---- actually justifying that they are still alive as "testimony" to the fact that you are a wuzz if you don't do "V1 Cuts" on light twins that are not certified with a capability which includes such concepts as V1 and continue with the takeoff.

A close study of the FAA recommendations across the subject is instructive, including advice to "Close the throttles and land straight ahead" ----- treating a light twin the same was as a single ---- with a greater chance of returning to earth in control, rather than out of control.

Would anybody like to dig out the statistics for survivable engine failure on takeoff for singles versus twin. My memory tells me the FAA did, years ago, the benefit was with the singles, hence the "close the throttles and land straight ahead" recommendation.

But according to a former CASA Assistant director, " What would the FAA know".

The fact that the US record for safety outcomes for GA shows half the rate of Australia (comparing like for like) was dismissed by this "gentleman" as FAA/NTSB not being as keen as Australia in ensuring all accidents were recorded.

Sunfish,
Missed that line, I also knew Les Morris well.

Clinton,
Every twin training accident, with which I have had some involvement, has been asymmetric loss of control. None were ever shown to be some cause other than the pilot(s) mishandled the exercise.

As you know, the Vmca of these aircraft are certified with 5 degrees of bank, "dead engine high", it is instructive to understand how fast the Vmca increases at wings level, and with any bank towards the "dead" engine.

The loss of the RAAF B707-338C at East Sale is an extreme example of what happens when you get below Vmca.

Tootle pip!!

[kimwestt]

Clinton - well said - another scenario not discussed is that from a simulated engine failure, using the power lever, and having the aux boost pump on, particularly on PA 31 types, there is a very real chance that the engine will not accelerate due to the over rich mixture when power is applied.
The engine will not accelerate, and will tend to stall (ie not do anything) other than run rough, coff, farrt, etc - everything except supply power. I make mention of this from first hand experience. To the extent that, although the pre take off check list calls for "pumps on", I do not turn the pumps on until the engines have achieved at least 20"of MP. The alternative is to run the very real risk of being 1/4 way down the runway, and still be waiting for the engine(s) to come up to t/off power.
Too much fuel can have the same effect as no fuel, ie - the engine floods, the fire goes out, no power.
Your comments??

[The Green Goblin]

Clinton - well said - another scenario not discussed is that from a simulated engine failure, using the power lever, and having the aux boost pump on, particularly on PA 31 types, there is a very real chance that the engine will not accelerate due to the over rich mixture when power is applied.
The engine will not accelerate, and will tend to stall (ie not do anything) other than run rough, coff, farrt, etc - everything except supply power. I make mention of this from first hand experience. To the extent that, although the pre take off check list calls for "pumps on", I do not turn the pumps on until the engines have achieved at least 20"of MP. The alternative is to run the very real risk of being 1/4 way down the runway, and still be waiting for the engine(s) to come up to t/off power.
Too much fuel can have the same effect as no fuel, ie - the engine floods, the fire goes out, no power.
Your comments??

I disagree.

With a Navajo and only the engine pumps and boost pump combo as soon as she was hot the engines would stall on the ground without the boost pumps on. As soon as you started hot engines you needed them turned straight on especially in very hot weather. After takeoff when you turned them off sometimes the engines would get rough again and required them to be turned straight back on. Sometimes in the 40 degree heat you would leave them on well into the cruise after a long climb else rough running would soon result again.

In the Chieftain model it had 2 sets of boosts pumps. One that was always on although you disabled them by pulling the CBs and the standard boost pumps as per the Navajo. The boost pumps were not required on the ground if the CBs where in on the constant boost pumps. I never had any problems with the boost pumps on takeoff which where always turned on as I did my TIMPFISH before I rolled. Sometimes with these boost pumps on during taxi however it would overfuel and run rough, but only in the 350s, not the 310 models.

[kimwestt]

My apologies - all my references were to the 350's - your comments re hot engines are correct - I did not, however, make reference to that scenario - well done - perhaps in the light of your comment that they sometimes "run rough" you might like to moderate your disagreement!

[The Green Goblin]

My apologies - all my references were to the 350's - your comments re hot engines are correct - I did not, however, make reference to that scenario - well done - perhaps in the light of your comment that they sometimes "run rough" you might like to moderate your disagreement!

Basically what I was getting at is in the PA31-350 the boost pumps are always on. The second set of boost pumps which you could really call AUX pumps are turned on for take off and landing. This is why they will overfuel if you are not at a higher power setting. The PA31-310 the boost pumps need to be on frequently to counter rough running.

