50 operators closed down.

[Rose_Thorns]

50 joy flight operators shut down, in one fell swoop. What a rumor. Can it possibly be true ??. I hope not.

Apparently; 'technically' they are classed (under a strict black and white interpretation) as a RPT operation. So cease and desist, immediately.

Our rules can be and are being used this way by anally retentive ex industry pilots who are qualified lawyers.

No discussion, no voice of reason, no time allowed to accommodate a 'new' management philosophy.

Hang you heads Australian operators, SHAME on you, if you allow this to go on - unchallenged.

It's time gentleman, as the only valid experts (time and experience) guardians of operational sense to regain control of the industry.

Fellah 's, the lunatics are officially running the asylum.
It's time the head lunatic resigned.

Horses Joyce ! , we are leaving the country anyway. Stuff 'em.:ugh:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi 'Rose'.....

Elaboration pls..??

I actually do have an acft 'on line' for 'joyflights' - and other flights.....

Cheers:ok:

[Rose_Thorns]

Griffo,

I have posted the news as I heard it. It is apparently true. Class A Chieftains, PN68 etc. and even the venerable C 210's. CAR 217 approval, the whole works.

Where are the 1500 hour pilots going to come from ???.

It was almost impossible to obtain CAR 217 for < 5700 Kg (policy son, policy,) but now apparently, a joy/scenic/ tour operator (a) can't own a travel agent and (b) must be an approved RPT operation.

What a complete load of Bollicks. It's an Airwork operation at best for xxzzsake.

If the GA industry can't stick together, for 5 minutes, to get shut of this purblind, mindless, irresponsible attitude, we are sunk, with a capital S.

'Nuff said Joyce, whip 'em up.

[Grogmonster]

Geez ROSE where have you been lately. This change to the legislation has been on the drawing boards for some time. I couldn't be stuffed looking for a date but the rules will be changed soon and you had better get with the programme. You might want to have a read of the proposed legislation though before you go right off. I think there is some cut off point, 6 seats or more, or something like that. I am not one for finer detail but I am sure you will find a solution if you read the fine print.

One thing I do know for sure is that if you don't have CAR 217 Training & Checking approval you can use an outside contractor in much the same way as you would ring an ATO to do your Instrument renewal. No biggie really and it really will go a long way toward getting rid of the shonks.

Groggy

[flying-spike]

Eventually as an operator if you carry passengers for hire or reward whether "RPT" or "Charter" you will be treated the same by the regulator. This is hardly news. Under the present regs, doing joy flights just don't do it to a schedule, have aircraft and pilots available when you have enough pax to make it economical you take off. You only have to remove one of the conditions that make it RPT for it to be ad-hoc charter. That is until the regs change.

[ReverseFlight]

Where are the 1500 hour pilots going to come from ???
If that's the case, wannabes are all stuffed. :{

[compressor stall]

Eventually as an operator if you carry passengers for hire or reward whether "RPT" or "Charter" you will be treated the same by the regulator.

And rightly so to. Long overdue. :D

[glekichi]

From memory, NZ CAA uses A to A flights plus A to remote areas as the equivalent of our "airwork" but all A to B passenger flights then fall into the same (more or less rpt) category based on aircraft size (135, 125, 121 etc). Seemed to work a lot better and didn't give u a lower standard of trained pilot just because you hire a whole plane instead of just one seat, yet still allows adventure flights and the like to operate without as much red tape. I reckon it would work well here in oz.

[Jack Ranga]

If the public knew the risk they were taking getting on some of these planes CASA wouldn't have to worry about shutting them down :ugh:

Tightar$es running on the smell of an oily rag, not paying their bills, not paying their pilots (everybody else seems to get paid).......

About time the industry had a good cleanout.

[Captain707]

If GA operators took control of the industry it would be the best airshow ever seen. Crowds would flock to to see the dare devils takeoff with missing engines, missing windscreens, missing doors, dented aircraft etc. . A C152 would be certified Cat IIIB, all aircraft would be certified to carry an extra 300kg. over mtow and maintenance would be allowed to be done by the aircraft owner every 10000 hrs. .

Yeah time to unite operators!

[BlueYonder10]

"Where are the 1500 hour pilots going to come from ???"

