Of lunatics and asylums.

[Rose_Thorns]

This single item is one of four available and needs some serious thought. It is the most readily told and, for clarity the easiest understood.

The cast : a senior ATO with many hundreds of 'test' hours logged and couple of junior line pilots.

The story so far: One fine day three CIR renewals were satisfactorily completed. That is, to the satisfaction of a very senior, intelligent experienced testing officer.

After the tests were complete, the ATO was asked by the Chief Pilot to 'jot' down some pointers on where the company training dollar may be best spent. This was duly done, all knocked off and went home.

Not long after, the safety watchdog turns up and audits the files. Guess what, the ATO is now up to his ass in alligators because he should (in the watchdogs humble opinion) have failed them, based on the simple notes made.

It is tragic, the cost of defending a good name outweighs the revenue generated from doing tests and the ATO is seriously considering retirement.

How can people not properly qualified to judge, who did not witness the flights in question jeopardize a career, deprive the industry of a worthy check training pilot and then still swagger about the place, crowing about a job well done, based on some quietly made observations of how 'young spotty' could improve. Beats me. Fair dinkum, it does..:ugh:

This must qualify as gross bollix. Too much lobotomy and testosterone combined with total power.

[remoak]

I am torn between "what did you expect" and "sounds about right".

I had similar experiences here in NZ. The CAA here is stuffed full of people who either couldn't get in to Air NZ or are ex-RNZAF squadron buddies. They are mostly useless. Some of them, refugees from Ansett NZ who couldn't get a flying gig, hang onto the past with a grip of steel and refuse to move on. The only worthwhile people are the ones they import from overseas, very few of whom last more than a couple of years before terminal frustration, and the dawning knowledge that nobody is listening to them, cause them to resign in disgust.

So when they are presented with a very experienced airline check and training guy, medium jet and turboprop qualified and over 10K hours of airline flying in the book, who wants to give something back to GA, but who doesn't have current NZ ratings, they make it as difficult as they possibly can for this guy to get himself going, while at the same time bemoaning the lack of experienced trainers in NZ.

The guy works out that, with the cost of the stuff they want him to do to prove he can fly and instruct, he would have to work part-time for ten years just to break even. Guess what he does...

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny... :ugh::ugh::rolleyes:

[VH-XXX]

I'm disappointed, I thought this post was going to be about a guy who runs a light aircraft forum that had been finally admitted to an asylum. Oh well.

Back to topic sorry.

[Sunfish]

All I can say, since I have no bad experience of CASA, is that if any of the allegations made around here are true, then a cultural audit of CASA and it's customers is going to be depressing reading.

I know of one such audit in the telecommunications industry where the findings were so bad the report had to be suppressed.

[SIUYA]

Rose Thorns...

Not long after, the safety watchdog turns up and audits the files. Guess what, the ATO is now up to his ass in alligators because he should (in the watchdogs humble opinion) have failed them, based on the simple notes made.

I'd fight this one bloody hard.

What it seems to demonstrate is that the original regulatory authority certification audit of organisation AND (if any) subsequent audits were less than satisfactory if now, because of some notes on file about how to improve the situation, that is construed by the regulatory authority to signify non-compliance.

I'd also be asking the regulatory authority for evidence to demonstrate that the original certification personnel and those subsequently used for renewal audits were appropriately qualified to assess the original application and renewals.

Sunfish, unfortunately there are presently other allegations of 'problems' concerning CASA and AOCs, and some of those 'problems' have already reached the Courts I believe. If what I read about one of the matters is true, then I think don't CASA will emerge 'unscathed'.............reputation-wise OR cost-wise.

The matter that Rose Thorns raises just seems to highlight the depressingly familiar experience here in Australia that continues to demonstrate that we have a totally dysfunctional regulatory authority which doesn't and can't function correctly in its present form, that represents a huge waste of taxpayers'funds with no practical results, and that needs to be replaced (Minister too............hopefully that will be quite quickly) with something that actually works.

Adopting the NZ CAR Parts for regs. would be a bloody good start, instead of persisting with the never-ending idiocy of regulatory reform that's now been going on for years here. :ugh:

[tail wheel]

....the never-ending idiocy of regulatory reform that's now been going on for years here.