Perhaps that is why the 350 model had the permanent boost pumps installed.

[Rose_Thorns]

All of the preceding are notes on OEI present balanced, reasoned approaches to a high risk element of flight training. No argument that some clever people and seasoned pilots, with a deep seated interest in safety have developed various techniques and methods from their own experiences and those of others. Many threads on a vast number of topics clearly prove that for the most part, every one wants to improve, standardise and develop training and operational safety.

The tragic part is that the current topic has been generated by an individuals bloody minded, pedantic rigid determination to conduct operations strictly in compliance. Almost every preceding OEI post here "could" be construed as operating outside the legislation and have the perpetrator branded as a dangerous rogue.

The way CAO 40.1 is written is prescriptive and flawed. The requirements do not enhance the training experience or reflect current best practice. In industry hands, we have learned to adapt and to avoid the lethal traps that 'absolute' compliance requires.

Until the industry insists on rules which can be readily understood, translate into best practice and can provide competency based outcomes nothing will change.

It is sad but true that the words of the law are often used against the spirit and intent of the regulation. When it suits.

[LeadSled]

Clinton,

I was really only trying to make two points:

1) You shouldn't shut down engines at all, zero thrust is all that is required ---- but such practice seems to have been "informally" banned by CASA at one district office, because it is non-compliant with the previously mentioned CAO --- which "requires" an engine shut down.

2) Mechanical failure in an artificially induced asymmetric situation as the root cause of the crash, compared to pilot mis-handling, is a non-starter.

Re. the RAAF B707-338C, we know exactly what happened ---- with asymmetric thrust ( two on one side at idle) , the rudder boost was switched off, immediately putting the aircraft well below the Vmca2, rudder boost out, a figure not published by Boeing, as it was regarded as being too high for any practical application.

From memory, the Vmca3, rudder boost off, was about 181 kt, compared to 121kt rudder boost on.

Vmca2, rudder boost on was about 166 kt ( ARB) or 173 kt (FAA), with JT3B-3D engines. Don't anybody hold me to the exact figures, it was all a long time ago, but the above are close enough for Government work.

The aeroplane at East Sale flicked so hard, at least one engine detached from its pylon.

The very first accident I ever saw, was a pilot ( and close friend) practicing solo circuits, ran a tank dry on takeoff, turned in the circuit direction --- which was in the direction of the failed engine, got below Vmca, the aeroplane flicked, and went through the roof of an RAF hospital. Alastair, the pilot, was the only fatality.

Tootle pip!!

[F111]

Look at the Metro crash at Tamworth, night assy training approved by the local FOI.

[Centaurus]

I've had the mixture control on an engine jam in the ICO position on a mulit engine aeroplane.

Some instructors see no problem at all with cutting the mixture to simulate engine failure in a multi-engine aircraft after take off. The fact that the failed engine may not re-start instantly doesn't faze them one bit. And if it doesn't start instantly when the mixture is re-set to Rich, the the situation becomes worse than critical because now the prop is windmilling and the speed drops back real fast and the aircraft descends. Do this trick at 200 feet after lift off and an accident looms. The Camden Duchess fatal is a case in point. And by the way the student in that accident did not die three months later. He was very much alive several years later because I talked to him.

Yet, ask the same instructors to cut the mixture of a single engine aircraft after take off at 500 feet to test the students judgement on selection of a suitable forced landing area straight ahead and the answer would be "you must be bloody joking"

When asked why the shocked response the instructor would doubtless say because the engine might not restart when the mixture is reset to Rich.

So a good lawyer would say" Well., my friend, if you are concerned that it is feasable the engine may not start being a single engine aircraft, would not the same risk apply if you cut the mixture after take off on a multi-engine aircraft (think Seminole or Duchess). And if that happens, and the prop is windmilling because the engine failed to start, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. And why is this so? Because you will NEVER climb after take off with one prop windmilling and by the time you realise things have gone wrong it might be too late to feather - since you spent all that time trying to restart the mixture cut engine"

So think about that when you risk your neck to be "realistic" and counting on the engine re-starting following a deliberate mixture cut in a twin..:ok:

[Centaurus]

To the extent that, although the pre take off check list calls for "pumps on", I do not turn the pumps on until the engines have achieved at least 20"of MP.