I have 1500 hours and I can't find a job. :ugh:

[601]

Apparently; 'technically' they are classed (under a strict black and white interpretation) as a RPT operation.

This was raised about 12 years ago in relation to helicopter scenic flights. It was the interpretation of one FOI and was soon buried.

[PLovett]

This was raised about 12 years ago in relation to helicopter scenic flights. It was the interpretation of one FOI and was soon buried.

Not sure about the helicopter bit or that it has been buried. My memory was that it was the Cape York mail runs that caught CASA attention and especially where the seats were being sold to individuals on those runs. They were running to a schedule,seats sold on individual bases, over fixed routes and from fixed terminals and this met the definition of a RPT service.

When the full impact of that decision (runways were required to meet certain standards; ground agents; weather reporting etc) was explained to certain politicians CASA was told in no uncertain terms to pull their heads in and the services were allowed to continue although, I think, with some restrictions.

However, when talking some years ago with a fellow who had just done a season at "Kunners" who explained how they did their scenic flights at the same time every day, over the same route with pax seats sold on an individual basis, it did raise in my mind the possibility of it being classified as RPT.

[Andy_RR]

The question shouldn't be whether the operation fits the rules but whether the rules fit the operation.

Just because the rules exist and have been developed for one form of RPT doesn't mean they should be applied blanket-fashion to all other operations which meet a relatively narrow definition.

Prescriptive rules by their very nature, will inhibit or suppress innovation which doesn't necessarily guarantee a net safety benefit to society. For example, it might make aviation appear safer, but if people are forced to use other forms of transport, the social benefit may actually be negative.

Australia and Australians have a tendency to worship the rule book, which is IMO not a healthy thing.

A

[The Green Goblin]

Every operator I worked for sold the seats on an individual basis, although the flight did not proceed unless a minimum aircraft rate was achieved.

RPT the flight will proceed regardless. Scenic, the flight will only proceed if the flight will make money.

We always thought it was a little gray, but it has been happening since the dawn of aviation.

[601]

Not sure about the helicopter bit or that it has been buried.

It concerned a heli operations that had been doing this type of flight 30+ years.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Doesn't GAM do "Regular Public Charter" through the auspices of a Chinchilla-based travel agent?:confused:

[thorn bird]

Oh good grief!! has the Skull finally lost his rag?? If this rumour is true?.

Then again given his testimony to the Senate commitee ie the 12 mile limit,amongst others, I'm inclined to think he's capable of anything. Its just so totally absurd, it would take someone totally out of their mind to dream it up.
The loonies really are loose in the asylum. Either that or CASA are so desperate for funds and so totally out of touch with the GA industry, or any other industry for that matter that they have finally arrived in La La land.
If you wish to run a business doing tourist scenic flights, Joy flights they called them in my day, and my Dad's day, and my Grandfathers day, hell that was my first job. You need to pay us, (CASA) thousands of dollars, Na ten's of thousands of dollars, Na hundred's of thousands of dollars Na more than the cost of your airplane!! to issue the same licence that Qantas, Virgin, Jet, Tiger airlines operate under, with all the bell's and whistles that are required to operate a boeing 747, because our reg's, that we've worked tirelessly to modernise for the past twenty odd years, at enormous expense to the Australian Taxpayer do not differentiate between a boeing and a tiger moth.
Dont bother complaining, we know you dont have the money to fight us, just fire your staff, sell your aircraft, if you can find someone to buy them, close your hanger doors and go quietly into history, there are lots of real Estate sharks ready and willing to subsidise our retirement if we can just get rid of you little people cluttering up prime real estate, just begging for development.
To some who posted comments on this thread. Hey guys, could it be that you forget your roots?, its easy looking down with your six figure salary from your shiny jet and forget where you came from, or could it be I'm all right Jack?, screw the rest of you little people.
I guess the poor old GA Industry is just too tired to fight, had the s..t kicked out of it for so long its run out of steam. This would never have happened in the US, politics would have prevented it and put these incompetent clowns in their place...where are our pollies??..Barnaby..where are you?..these are Queensland jobs and businesses being destroyed...where is the good senator who held out so much promise?, not just for the airline fraternity but for the little people as well, Where's Mr Catta? Where are our tourism ministers?.its a tourist thing being torn down. Where is the mainstream press?? guess it's not sensational enough for you,so what, a few hundred little people are thrown out of work, rather bash the big fish like Qantas..
Well, I try to be an optomist, maybe just maybe, if there is anyone out there who cares, a few letters, emails, might just might make a difference, or for those of you who have had their businesses and livelihoods destoyed, at least make an effort and put your case to the class action people in Melbourne who are working very hard to mount a case against a endemically corrupt regulator.
Even if that fails, the political embarrassement might just trigger a Royal commission, which is perhaps the only way to bring the corruption in CASA into the public arena and some of those responsible brought to book.
What do you have to lose? they've already taken everything from you.