Twenty two years next month, which must be something of a World record. I think Canada and New Zealand both took around five years for the same exercise.

[bushy]

Could it be that they do not want to change anything, and the reform will never happen?

[peuce]

And there are people (on another Thread) arguing that the current audit of CASA's Safety Management System will not find anything untoward that has impacted on pilots or operators :confused:

[David75]

Could it be that they do not want to change anything, and the reform will never happen?


You can't threaten someone if he understands the rules he is supposed to be following. At the moment it seems they can find something to strnig you up when ever they like. (merely because no one else understands the rules)

[Rose_Thorns]

The latest tall tale solves the mystery of how to get things done (Abridged version). Seems legal clout is not effective, letters from respected legal companies are treated with contempt, but when a Poly calls; ah! well now that of course is different.

Way I heard it, the mob concerned bought a lovely new shiny little biz jet to meet client demands. All the toys, loads of power, safety plus and brand spankers.

"That's a jet", spoke the oracle (quick ain't they) "now we all know that there is a lot of difference between a jet and a proper aircraft". "We all know that there has been a policy in place for years and years which prevents operators of machinery under 5700 Kg from having an internal check and training organisation". "But, because it's a jet, you must have one, immediately "or we'll shut you down".

Anyway, long story short, despite the increased cost and the impost of having to write a manual, they did it, just inside the deadline. (Phew!!).

"Too bloody late mate", they said chuckling with glee and grounded the poor buggers there and then.

Next day. Up rocks the Poly, wanting to go on the charter as booked.

"Can't do her in the jet mate, that's been grounded". The story is told and the poly is offered a 25 y.o. piston placebo.

"Not bloody likely" says the man ands gets on the blower. Half an hour later they are airborne in the new toy, restrictions lifted.

Not true, better believe it. Only way to go - Poly power.

[blackhand]

And there are people (on another Thread) arguing that the current audit of CASA's Safety Management System will not find anything untoward that has impacted on pilots or operators http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

No, that's not what "they" are saying at all.

BH

[remoak]

Adopting the NZ CAR Parts for regs. would be a bloody good start

Oh no it wouldn't. The NZ system is just a thinly disguised American system, doesn't suit the environment at all, and replaced a system that wasn't broken in the first place. It was a mind-numbingly expensive process, paid for by the industry, that has little tangible benefit and ends up costing the end user even more.

All thanks to the highly questionable Swedavia report from the '80s.

Don't go there.

[PA39]

An ATO delegation is just that, a delegation. CASA cannot dispute a test result from an ATO...unless it is an observed test. However CASA can "sit in" on the next few tests and reprimand or even cancel the delegation should the ATO show gross deficiencies. I don't think this happens that often.....please correct me if i am wrong. One thing that i could never quite grasp is how an FOI who has never done any flight training or does not hold an Instructor rating can test an applicant for either Initial issue or renewal or back seat a test, to test the tester. :rolleyes:

i reckon once the hoo haa stops and the dust settles this particular ATO will continue on life as normal. He'll get over it.
I remember a FOI going crook at me for failing an engine below 500' saying that was extremely unfair to the applicant. i replied in a very much heated debate that i was the testing officer and suggested that engines do fail below 500'. Much cursing and swearing from both parties to eventuate in a truce....to let me do what i do best.....test!

[SIUYA]

remoak said:

Don't go there [the NZ CAR Parts way].

Fair enough.........my suggestion was only based on the fact that NZ CAR Parts looks as though it will become the de facto Oceania regulatory standard via PASO. That's why I suggested following it.

NZ CAR Parts have been adopted in other areas of our region, and whether you like it or believe it or not remoak, they are actually working quite well in spite of (or despite of??) their respective controlling regulatory authorities!

Sure, I agree the NZ CAR Parts aren't perfect...............but neither are the Australian CASA CARs just right now, and nor have they been for the past 22 years by any stretch of the imagination while CASA's been fcuking around with them, under the guise of regulatory reform.