Presumably you have contacted the aircraft manufacturer to advise him of your precautions and also filed a report with ATSB so they too can advise all operators. And of course written up the defect in the maintenance release:ok:

[LeadSled]

Clinton,

With all due respect, you are asking for an answer to a non-problem, there is no answer to the question of: Is the throttle mechanism in its entirety more likely to fail in the idle position than the mixture control fail in the idle/cutoff position.

One thing is for sure, you will get the power back faster by opening the throttle than you will getting the mixture out of idle cutoff.

Not reducing an engine to idle at all, and then only slowly, has serious benefits for turbo-charged engines ----- another very important reason for very slow throttle movements on the "bigger" piston engines is to preserve the balance weights in the crankshaft, jambing or worse, losing one of the balance weights will do very serious damage to the engine ----- including in once case I witnessed at YSBK, venting the crankcase in a way never intended by the manufacturers --- resulting in an engine fire. The engine was an geared turbocharged 520 or 550, what a mess, what a bill, over $100,000 including airframe repairs.

Be very very gentle with the throttle, only move the mixture to idle cutoff at idles, or if called for in a real emergency.

The issue of control and what happens if you get below Vmca is the same, regardless of the type of engines.

In all the years I have been flying, twice I have had throttle problems ---- the spring that moved the throttle open saved me both times ---- one was a cable break ( Cessna 205 ), the other was a linkage dropped off, DH 82A ----- no split pin through a nut.

At least one thing you can do in four engine aircraft, whether it is a Heron, a DC-4 or a B707, is that you can pull back a symmetric engine to regain control ---- temporally eliminate the control problem ---- if you have the height. I have only demonstrated this on a Heron and a B707.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Sorry about the digital dysfunction and the double post.
Too late at night/early in the morning.
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Kim West:

Clinton - well said - another scenario not discussed is that from a simulated engine failure, using the power lever, and having the aux boost pump on, particularly on PA 31 types, there is a very real chance that the engine will not accelerate due to the over rich mixture when power is applied.
The engine will not accelerate, and will tend to stall (ie not do anything) other than run rough, coff, farrt, etc - everything except supply power. I make mention of this from first hand experience. To the extent that, although the pre take off check list calls for "pumps on", I do not turn the pumps on until the engines have achieved at least 20"of MP. The alternative is to run the very real risk of being 1/4 way down the runway, and still be waiting for the engine(s) to come up to t/off power.
Too much fuel can have the same effect as no fuel, ie - the engine floods, the fire goes out, no power.
Your comments??

My simple observation is that if the engine is coughing and farting on application of T/O power, and I'm doing everything in accordance with the POH. then I'm aborting and going back to the hangar, not inventing my own procedure to "get around" the problem. Once at hangar, I will ask an older and wiser head why the engine is misbehaving....

Twice, it's been linkages (fuel injected). Once, carb ice. The former issues were fixed by screwdriver or replacement. The latter by technique. I'm prepared to wear "It always does that, and this is how you fix it" when immobile on the ground, such as leaning to clean a plug. As a ham fisted pig ignorant pilot, I am not flying with little "glitches" as i already have enough to do.


Clinton:

My only (inexpert) input to this thread relates to the sub-set of the discussion about the comparative safety of simulating an engine failure on a GA piston engine by pulling the throttle versus pulling the mixture. The ‘Old Wives Tale’ seems to be that pulling the mixture is necessarily less safe than pulling the throttle. (As an aside, my view is that the phrase ‘Old Wives Tale’ is a little sexist these days. I’d probably opt for: ‘Near-dead-white-male pig-ignorant self-proclaimed expert tale’, but the acronym’s a little clunky and I’m probably being a little unkind.)

You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that I would prefer the fuel to be flowing, the carb float to be floating, or the diaphragm to be diaphragming, the jets to be jetting and some pitiful form of combustion to be going on in each and every cylinder. The fire can then hopefully restored by the traverse of a butterfly valve through about Eighty degrees of rotation.

To do otherwise conjures images of an Eskimo about to demonstrate his fire lighting skills to his colleagues in mid winter by first extinguishing their fire, but call me old fashioned and pig ignorant. I don't really want to demonstrate that the mixture control is working each time I do a PFL, I just want to do the PFL.

Anyway, this is all off topic. There should be ONE way and ONE way only for an Australian FOI to require a particular procedure to be performed on a particular make and model of aircraft, or if there are Two or more ways, it must be spelt out that it is the OPERATORS choice which one gets used.

[gettin' there]

Interesting reading.