[Frank Arouet]

thorn bird;

Check your PM's.

[flying-spike]

Thorny, take the trouble to read my previous post, then take the trouble to read the proposed changes to Part 119 then take the trouble to read the posts from those that say this is a good thing. Have a good read. You might save yourself a bit of angst.

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PARTS119

[PA39]

Boys and girls..........its not what you know but who you know. If you are in the "click", the blinkers are soon in place. Look at the guy who ran YSCH-YLHI for many many years. They called him private pilot airlines. All just because he was a member of the "in" crowd. The rules and regs discussed here are only to keep the honest people that way....honest. Might write a book one day on 35 yrs and 14k plus hrs in the industry....and then be assassinated :mad:!!

[LeadSled]

flying-spike,

Sit back and take a big breath ---- if it is who I think it is, the bloke you are taking at/to probably knows as much about Australian aviation regulation ---- as it is --- and how it might be in the future ---- than most in the industry.

No matter how devoutly some in CASA might wish it otherwise, CASA do not have the power to enforce future regulations that have not been made.

What seems to be going on in Queensland has nothing to do with a future Part 119/121/135, but new "policy" interpretation of CAR 206. These operators would all be far better of with the proposed Part 135, than the situation they are now facing.

It is a wonderful measure of the stupidity of our approach to aviation regulation, to even suggest that you can have the same intrinsic safety levels in a C-172, or a FAR 23 twin, as you can with a multi-engine FAR 25 aircraft.

To suggest that this can be achieved by loading up small sightseeing operations with all the very expensive administrative overhead that surround s any RPT organisation---- and thereby achieve the same "safety standards" --- doesn't say much about the intelligence of those involved in this latest nonsense ---- including those of you in the aviation community who apparently think this latest CASA move will enhance air safety outcomes, except by grounding a significant proportion of the operators.

GA takes another big hit!!

And yet, as little as two years ago, we were going to fall into line with US, and small sightseeing/joyride operations would be operated under the then proposed Part 91.

Folks, don't forget, the present AOC legislation was only ever intended for RPT, not charter, but its application has been extended by the CASA micro managers well beyond the original intentions.

Tootle pip!!

[waren9]

PA39

35 years to do 14k hours?

Where do I get a job like that?!

[Horatio Leafblower]

Most of Part 135 is ok but the following is "new" and "interesting":

# the requirement for all aircraft that operate under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) when carrying 6 or more passengers to be equipped with a Terrain Awareness Warning System class B (TAWS B); :eek:

# pilot experience requirements replaced by requirements for the operator to train its pilots for their unique operation and certify them as competent before undertaking unsupervised flights - this will apply to inexperienced pilots as well as those new to an operator (essentially moving away from flight hours as the qualifier and applying a competency based process) :D ;

# all flight crew members to be subject to recurrent training and checking requirements, scaled to the nature and complexity of the operation;
...

The future requirements for joyflight operations just seems confusing and contradictory :confused:

[onedottoolow]

I must be missing something here! where does the 1500 hrs come from?
:ugh:

[PA39]

Waren 9 35 years to do 14k hours? Where do I get a job like that?!
. The "great times". Flying training all day (6 days) and finish with a night mail run which went for 4 hrs EVERY night but sat /sun. Rain/hail/snow or moonlight !! :ok:

[Sunfish]

Once again, CASA gives itself unfettered discretion to do exactly what it likes:

From CASA website:

New CASR Parts 119, 121, 129, 131, 133 and 135 will be drafted also to authorise CASA to require, by legislative instrument, additional types of passenger-carrying activities to comply with the requirements of these Parts. This would enable CASA to protect ‘passengers’ by responding quickly to innovative and unforeseen arrangements put in place by operators and ensure appropriate standards are applied to all passenger-carrying activities that warranted regulation to that level.