Sorry to say, but most of the management of CASA wouldn't know what regulatory reform was if they fell over it, and the NZ CAR Parts presently beat the present CASA system hands down. :=

remoak, I've worked in a lot of different locations, in a lot of different areas in high-capacity transport-category operations, and I've yet to see a perfect set of regulatory requirements. When I worked in the Middle East in the 90's, the dump that I was working in on a regulatory reform assignment was basically unregulated until the locals decided to adopt JAR-OPS at our suggestion...........things went OK after that.........sort of! :ooh:

I'm happy to suggest as an alternative EU-OPS if you're game to go there. They're far superior in terms of regulatory requirements for an ICAO Annex 6 Part I operator than the NZ CAR Parts, but 'they're also probably also far too sensible AND/OR advanced for them to be readily understood by CASA management I'm afraid. Also, they would represent a big 'cultural' shift for most operators, and they'd still leave Part 125 and 135 operators out in the cold.

FARs..............no, don't go there.

So where else remoak? Or do we wait for another 22 years in the hope that CASA's re-reinvention of the regulatory reform wheel will be completed by that stage? It won't! :uhoh:

[tail wheel]

The NZ system is just a thinly disguised American system, doesn't suit the environment at all, and replaced a system that wasn't broken in the first place. It was a mind-numbingly expensive process, paid for by the industry, that has little tangible benefit and ends up costing the end user even more.

And the Australian Government funded PNG to adopt the NZ regulations? :confused: :confused:

[LeadSled]

.......my suggestion was only based on the fact that NZ CAR Parts looks as though it will become the de-facto Oceania regulatory standard via PASO. That's why I suggested following it.

Folks,
As tailwheel says, we, the Australian taxpayer, paid to put the NZ rules in place in PNG ( the BALUS program) because the Australian rules used previously were considered no longer usable.

To PASO, Fiji and PNG you can add a number of the CIS (ex-USSR) states, and it looks like some of the ex-British possessions in the Caribbean will do the same thing.

The Republic of China has also modeled their new rules on US,(already in use in Taipei) and that was the Australian decision of the then Minister for Transport, John Sharp, unanimously supported by all sections of the Australian aviation community/industry in 1996, when the CASA Review was put in place.

Have a look at CASR Parts 21 to 35, and then tell us all why they don't work, and why they haven't worked since they went in place in 1998, and how and why we would all be better off with the pre-1998 Australian unique certification standards.

Once again, it looks like a few of you believe Australia is the only soldier in the battalion in step.

Tootle pip!!

PS:
Sadly, it is the EASA rules that are also going in the right direction ( not just JAA re-heated) being outcome based ----- absolute anathema in Canberra, where absolutely prescriptive criminal law for aviation is the chosen direction ---- as it suits the CASA culture.

If you want to see how Australia can screw up EASA rules, you don't have long to wait, the (originally) EASA based maintenance rules will hit the table some time quite soon.

JAR/OPS 1 rewritten by CASA would be a nightmare to end all nightmares.

[remoak]

SIUYA

NZ CAR Parts have been adopted in other areas of our region, and whether you like it or believe it or not remoak, they are actually working quite well in spite of (or despite of??) their respective controlling regulatory authorities!


Two things: the CAR (rules) are just the old rules re-packaged, which were originally more or less word-for-word re-writes of the British regs from the '60s. The "parts" are just a direct lift from the US system, which only work logically in the US regulatory context. The two don't sit that well together and there are still holes.

The other problem is that a lot of the NZ rules these days are unnecessarily anal and have no place in a modern system (for example, the new procedure whereby you have to read back the runway that you are cleared to takeoff from or land on - just in case you accidentally taxi to the other end and take off on the wrong vector...:ugh::ugh::rolleyes:)


So where else remoak?

EASA. Plain and simple.

[LeadSled]

remoak,
Do you actually understand how little of a total regulatory suit JAA/EASA actually had/has, and how much remains to be done.

If you try and apply FAR/EASA(JAA) 145 to GA maintenance, it is un-affordable overkill, there is no continuing airworthiness set for small aircraft. Maintaining an A380 and a PA-28 are not quite the same thing.

The graduated standards called up by FAR 43 and the FAR 121/125/135 Ops. Spec works well.

There isn't ( or wasn't last time I looked) any EASA(JAA)/OPS 2 , only I and 3.