Hypothetical question:

Im coming up for my first renewal in few months. :eek:

What happens and what are my rights when I ask the ATO before the flight component "before we fly I want to confirm that you will not be simulating an engine failure below 500' AGL and all simulated engine failures will be done by setting zero thrust and not pulling the mixture" and he turns around and says something to the contrary?

My multi engine training and initial MECIR was done by ATOs from the school of thought that the risk involved in shuting down engines out weighs the benefit and im very much from the same school of though.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Do what I did.

"If you fail an engine on me at ANY TIME below 500ft, I WILL assume it is real and land appropriatley"

He did and I did.

There was "some" paperwork involved but he has never flown with me since, which is fine by me, in fact I would'nt even let him within a bulls roar of any aircraft of which I have command!

[LeadSled]

I am aware of a number of real engine failures that occurred on application of the throttle after a simulated engine failure.Clinton,

As I am, and in each case the failure of the engine to accelerate was put down to icing, the "carb" heat was not used during the descent at idle, and the engine wasn't "cleared" during the exercise. One particular PA-28 carb. engine( depending on the venturis fitted) is particularly prone to ice buildup, as are many smaller Continentals.

No piston engine is immune, regardless of carb. or injection.

Another "potential" problem with just "pushing the mixture up", if the throttle has not been closed after the mixture is "pulled" ---- all too easy to do if there is need the power in a hurry ---- can result in an engine overspeed, with all sorts of potential damage, starting with the crankshaft counterweights, if your engine has them.

As I keep on saying, don't shut the engine down at all, and keep it a bit above idle, with anti -ice heat as required.

In practice current manufacturers manuals are an interesting animal ---- I have "old" and current editions of engine manufacturers manuals, such as the Lycoming IO-540 in Comanche 260C, they are quite different. The mid-1960 or so manual had all the details for running lean of peak, not so the more "current" manual I have.

Tootle pip!!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

As I am, and in each case the failure of the engine to accelerate was put down to icing, the "carb" heat was not used during the descent at idle, and the engine wasn't "cleared" during the exercise. One particular PA-28 carb. engine( depending on the venturis fitted) is particularly prone to ice buildup, as are many smaller Continentals.

No piston engine is immune, regardless of carb. or injection.



Now this is an interesting twist!

Tell me how a fuel injected engine may suffer from induction icing - without flying in conditions conducive to strucural icing?

Hardly the sort of conditions in which one would be simulating an engine failure!

Dr :8

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Thread's drifting....

The alternative is to run the very real risk of being 1/4 way down the runway, and still be waiting for the engine(s) to come up to t/off power.


Warning. You are increasing your TODR by utilising this kind of procedure.

#1 If you have one engine come onto the turbo before the other, you will have a much greater effort required to keep the aircraft straight, rather than holding the brakes until both turbos are boosting equally, especially when the second turbo starts delivering while you are holding rudder in that direction to counter the effects of the first kick. Big reversal required.

#2 Manuals such as for the C414 SPECIFICALLY state that unless full power is applied before brakes release, TODR does not apply until the point at which full power is reached.

Yes, loose surfaces need to be considered, but this operating principle goes back to fixed pitch singles.
Why do manuals specify a static RPM if you aren't supposed to apply full power while the aircraft is stationary?

Not contradicting GG directly, but for those who are wondering or may be endorsing soon, the circuit breaker operated (permanent) electric pumps are referred to as boost pumps while the overhead panel (switchable) electric pumps are referred to as the emergency fuel pumps. Not all Chieftains have the fuel boost pumps fitted.

[GADRIVR]

So the rumour is that Wingaway is still operating under another AOC based on the north Coast.
WTF???!!!:confused:

[pa60ops]

I think you will find the Port M operator is actually Premier Aviation - also PA31-350`s I think, and aeromedical. They are (were?) in competition with Wingaway before the MoJo accident....:ouch:

[whoooop1991]

they are cross hiring from another port mac business which isn't premier. whats legal is legal.

[dhavillandpilot]

Further rumour has it that CASA have now suspended Airtex's maintenance operation approvals. Lucky they got the YMRE PA31 back home in time.! :=

Rummor incorrect.

[kimwestt]

Anybody got any info on how Airte went at the AAT shindig yesterday?
Might have been better in a conventional court of law.