And from Leafblowers quote:

# pilot experience requirements replaced by requirements for the operator to train its pilots for their unique operation and certify them as competent before undertaking unsupervised flights - this will apply to inexperienced pilots as well as those new to an operator (essentially moving away from flight hours as the qualifier and applying a competency based process) ;

# all flight crew members to be subject to recurrent training and checking requirements, scaled to the nature and complexity of the operation;


Starting from the bolded words at the top;

Exactly what is required? Does the legislation spell out, in words of one syllable, how an operator determine exactly what they need to do to comply in advance? and without any "interpretation" from CASA?



Who decides what is "innovative", "unforeseen", "Appropriate" and "warranted" CASA? How do they do this? How does this "protect" anyone?

Who decides what is "unique?" The CASA tea lady?

Who decides which "scale" to use.

If these regulations were from a flea bitten African or Middle Eastern Country I think I could be forgiven for thinking that their deliberately opaque and imprecise wording was designed to allow officials to extract the maximum possible bribes from operators.

However since I wouldn't accuse CASA of such motivation, all I can think of is that the regulations are written to maximise the "psychic income' of officials be giving them unfettered powers to extract the maximum of suffering and fear out of operators.

To put it another way; It is exactly this type of lack of certainty that increases the risk of having anything to do with aviation. In my own case, and while its trivial, it is keeping me from shelling out for a kit aircraft, since "operating conditions" that vitiate the purpose of having the aircraft can be imposed at the whim of CASA, and there is no crystal clear guidance as to exactly what I have to do to avoid having "operating conditions" imposed, it's up to the whim of CASA on the day.

[flying-spike]

It is supposedly a move a way from the overly prescriptive regs, you know the ones that a lot of operators say don't suit their particular operation to, within broader requirements, having the operator specifiy their requirements, giving reasonable justification to CASA, so that CASA and the travelling public are assured of an equivalent level of safety.

It is called "Outcome based legislation"

You (the bulk of industry) asked for it, you are getting it!

[waren9]

Sunfish

I'm sure you've already thought of it, but why not

1. Get a NZ licence via the TTMRA
2. Get your kit plane and paint ZK on it instead of VH.
3. Live and fly in 'Straya happily ever after

...........?

Anyone see any holes?

[Andy_RR]

It is supposedly a move a way from the overly prescriptive regs, you know the ones that a lot of operators say don't suit their particular operation to, within broader requirements, having the operator specifiy their requirements, giving reasonable justification to CASA, so that CASA and the travelling public are assured of an equivalent level of safety.

It is called "Outcome based legislation"

You (the bulk of industry) asked for it, you are getting it!

OK, then how about prescribing what the outcomes need to be and let the operators go about achieving this? Where does CASA's beloved strict liability fit into this philosophy anyway?

[Horatio Leafblower]

I suggest some of you need to read more legislation.

The OHS legislation is a good example - it doesn't tell you how to have a safe workplace - it simply creates a legal obligation on an employer to provide a safe place of work, safe equipment, safe procedures, and appropriate training. You must also have a systematic approach to controlling risk within your organisation.

Yes, the OHS legislation in your state applies to your aviation business too.
...sounds a lot like a Safety Management System, doesn't it?

Under the NSW OHS law, an accident causing a serious injury or a fatality is prima facie evidence of a breach of the NSW OHS Act - you have failed to provide a safe place of work.

The CASRs will be taking the same approach - not telling you how to write an operations manual but telling you what the outcome needs to be.

Not telling you how many hours your pilots must have, but putting the onus on you to determine when they're competent.

Not telling you how much Check & Training you need, but putting the onus on you to have a system that is adequate for your size and scale of operation.

Incidents and accidents will be prima facie evidence of a system failure and yes, if you have an accident it's because your organisation did something wrong.