If you want a system that cannot easily be integrated into the present Australian legal system, the European system is it.

The new EASA approach, which I actually support in principle --- if not the contents, as outcome based legislation ( and is Australian Government policy, but you would never guess from looking at the latest ultra prescriptive aviation regulations) versus the traditional (JAA) ultra-prescriptive regulation.

With the commonality of the US and Australian legislative system, legal system, and system of government, there is no problem about using the FAA/NZ/PRC/CA ( although CA looks a bit different) etc. system of regulation ---- as NZ has proved.

If you understood, in depth, Commonwealth legislative history, from 1901 to the present, you would know that quite significant Australian legislation has been adopted "by reference" to US legislation. Our very first Trade Practices Legislation was the US Sherman Act, adopted by reference. That, in itself, is an interesting piece of history.

Some minor whinge about readbacks in NZ is hardly a reason to condemn the whole package ---- and have you checked the latest amendments to ICAO Annex X, Vol 2, or PANS/RAC 4444, to make certain it isn't a SARP??

Have you ever bothered to see how expensive the EASA pilot licensing requirements are, with ( but not only) the medical overkill, now about to require, amongst other totally unjustified impositions, an annual color vision test of a type that will knock out an estimated 10-20% of present pilots. Many of whom will have been operating satisfactorily for years, and have successfully passed previous color vision test.

I can only conclude that you have a very limited understanding of the various systems. Your understanding of the origins of our present regulations is obviously equally limited ---- which are, and have always been, far removed from the old Colonial Air Navigation Order 1945 (??), to which I think you refer. We have had our own Air Navigation Act 1920 since ---- wait for it ---- 1920, most of the ANRs were translated into CARs in 1988.

Being really good at growing regulations, Australia has the dubious distinction of having an Air Navigation Act and Regulations almost 7 years before the US managed an equivalent. We are great at growing rules, not nearly as good at growing an industry.

You are quite correct about the design/certification/manufacturing standards ---- what would you suggest we do, go back to Australia's previous setup, that severely disadvantaged Australian airlines, versus the international competition. A setup that markedly increase the cost of all aircraft into Australia, aircraft that had to be modified to meet Australia's unique and unjustified impositions.

Tootle pip!!

[Rose_Thorns]

It is not so much that the regs are naff. That's a given. The endemic, systematic internal corruption of a crippled system is the bit that I resent.

The thing that gets my panties in a bunch is the way that the lunatics can choose, almost on a whim how their personal, subjective interpretation can be used. There has of late been some evidence of fairly blatant 'manipulation' of the rules to suit the asylum purpose. Remember, these are criminal charges.

A simple matter, such as a stuff up on an MR can be waived and forgiven, or escalated into a show cause as it pleases.

This is the part that's wrong.

We need some form of framework, I agree,. But there must be checks and balances in place to provide a level playing field.

That, or we get a minister with balls, a department with more brains than an part educated dunny seat and a director with an attention span better than that of a well trained racing rabbit.

"Anything you say may be used against you, as it pleases me". Don't quite fit the democratic model or the criminal code does it kids.

.

[Counter-rotation]

don't think CASA will emerge 'unscathed'.............reputation-wise OR cost-wise

merely because no one else understands the rules


Bwahhahhhaaaahaaaaawww!!!!!! REPUTATION?!! CASA??!! UNDERSTAND THE RULES?!!

ROTFPMFL!!! Until I realise how serious it actually is, AND WE PAY FOR IT

i reckon once the hoo haa stops and the dust settles this particular ATO will continue on life as normal. He'll get over it

May I politely suggest that this is not the point - the way CASA behaves, and IS ALLOWED to behave is an absolute blight on the industry.

If they were all knowledgable, constructive individuals it nearly wouldn't be a problem - but as can be seen by the plethora of anecdotes such as Rose_Thorns has offered here, and numerous other threads attest, more often you encounter small minded, ego wielding, "point to prove", "chip on shoulder", industry reject types, who can do - and do do - irrepairable damage to lives and businesses. At our expense. And if they are in fact identified as such, and as behaving inappropriately, it's hushed up and they are never brought to account.

The regulation re-write? This alone shows what a farcial situation we operate under every day.