[Horatio Leafblower]

A conventional court of law is not an option when appealing an administrative decision by a Govt Dept :ugh: :yuk:

[kimwestt]

So - is it true that defendants do not have the right to question the veracity of the alleged facts that a govt dept might be relying on to sustain their case, or indeed, cross examine the govt employee who has provided the evidence? In this case, perhaps an FOI.
It is not rumour that an FOI considered that a particular pilot was under the influence of alcohol some months ago, and, this week, said pilot received a notice from CASA Avmed suspending that pilot's medical certificate. All on the basis of an opinion. Interestingly, at the time of the alleged observation, said pilot's cemployer had an approved DAMP mechanism in place. Question is, why then, did the FOI not seek out the DAMP supervisor of that company (no names, but pertinent) and have the procedure, as required by CASA, followed?
Hmmmm.

[GADRIVR]

Out of interest...any further news on the AAt hearing?

[PLovett]

So - is it true that defendants do not have the right to question the veracity of the alleged facts that a govt dept might be relying on to sustain their case, or indeed, cross examine the govt employee who has provided the evidence? In this case, perhaps an FOI.

Not so. Firstly, in the AAT hearing CASA are the respondents (civil court name for defendants) and the company is the applicant (civil name for plaintiff). Now the problem for the applicant is that there are no rules of evidence in the AAT.

In a criminal court and even a civil court other than the AAT the evidence that can be presented is limited by certain rules. For example, person A cannot say that they heard something from person B and that something becomes evidence before the court. There are lots of others but they are somewhat convoluted.

The applicant certainly does have the right to contest the veracity of the allegations made by CASA but it can be very hard when all CASA needs to say is something along the lines of;
"...........we have received numerous complaints about company X which prompted us to commence our investigations. Based on those investigation of those complaints we have decided to pull company X's AOC."

What was in those complaints need never be presented to the AAT. In many cases what you are left with is merely denying that there were ever complaints made. It sounds pretty lame.

The way the AAT is structured and operates favours CASA. The company concerned should find a way to get the matter out of the AAT and into a properly regulated court. Speculation only but if there is any malfeasance on the part of the ATOs' then a private prosecution against them for exceeding their regulatory powers would put a fox in the hen house.

[Up-into-the-air]

Read the entire 142 pages on:

Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 61 (4 February 2011) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2011/61.html)

Interlocutory:

Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 716 (14 September 2010) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2010/716.html?query=)

Other Fice cases:

McWilliam and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] AATA 687 (6 August 2008) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2008/687.html)

[PLovett]

Read the entire 142 pages on:

Um..........................no. :=

The link you posted was to the AAT's decision on an interlocutory matter. Avtex made an application that the Chairman of the AAT hearing disqualify himself from hearing the appeal because he had refused their application for a stay of suspension of their AOC.

However, the basic facts on which CASA acted are in the decision and in particular, 3 specific crashes: the Metro off Sydney, the wheels-up of the PA31 out of Marree and the Canley Vale crash.

The final decision will make interesting reading. However, I am tipping that CASA will get up on this. This is based on nothing more than the final decision (pending any appeals) has been a long time coming after the hearing.

If the decision was going to be in favour of Avtex then normally you would get a much quicker decision with published reasons coming later. The AAT is aware of the commercial consequences of its decisions so if the AOC was to be restored they would make it sooner than later.

[short-field]

Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 61 (4 February 2011) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2011/61.html)

[PLovett]

Dat da one. :}

[tiger19]

ref para 96 to 101, the 26 pilots that were given PA-31 endorsements, technically, were they ever endorsed??If CASA decided to cancel their endorsements, would the 1000 plus hours some of these blokes have logged and their ATPL be void??? I know of a couple of these blokes(from the 26) and they have moved onto bigger and better things using their PA-31 time. This could throw a spanner in the works if their endorsement was not legal.

[Sunfish]

Kudos to CASA. I'll bet Avtex wished they didn't appeal to the tribunal.

[SgtBundy]

tiger19 - my reading was that CASA just sought to ensure they got remedial training to validate the endorsement, it doesn't seem to imply they wanted to revoke the endorsements. It would seem a bit heavy handed to make 1000 hours of experience disappear because the initial training was done improperly when all that was required was some additional training.

Also, on reading that proceedings document I concur with Sunfish. If nothing else the way the CEO was trying to slight of hand responsibilities and switch between legal entities as a defence was appalling, and the complete lack of action on the issues identified just underscores the culture he was applying.

[ozbiggles]

What a damning indication of the state of aviation in this country.
I love what was said about the fatigue systems.
No better example of the inmates running the asylum. Does anyone really think CASA will take any notice, or just wait for the next spate of accidents.