As for the "new" requirements - Good operators are doing this stuff already :D

[kimwestt]

Haven't heard the real concern that the industry should be talkin about - and that is that the proposed/new piece of sh.. -woops - sorry - should read legislation, once again puts the industry totally into the hands of each and every CASA individual that might wish to pplace their own interpretation on each specific operation. So- although your operation might be kosher in Vic, go to Qld, and chances are that a different FOI would probably decide that what you are doing doesn't comply.

And don't even think of going anywhere near YSBK, your pilot will probably get done over because some FOI's mate reckoned there was booze on your breath about 6 months ago.

The industry should be insisting (IMHO) on a clear cut, unambiguous template that could be applied to all operations on a sliding scale. If the boxes are ticked, all over.
Yep, this has been on the cards for quite some time. If you chose to ignore it, then you will get what you asked for.
It would be far more effective if, and that is a BLOODY BIG if, the responsible players in the industry could band together and present the regulator with their own protocol that encompassed the new requirements.
The nay sayers and prophets of doom will, no doubt, tip a couple of truck loads of stuff onto this suggestion.
I would have only one observation - where are you now, and where are you going to be in 5 years time?

QUID FACIENDUM?

[flying-spike]

"OK, then how about prescribing what the outcomes need to be and let the operators go about achieving this? Where does CASA's beloved strict liability fit into this philosophy anyway?"

What about, " Thou shalt not SCARE ANYBODY, HURT ANYBODY or BREAK ANYTHING

Prescriptive enough?

[waren9]

Horatio

You describe a situation where the law makers refuse to acknowledge that true accidents happen.

If anything happens, someone somewhere must be at fault.

Oh dear.

[Horatio Leafblower]

G'day Waren9,

All accidents and incidents are caused, proximally or distally, by the act or omission of a human being or a group of human beings.

Interestingly the British Medical Journal has an editorial policy of banning the word "accident" in the interests of emphasising that point - specifically, to focus attention on what would otherwise be referred to as an "accidental death" in surgery.

"True accidents". How would you learn from, or avoid, or mitigate the outcomes of a "true accident"? :confused:

[Sunfish]

Basically, any incident will be criminalised.

What a great way to produce a "just culture".

[Kharon]

Quote – Sunfish: "If these regulations were from a flea bitten African or Middle Eastern Country I think I could be forgiven for thinking that their deliberately opaque and imprecise wording was designed to allow officials to extract the maximum possible bribes from operators".

Quote – Sunfish: However since I wouldn't accuse CASA of such motivation, all I can think of is that the regulations are written to maximize the "psychic income' of officials be giving them unfettered powers to extract the maximum of suffering and fear out of operators.

This is a fair comparison to the system in Oz. Systemic corruption, writ large. Just not paid out in shekels or camels.

The 'Safety' catch cry allows the Administrative Authority to extract all manner of compromises, bully operators and tailor make operational 'standards' to suit the individual FOI who dreamed them up. This new system of interpretation will simply be subjected to further corruption. If it wasn't so, we wouldn't be getting it.

This will further allow individual officials to decide what is 'acceptable' to the administrator, no matter how well the reg's are written. Unless the department becomes responsible to the industry for enforced changes, provide written directives which can be supported by legislation and are required to justify and be responsible for increased costs, we remain doomed.

I am very much a supporter of clearly defined outcome based legislation and competency based qualification, but, the Administrator needs to be limited to compliance only, not operational management. Discussion, sure, every time BUT If the operator carries the can, the operator can make the decisions. The aged and venerable "think safety is expensive, try having an accident" always made good sense to me.

Until we (the industry) remove the latitude for personal preferences to be enforced, vendettas to be continued, proxy, arbitrary decisions to be made against the personal interpretation, or the preference of one person, or achieve a measure of control over the department administering the industry, regulatory abuse will continue on it's merry way, with the industry paying for it.

Selah.

[notaplanegeek]

Thank you casa for finally changing your ways and stepping inline with ICAO. You guys just don't know how easy it will make everything... try fly in NZ.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Basically, any incident will be criminalised.

.... where does it say that? :eek:

[waren9]

All accidents and incidents are caused, proximally or distally, by the act or omission of a human being or a group of human beings.




Horatio

Disagree mate. It would be true if man knew everything and was master of of his universe. We aren't, and we don't.