There is another thread, discussing the finer detail of operations into Norfolk Island, and whether the category of flight dictates whether "island reserve" is required. Now apparently CASA are "moving to close the loophole..." :ugh: I could comment there - but it's more appropriate here. I'd like to ask who wrote that CAO 82 ammendment (in the late 90s or early 00s, IIRC, in response to an incident/accident) and allowed the "loophole" to exist in the firstplace (if in fact it does)?

CR

[remoak]

LeadSled

Do you actually understand how little of a total regulatory suit JAA/EASA actually had/has, and how much remains to be done.

Yes, it is a work in progress, we all know that.

If you try and apply FAR/EASA(JAA) 145 to GA maintenance, it is un-affordable overkill, there is no continuing airworthiness set for small aircraft. Maintaining an A380 and a PA-28 are not quite the same thing.

Ah, so you are saying that nobody in the US or Europe can afford to maintain light aircraft, and that there is no way of ensuring airworthiness in those aircraft? Are you serious? How many light aircraft are there in the US compared to Australia?


If you understood, in depth, Commonwealth legislative history, from 1901 to the present, you would know that quite significant Australian legislation has been adopted "by reference" to US legislation. Our very first Trade Practices Legislation was the US Sherman Act, adopted by reference. That, in itself, is an interesting piece of history.

Sorry, I have absolutely no interest in Aussie history, apart from the bit about you all being ex-convicts :}. I am also utterly uninterested in the minutiae and inanities of Australian legislation. I can, however, spot a system that doesn't work at ten paces.

Have you ever bothered to see how expensive the EASA pilot licensing requirements are, with ( but not only) the medical overkill, now about to require, amongst other totally unjustified impositions, an annual color vision test of a type that will knock out an estimated 10-20% of present pilots. Many of whom will have been operating satisfactorily for years, and have successfully passed previous color vision test.

You obviously don't adopt an entire system lock, stock and barrel. You adapt it to your environment, which is exactly what happens in Europe anyway - different countries interpret the rules differently, and apply them differently. If you think Australian pilots should have lower medical standards, fine, lower them.

I can only conclude that you have a very limited understanding of the various systems. Your understanding of the origins of our present regulations is obviously equally limited ---- which are, and have always been, far removed from the old Colonial Air Navigation Order 1945 (??), to which I think you refer. We have had our own Air Navigation Act 1920 since ---- wait for it ---- 1920, most of the ANRs were translated into CARs in 1988.

I have far better things to do with my time than research Australian aviation history. I know that your system is broken, and none of you are able to fix it. I also know, having operated in it for many years, that the Euro system works well, far better than the NZ system does. The NZ system massively over-complicates the relatively simple needs of NZ aviation, and if you think Euro medical regulation is bad, try coming here where you need an Accredited Medical Conclusion every time you cough. Talk about a money-spinner for the doctors.

We are great at growing rules

Yeah but your rules suck, so it is a bit of a wash, isn't it?

what would you suggest we do, go back to Australia's previous setup, that severely disadvantaged Australian airlines, versus the international competition. A setup that markedly increase the cost of all aircraft into Australia, aircraft that had to be modified to meet Australia's unique and unjustified impositions.

No, I am suggesting that you adopt a system that doesn't do that very thing.

You don't like EASA, I don't like FARs. Fine. Any other systems out there you might like? Maybe the Russian one? The bottom line is that you find yourself in a bureaucratic quagmire. In order to fix it, you need to go one way or the other. Choose your poison.

Or, more likely, do nothing for another 20 years.

Oh, and before I go, it isn't a whinge about one readback requirement. The NZ system is riddled with crap like that which is completely unnecessary, and is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to some incident or other. With each passing day, we get more and more out of step with the rest of the world.

[SIUYA]

Sorry, I have absolutely no interest in Aussie history, apart from the bit about you all being ex-convicts

In other words, you haven't got a clue, right? Quit while you're behind. :ok:


You obviously don't adopt an entire system lock, stock and barrel. You adapt it to your environment, which is exactly what happens in Europe anyway - different countries interpret the rules differently, and apply them differently.

You sure about that?