[DirtySanchezcousin]

Oz Biggles CASA did take notice! CASA are damned if they do and Damned if they dont. Did you even read the report fool?

There are people in CASA far smarter than you and I who have done far bigger things in aviation than you can ever dream of.

The Director is no fool! He has good people working for the core value of SAFE SKIES FOR ALL.

[Checkboard]

Yet, ask the same instructors to cut the mixture of a single engine aircraft after take off at 500 feet to test the students judgement on selection of a suitable forced landing area straight ahead and the answer would be "you must be bloody joking"
Not necessarily - it was the only way I reduced power on piston singles (PA 28 and C150) over three years instructing.

When asked why the shocked response the instructor would doubtless say because the engine might not restart when the mixture is reset to Rich.
Twaddle - I'm firmly with Clinton on this one.

and some pitiful form of combustion to be going on in each and every cylinder. The fire can then hopefully restored by the traverse of a butterfly valve through about Eighty degrees of rotation.
The fire goes out in every cylinder for three quarters of the time, even when the engine is running at full throttle. :rolleyes:

IMHO people are "afraid" of the mixture in the same way they are "afraid" of turning the master switch off in flight - because they don't understand the system.

[Jack Ranga]

Is anybody now wondering why the Avtex/Skymaster AOC's were pulled?

Are we going to get anymore of those flowery, latin type posts defending them?

Will the former AOC holders be 'allowed' to create a new entity with new company directors at 'arms length' from the previous directors?

And best of all will State Governments continue to award tenders for medical transport to the lowest tenderer? Have a look at what happened in Victoria and tell me that Governments (politicians and public servants) aren't complicit in what happened at Canley Vale.

It's all on record now and will be proven by a good QC or two. Pity it takes smoking holes (multiple) in the ground to prove these things :yuk:

It's now very clear as to what happens when you put garbage into parliament. It starts there.

[Ted D Bear]

will State Governments continue to award tenders for medical transport to the lowest tenderer?


Well said JR :D. There should be some very serious questioning going on in NSW Health about this.

[ozbiggles]

Dirty
I agree there are people out there much smarter than me and who have done more, on that we agree.
I'm more on the side of do, not don't do.
Would you say CASA have covered themselves in glory in regard to this case? The Lockhart river case? and a few more that I can bring up? This wasn't an overnight activity, this went on for ages. It took TWO fatal crashes for the AOC to be pulled.
Do you think letting companies run their own fatigue systems works?
I feel sorry for the companies that have to compete playing by the rules while others bend/break/crash the rules.

[Frank Arouet]

Was the name of the airline who's name was painted on the side of the Metro, who's tickets bore the same name, and were issued by the same company, relieved of it's AOC because of LHR?

[PA39]

Gee Frank.....its always been a David and Goliath act with CASA. You will need a mighty big rock or they know you'll run outta stones eventually.

A very wise old aviator once told me, a young crusader "you'll never beat the system". Took a long time to realise. :)

[QSK?]

Just a point of clarification please.

Is it AIRtex or AVtex? The formal AAT ruling refers to a company called Avtex yet many posters are referring to the company as Airtex.

Same thing is happening on other PPrune threads.

[Jack Ranga]

I thought it was Airtex but was referring to what the hearing called them..........

[lastdrinks]

Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd trading as Airtex Aviation

[TBM-Legend]

who will 'marry' DS in Long Bay? :yuk:

The report points to some serious stuff...

[puff]

Airtex website still fully operational ?

[Up-into-the-air]

Civil Aviation Order 82.0

3 Conditions relating to “borrowed” certificates
3.1 Each certificate authorising charter or regular public transport operations is subject to the condition that its holder (“the AOC holder”) must not, without the prior written approval of CASA, enter into an arrangement with a person whose certificate is suspended or cancelled (“the other person”) under which the AOC holder agrees:
(a) to use, in any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any aircraft that the other person was authorised to operate under the certificate that is suspended or cancelled; or
(b) to use, in connection with any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any person employed or engaged by, or otherwise working for, the other person in connection with any operation covered by the certificate that is suspended or cancelled; or
(c) to conduct any operation, or any part of an operation, that the other person intended to conduct under the certificate that is suspended or cancelled.
3.2 Each certificate authorising charter or regular public transport operations is subject to the condition that its holder (“the AOC holder”) must not, without the prior written approval of CASA, enter into an arrangement with a person whose certificate has been varied (“the other person”), under which the AOC holder agrees:
(a) to use, in any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any aircraft that the other person:
(i) was, immediately before the variation, authorised to operate under the other person’s certificate; but
(ii) is no longer authorised to operate under the certificate as varied; or
(b) to use, in connection with any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any person employed or engaged by, or otherwise working for, the other person in connection with any operation that the other person:
(i) was, immediately before the variation, authorised to conduct under the other person’s certificate; but
(ii) is no longer authorised to conduct under the certificate as varied; or
(c) to conduct any operation, or any part of an operation that the other person:
(i) intended to conduct under the other person’s certificate as it had effect immediately before the variation; but (ii) is no longer authorised to conduct under the certificate as varied.