Granted, we know a lot about our environment and can control a lot of circumstances, but the fact remains we must acknowledge we dont know everything yet.

The premise you describe basically takes a zero tolerance to risk. It is not possible to get out of bed in the morning without taking some level of risk.

If the law makers do not accept any risk in aviation, they must ban it.

[flying-spike]

Outcome based legislation is based at operator's becoming more proactive in managing risk to As Low As Reasonably Practicable rather than the broad-brush prescriptive legislation that exists today.
As long as the regulator sees that there is at least an equivalent level of safety to operations under existing legislation and there is justification supplied and argued effectively by the operator for the change then it will be accepted. FRMS is a case in point.

[LeadSled]

Quote:
Basically, any incident will be criminalised.
.... where does it say that?

Horatio,

Have a look at the "new" maintenance rules to see how it is done, with all the largely un-consulted Manual of Standards "made" as regulation by Legislative Instrument.

Every company's Exposition ( French for manual) has to describe in excruciating detail how every function in a maintenance procedure is to be carried out, and any variation detected will be a strict liability criminal offense.

flying spike,

If you think what is being described is outcome (more correctly -performance based) based regulation, you obviously have no understanding of outcome/performance based regulation.

In a country that has suffered aviation legislation prescriptive and criminalized like nowhere else, what we are seeing is prescriptive strict liability criminal law regulation like never before.

Sunfish has got it correct.

Tootle pip!!

[Horatio Leafblower]

As a business owner and operator I am worried to death about the new maintenance regulations.

From what the AMROBA members have told me, the maintenance regs are a massive shift in a different direction to the operational regs.

That said, there is massive panic about the Ops Regs that I think is unjustified. Given that maintenance is not my field, perhaps I my understanding of Maintenance regs is limited?

If it s so bad (and I accept there are many with that opinion), why isn't there more said about it? Why isn't AOPA doing more about it? (Oh that's right they're the Private Pilots club, not the operators club) :ugh:

I have only so much emotion to invest in my business and there's no point wasting it on things I can't change :suspect:

[flying-spike]

I will bow to your obviously superior understanding of outcome based legislation if you can explain it to me so even I can understand. Or if I can put it another way, just why is it you believe the sky is falling?

[Jack Ranga]

He likes you bowing to him :ok:

And he explained it to you.......in French, no less.

I once had a LAME do some work on my aircraft. When he put the priming lines back on there were a few 'extra' crimps. It was only by chance that I spotted the fuel p!ssing all over the exhaust pipe (cold thank Christ) A student was priming while I was closing the cowl. If I hadn't seen that somebody WOULD have primed while the exhaust was hot in the future.

This wasn't an 'accident'

This LAME could have done with an 'Exposition' detailing how to ensure he didn't burn the aircraft to peices.

Bit of 'strict liability' may have seen him fix his f@ck up rather than send some priming line down in the mail with a 'sorry mate' :ugh:

[Rose_Thorns]

Spikey, Spikey, Spikey, I want a pint of whatever your having, must be good stuff. Only a CASA zealot or a naive newcomer to the industry would even give two minutes of credence to your "Babes in toy land" beliefs. Benefit of doubt rule applied, once.

"As long as the regulator sees that there is at least an equivalent level of safety to operations under existing legislation and there is justification supplied and argued effectively by the operator for the change then it will be accepted. FRMS is a case in point".

Bollocks. Who defines the "equivalent" level of safety, who decides if it is justified, who decides if an argument is effective, who decides to accept the changes, the bloody reg's don't. So, it's left even more wide open to individual interpretation, arse covering inevitably follows. Stupid changes enforced to make the Administrator feel warm and comfy. Nothing even remotely like your whimsical scenario will occur as long as there is stark reality, human nature and one serviceable aircraft on the planet.

Read Sunfish for reality fix, read Lead Sled for the 'way things are' fix. Take a back bearing on that, then talk to some operators, if they know and trust you, you'll get a shock. Then come back and tell us a 'true' believers tale of truth, justice and the Australian CASA way.

[Stink Finger]

Spike,

If CASA thinks we, the industry asked for these changes, you know with even more subjective grey areas, they got it quite wrong.