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 859/2008

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

SUBPART A
APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS
OPS 1.001

Applicability

OPS Part 1 prescribes requirements applicable to the operation of any civil aeroplane for the purpose of commercial air transportation by any operator whose principal place of business and, if any, registered office is in a Member State, hereafter called operator.

[LeadSled]

Ah, so you are saying that nobody in the US or Europe can afford to maintain light aircraft, and that there is no way of ensuring airworthiness in those aircraft? Are you serious? How many light aircraft are there in the US compared to Australia?Remoak,

My dear fellow, as well as everything else, you do seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

The continuing airworthiness/maintenance requirements called up by FAR 91/121/122/135 have no relation to JAA/EASA maintenance requirements, NOR did I say the the FAA system doesn't work ---- quite the contrary.

Nor have I said other than the current Australian maintenance rules system ( and most of the rest) is a mess, and the next iteration looks like being immeasurably worse.

Perhaps the best example of the cost of EASA maintenance is the number of N registered aircraft based in Europe, or where N doesn't work, aircraft registered Isle of Mann, Bermuda etc., which can all be maintained to the FARs.

If you had the time to acquaint yourself with the facts, you would find that EASA recognizes that EASA 145 ( sort of harmonized with FAR 145) is overkill for other than heavy transport aircraft. 'Tis all buried in their documents.

Tootle pip!!

PS: apropos readbacks, are you really certain what you are talking about is home grown?? And not ICAO??

[remoak]

You sure about that?

Yes. Mostly to do with the French, language and age.

My dear fellow, as well as everything else, you do seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

I was trying a little irony. Oh well, never mind.

If you had the time to acquaint yourself with the facts, you would find that EASA recognizes that EASA 145 ( sort of harmonized with FAR 145) is overkill for other than heavy transport aircraft. 'Tis all buried in their documents.

What EASA recognises is that there is a way to go yet. It isn't finished.

Interesting that China, Canada and most of the Gulf states are leaning towards EASA...

[SIUYA]

remoak...

I think you may be confusing DIFFERENCES (per article 38 of the Chicago Convention) and not (alleged) national preferences with respect to (or otherwise) compliance with COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 859/2008.

Anyway, LeadSled seems to be adequately addressing your 'confusion' about regulatory requirements, so I guess there's no point in any further attempts from me to change your mind.

I still reckon though that you ought to quit while you're so far behind! :}

[Dangly Bits]

Rose,

From the emotive ramblings of your posts, I would have to guess that CASA has pussed you orf big time!

The fact that you attack with such hate in your posts says to me that maybe you tried it on and got caught? What was it? 3 CIR's in one day?? Yeah I would question the hell out of that too! And I was an ATO so I speak from experience. You got busted didn't you? Now you think if you throw enough horse manure, it will stick right? Bless your little cotton socks. Keep it up, I'm sure it will work.

CASA doesn't just ground an operation by saying "Too bloody late mate". There is way more to it than that and if you don't know it, you are most definitely in the wrong game.

What are these blatant "manipulation" of regulations you talk about, or the "Corruption" you sprout?

Out with it!

DB

[remoak]

Yeah well maybe you need to quit with your alleged knowledge of EASA too. Having operated in France for a number of years, I can tell you that there are some local practices that will not change under EASA, mostly because they are already the subject of legislation that will never be allowed to change. Maybe you need to live there to understand... Exceptions will creep in, exactly as they did under JAA. Why you think the current EASA rules are immutable is beyond me. It's very early days to be making sweeping statements about universal compliance, the legislation isn't even complete yet AFAIK.

I'm not in the slightest bit confused, but you guys have reminded me why I try not to study aviation legislation in my spare time. I'll leave you to it, I have far better things to do with my time.

I'd still be fascinated to know why Australia cannot do what China, Canada, Singapore and most of the Emirates have done, and move closer to EASA. That's a pretty diverse group of political structures... your resistance seems to be based more on good old Aussie refusal to keep pace with the world than any tangible reason. For example, light aircraft - there are far more of those operating under EASA than there are in Australia, they seem to have a solid maintenance solution and complying with EASA certainly hasn't priced them beyond the means of the owners. The proliferation of N-reg aircraft is mainly to do with the cost of training and the relative ease of pilot certification under FARs. Once you take out the classics, non-airworthy airframes and other oddities, there aren't that many anyway.