3.3 Each certificate authorising charter or regular public transport operations is subject to the condition that its holder (“the AOC holder”) must not, without the prior written approval of CASA, enter into an arrangement with a person whose application for a certificate is still pending (“the other person”) under which the AOC holder agrees:
(a) to use, in any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any aircraft proposed to be covered by the certificate sought; or
(b) to use, in connection with any operation covered by the AOC holder’s certificate, any person proposed to be employed or engaged by the other person in connection with any operation proposed to be covered by the certificate sought; or
(c) to conduct any operation, or any part of an operation, proposed to be covered by the certificate sought.

[GADRIVR]

Latest rumour is that the organisation has been sold....or parts thereof.
Interesting if thats the case.....guess there are some muppets out there!!!!
Anybody like to confirmor deny??!!:ugh:

[kimwestt]

Yeah - the regs are sort of clear - but not really- depends again maybe on which FOI you might speak to, and from what region said FOI belongs to.
Consider the argument that an operator has had their AOC cancelled, and is not in all likelihood going to renew that AOC, does not that operator then become another plain old garden variety company?
What restriction, then, on that company engaging in plain old garden variety commercial activity, ie brokerage?
We've got the work, you operate Charter, lets do some business.
Likewise a Travel Agent selling individual tickets on a charter flight, and then chartering a Charter operator for the flight?
:D:confused:

[Up-into-the-air]

I agree that FOI's give different answers, but the regs. are clear and "interpretation" must be avoided. It is the "local interpretation" that often is the issue. I have for example an opinion from CASA legal branch, which a local FOI does not agree with as he thinks the reg can be applied in quite a different way.

The catch all is CAR 210 and CAR 206 [Commercial ops]

Just for clarity, CAR 210 says:

CAR 210 Restriction of advertising of commercial operations
(1) A person must not give a public notice, by newspaper advertisement, broadcast statement or any other means of public announcement, to the effect that a person is willing to undertake by use of an Australian aircraft any commercial operations if the last-mentioned person has not obtained an Air Operator’s Certificate authorising the conduct of those operations.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) An offence against sub-regulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

With travel agents, there appears to be a $50K limit to work that can be generated "as a charter operator advertiser" and then handed on or done by the travel agent.

Effect of the CASA regs

It is this argument that we are having that really causes the problem - if the regs were well written, CASA had the will, the problems would largely go away.:D

[kimwestt]

Well put - but the very thrust of my comment is that it is exactly what happens - and that is the local FOI applies their own interpretation to the reg.
In fact, and in practice, that is EXACTLY what happens, interpretation is the law of the day. And yes, perhaps like you, CASA legal have overturned opinions of local FOI's, and applied the spirit of the law, thus allowing commonn sense to rule, and we can then get on with the job.
The difficulty with that scenario is that you then have to survive locally with the FOI whose interpretation has been overturned. Probably not gunna be easy.
Where oh where does an FOI get instructed that interpretations must be avioded. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that interpretations are the underlying cause of the animosity that exists between, in this case, GA, and CASA.
The argument that Aus should adopt, as has NZ, a clear, unambiguous set of rules, to which all subscribe, would seem to gather more credibility with every passing day.

[thorn bird]