Guess what - raising the bar sometimes costs money!

Anyway... have fun trying to get your regulatory reform going...

[LeadSled]

---- what China, Canada, Singapore and most of the Emirates have done, and move closer to EASA. Remoak,
One of the great freedoms we enjoy, in our part of the world, is the freedom to be wrong, and it is great to, once again, see you exercising that freedom. To be wrong!!

China is straight down the FAA line, the new CAACRs are so close to the FARs that anybody doing business in China had found that the easiest way to translate the CAACRs into English is to have a copy of the FARs by your side, and just translate the differences ----- which are slight. This from very recent personal experience.

Indeed, the recent Minister for Aviation, Yang Uan Uan took the lead in this recent revamp of the PRC aviation regulations ---- he was in no doubt as to his preferences, and it was not EASA.

Although the new Canadian rules don't look like the FARs, the effective differences are so small, that such things as the Canadian MRO system paperwork is ( and has long been) accepted by FAA. In fact, the Canadian DoT lawyer who headed the recent Canadian (successful) revamp is a chap, with whom I have worked, on and off, for about fifteen years.

In my opinion, the new Canadian rules have a lot to commend them, in their way, they are as well done as the NZ rules ---- but many small countries are leaning towards NZ because they are (largely) the FARs with years of accumulated redundant rules and political rubbish removed ---- and everybody can speak the same language.

In the best traditions of Singapore pragmatism, all the Singapore based MRO run both EASA and FAA certified workshops, and the local rules don't intrude. The CAASR are a bit of a mixture, but lean heavily on long standing UK (pre JAA) BCARs..

Tootle pip!!

PS: Such is the inertia in Brussels, that too much of the JAA/EASA rules don't mean much, you have to wade through piles of TGLs, some 8/9 years old --- and you do know what a TGL is, don't you??

[GROSSER]

As DB writes - how do you do three renewals in one day and comply with the PDP requirements?
Did the ATO charge say $450 per test? $1400 for the day - now that's good money! Was there any GST? It's time this ATO got out of the game. :ugh:

[peuce]

Leadsled,

All that information is great, albeit, confusing to the aviator in the street ... but that's not we are trained for.

CASA, with it's hoard of experts, has the responsibility and directive to sort through all the options that you allude to and come up with a workable solution for us. That's what we pay them for.

All we ask is that they pull their fingers out, get their arses into gear and get on with it ... before we all pass on to the other side.

If they can't ... then pass on the responsibility to someone else who can.

[remoak]

Leadsled

If you are not aware of the ongoing discussions between the CAAC and EASA, you are clearly not as well informed as you think you are.

China is not "straight down the FAA line", yes they had a lot of US input but they insisted that their system be based on ICAO and not directly from the FARs. One of the reasons for this is that it does not tie them to an FAR structure and allows them to change their regulatory system as their industry matures (including evaluating EASA).

There is obviously a strong historical tie between the US and Chinese aviation that dates back to the manufacture of MD82s there, but the Americans themselves insisted that the CAAC follow ICAO and not FAA, which can be seen in the adoption of China Civil Aviation Regulation Part No. 121, an ICAO standard, not a US one. In fact, the FAA required that the CAAC base their standards on ICAO and not FARs.

In the case of Canada, they have gone way further towards EASA than you suggest. They even have their own link on the EASA website.

But, whatever. You are looking at this from an engineering perspective and I am looking at it from a Flight Ops perspective. By what you have written so far I suspect you are not expert in the Flight Ops side - it certainly looks that way from your attitude towards EASA.

Whichever way you slice it, the world is eventually going to have two dominant systems, and one of them is EASA. China will probably go their own way in the end, despite their current romance with EASA. All that really matters to them is ICAO compliance.

The idea that EASA is unworkable or inefficient, well you can think that if you want but I doubt many would agree with you.

TGL = Temporary Guidance: Leaflet (if you really must insist on getting into a pissing contest).

[LeadSled]

Remoak,

How much work have you actually done in China??

With the CAAC?? How much experience have you actually got, working directly with the source CAACRs ?? Not what you think you know, but actually "hand on".