Kim,
"The argument that Aus should adopt, as has NZ, a clear, unambiguous set of rules, to which all subscribe, would seem to gather more credibility with every passing day".
Preaching to the converted mate, except for those CASA incompetents who for some weird reason believe their own spin and actually convinced they are doing a wonderful job.
What you suggest is just a "dream", bit like Martin Luther King's
"Ah have a dream" speech.
Trouble is a dream aint reality.
Reality is a couple of hundred million tax payers dollars down the gurgler with no measurable result, because of obstruction, flagrant disregard of the instructions of the government of the day, and just plain pig headeness.
Massive endemic corruption where the rule of Law is totally ignored and perverted to suit the regulators agenda.
The combined weight of multiple ego's in charge, who believe the rest of the world is wrong and they are right. Where “legends” in their own minds actually ignore and hold in contempt, the combined wisdom and experience of people who have spent their whole lives conducting aviation in a safe and efficient manner.
A bottomless purse to ensure all dissent is crushed and any attempt to bring a grievance or even a suggestion is guaranteed to fail because "we have more money than you mate". and we will do whatever, to ensure ”OUR” opinion is carried. Yours does not count!
A man in control who obviously holds the GA industry in contempt.(What the hell did we ever do to him??) Maybe he's another of the industry or RAAF failures who are endemic within his realm??.
Notwithstanding his previous outbursts, a snippet from his recent appearance at the Senate estimates committee.
"We (is that the royal we??)" acknowledge that Reg 206 has been regarded as
" Bad Law" for twenty six years????...
(Well sunshine if it was bad, Why the @#$%&*@ didnt you change it???, you've only had twenty six years to do it!!!).
Even so,
"WE USED IT TO CLOSE DOWN FIFTY OPERATORS" Oh well done, are we supposed to pat you on the back?? Give you a medal??? Knighthood maybe??

Who were offering fixed schedule and fare flights IE (Joy Flights)
"It was not the most popular event" !!!!!
We Duhh!!..Cant imagine those who lost their jobs or businesses after many years of safe operation would exactly be happy about it!!!.
So I guess if you want to operate joy flights you better go spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get an RPT licence, as long as you have this licence your Cessna 172 or whatever will be much safer, at least as safe as a Qantas jumbo... Yeah right!! Trouble is a gullible public would actually believe this.
Hmmm but then we'd have to charge the punters a thousand bucks for their 15 minute "Experience"...
Aint going to happen so "Sigh" it was fun while it lasted, cant fight it, so go quietly into history and close the doors.
Strange that we hold our pioneers of yester year in such high esteem, yet today they would be branded as “Cowboys”.
No wonder tourism is going down the drain here, I've been told by many tourists I've had contact with they wont come here again, Australia is too boring and too expensive.
Dont know about a lot of you here, but I caught the aviation bug when I went on a "JOY Flight" as a sprog in a Tiger Moth, Oh man was that exciting...now 47 years later....well another story, but RPT for JOY Flights???...bit like the twelve mile limit without an international AOC!!
People are drowning thirteen miles out!!!...sorry mate cant go past twelve miles. “Its the LAW”.
Sad to say, but every day the GA industry edges towards oblivion, pushed by the incompetents with ever increasing gobbeldygook that even the lawyers dont understand. It was good while it lasted, when we had rules we could follow, even if they were a Tad old fashioned. We had people in charge we could respect, not corrupt crooks. The time is coming when the only people who will be able to afford to operate GA aircraft will be government departments, of course then we will have a perfect safety record, just like CASA has, they were “Operators” once.
CASA no longer operates aircraft, Their officers are no longer permitted to conduct normal checks, liability is the issue and or lack of competence, so they abrogate their responsibility to monitor standards within the industry by delegating it to the industry itself, this ensures they have another stick they can beat the industry over the head with, “outcome based training”?? What “We” consider, by we, what the FOI of the day, with no qualification, no experience, considers it should be competence…Aw to hell with it, its no wonder we are an International Joke.

[polair911]

Latest rumour is that the organisation has been sold....or parts thereof.
Interesting if thats the case.....guess there are some muppets out there!!!!
Anybody like to confirmor deny??!!:ugh:
I've also heard about the selling of the business too.....does that mean they'd be back in the air soon?

[bizzybody]

The company was sold in early 2010 but fell through because of the AOC restrictions and grief airtex was receiving from casa.

Interesting someone would want to buy it now. I can't see that company getting back in the air on it's own. Casa would be all over them even with new ownership

[lastdrinks]

The business was not sold.!!!

[bizzybody]

That's Not what DS says but Ok it seems like a bit of a tender point so I'll not comment on it again

[lastdrinks]

I can assure you Airtex has not been sold. Other commerial companies in group may shortly have new owners.

[polair911]

Does that mean there are no Aero-med (except for RFDs and NSW Air Ambulence) company at YSBK now?? I was driving around the other day and I saw someone doing the transport and they're the RFDs....:confused:

[Fubar_x]

p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; } When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Geez`boys - do some reading. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

[kimwestt]

A quick walk around the org in q shuold show u:
Plenty of patient txf going on.
Just another company doing some brokering!!!