As I previously said, isn't freedom great, including the freedom to be wrong, a privilege you exercise on a continuing basis.

I guess you could say I have had a long interest in engineering matters and design/certification/manufacturing, but with about 25,000h in the book, with various CPL/ATPL in a variety of countries, UK,US,AU,NZ, with the usual GA types through to quite a few considerably larger aircraft---- maybe, just maybe, I know a little about flight operations as well.

These days, I work, on a regular, almost daily, basis with the EASA/PRC/CA/US/NZ regs., but what would I know?

Are you seriously suggesting the FARs are not ICAO compliant??

You are way off beam.

Tootle pip!!

If you actually appreciated what I said about EASA, the approach of the EASA ( not JAA) regulatory framework is unworkable in Australia, because the EASA (not JAA) approach is "outcome based", Australia is ultra-prescriptive criminal law.

That is not a criticism of EASA, it is a statement of fact.

[peuce]

Leadsled,

All condescension aside ...

If you actually appreciated what I said about EASA, the approach of the EASA ( not JAA) regulatory framework is unworkable in Australia, because the EASA (not JAA) approach is "outcome based", Australia is ultra-prescriptive criminal law.


Can't we also change to an outcomes based system?
Just because it was, doesn't mean it has to be!
Talk about 'resistent to change' :E

[remoak]

Leadsled me old china,

Well that is a rather large willy you are waving there... careful you don't put someone's eye out.

I like that you think that you know everything and nobody else knows anything. Kind of sums up the mentality of certain types of Australian - that well-known arrogance that has got your regulatory system where it now is.

You seem to be ill-informed on some subjects and just obtuse on others. Well, whatever floats your boat. I know what I know (which is more than you think), and frankly I think you are full of it.

Tootle pip!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Australia is ultra-prescriptive criminal law

And whoes fault was that...Strictly Speaking, of course:E

The ones blamed for it had a deal with the Dems to have the instrument disallowed..and got backstabed by their own:yuk:

The people involved just handed the CASA OLC a licence to kill..you are caught, you are guilty..now prove you are innocent....Idiots all!

[Simon Pieman]

What are these blatant "manipulation" of regulations you talk about, or the "Corruption" you sprout?
Well - I never !!
The only manipulation of the regs that seems to be occuring appears to be emanating from those whose duty it befalls to uphold those regs.
Perjury, pervert the course of justice, etc seems to be the current go.
Not sure of the dark, dangerous, and smelly place that you have your head, but it sure as hell is rumoured that it reeks of an almighty ignorance of what is happening in the workplace. (FYI - a place where the dollar is actually earnt/lost)
Could you be one of THEM that Rose speaks of ?
Oh - and the latest - the Skull from YSCB is demanding that He personally signs every C&T Training approval issued. That is, after the subjective interpretation of a non (almost) existant CASA based, formal C&T schedule, that requires double the C&T that ICAO and the FAA checks that probably should be standard world wide. But, oh no, not CASA. Once again, the industry is being raped by, well, you guessed! Repeat offender?? Who knows?

[Dangly Bits]

Whoa Simon! I don't think I deserve to be called names for asking someone to show proof of the corruption they claim. Rose could be talking about my husband here.

Please don't attack ME for simply asking for proof.

[27/09]

Remoak

After reading your posts I could be forgiven for wondering if the following comment might apply to someone else as well:

You seem to be ill-informed on some subjects and just obtuse on others. Well, whatever floats your boat. I know what I know (which is more than you think), and frankly I think you are full of it.


:ok:

[Torres]

Dangly. There are a number of accurate accounts of CASA used "administrative action" in past years, to remove an operator or pilot who some FOI or AWI had a grundge again but legal action through a Court of law would never stick. Fortunately, the legislation has now been changed to limit CASA's discretionary powers.

I believe at least one operator in Western Australia has now initiated action through the Courts to seek damages from CASA and individual CASA employees.

Research PPRuNe.

[Rose_Thorns]

A very distressed lady staggers into a police station and complains:

"Help officer, I've just been Graped ! ".

Calmly, the bobby says, 'surely madam, you mean raped'.

Oh no she replies,; "there was a bunch of them".

Go figure. Not rocket science is it .