Lets not even look at the criminalisation for the moment.

For many years the "industry" has been complaining about the subjective nature of the current legislation, and how guidance material is used as legislation (AOCM, MOS).

Two FOI's / AWI's will "interpret" the same scribble in current legislation in two very very different ways, and through what appears at times to be underhanded tactics, will enforce these.

This is why there is a great deal of mistrust between a very large proportion of the industry and CASA.

Imagine if the Police could arrest and fine you just because they didn't like what you were doing, irrespective of having broken an actual written in black and white law.

As has been pointed out so many times it is boring to read about, CAR 206 and many other regulations have been interpretted, mis-interpretted, explained, re-explained and so on, yet there is still a huge amount of uncertainty as to what it actually means, and worst of all, enforced differently depending of who is talking and what their personal opinion happens to be on that particular day.

In my humble opinion the first step in clearing up these issues would be to remove the OLC and turn their office space into something more useful like a childcare centre or broom closet.

Clear, concise and prescriptive legislation is what is required, in plain english would be even better, not opaque and criminalising blanket type legislation. The later will foster the hiding of issues and the destruction of safety through evolution of procedures.

It really should not be that hard ?, sure, the regulatory reform process has cost how much and dragged on for how long is it now ?, and achieved exactly what ?.

[601]

has cost how much

My abacus has worn out

for how long is it now

I have been waiting that long I now have Alzheimers

[Sunfish]

It is going to take not one, but three or four major hull losses with great loss of life before there is any possibility of substantive change, and even then that change will probably be in the wrong direction, further criminalising Aviation activity.

Whoever dreamed up the structure of Australian Aviation legislation, and the regulations made under them has cost Australia hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, in costs. Those costs are not only compliance costs and attempts at obtaining natural justice and procedural fairness, but more importantly opportunity costs - investments that were never made - opportunities gone begging because of the complexity of attempting to comply with badly written draconian legislation and regulations, interpreted by mean spirited, narrow minded individuals.

By way of example, discussion with one of the owners of Gippsland Aeronautics revealed that CASA put up every obstacle it possibly could against the certification of the GA8 Airvan - and you wonder why there isn't a thriving aviation based manufacturing industry in this country?

In my own limited case, if I knew a few years ago what I know now about CASA, I would have saved my money and not bothered with a pilots licence. As it is, I have been looking at acquiring an LSA designed kit aircraft to build for entertainment and limited transport and I still can't get any certainty about operational limitations. The only certainty I can get is that RAA is limited to 544kg, and will most probably continue in that manner till hell freezes over.

I've talked to a maintenance manager regarding CASA and regulations and compliance. I asked him what do do about something I had done some years ago that I now realised was "non compliant" (not directly safety related). He shrugged his shoulders and just said "Forget about it. If they decide to get you for something, it won't matter whether you were compliant or not, they will simply find something else to hang you with".

The way the regulations are structured is a diabolical lawyers delight. Everything is prohibited. Everything is a "strict liability" offence. Aviation is then only enabled by "exceptions" to the blanket prohibition.

What then happens is that there is a great yawning chasm where specific information on how to comply with the exemptions should be.

The outcome is that you are automatically guilty of an offence if your method of compliance with the exemption is judged by an individual to be insufficient. This is unjust, unfair, corrupt, crooked and stupid.

Of course if you are a CASA lawyer, such a state of affairs has much to recommend it because they structure of the legislation and regulations is such that it provides you with a constant stream of referrals since every non conformance detected is a prosecutable criminal offence.

There is no question of "Mens Rea" - Guilty mind, involved once strict liability is invoked. There is no question of a motive at all. This leaves public servants free to prosecute based on their personal whim, no matter what CASA's "enforcement Policy" says - and even that involves, through its "show cause" process, a complete denial of natural justice.

The Commonwealth Law website is down, which means I can't post examples of what I mean.

[Rose_Thorns]

If, the ATSB used it's new legal muscles and had a look into the systemic failures which are directly attributable to the CASA. A truth meter would be a gift from above.

Stuff like arbitrary:- ordering / approving (of course verbal ) changes to AFM check systems, I can think of three that I know of, not little "Grobs" either.

Offering a choice (play nice or loose your brief) of useless simulator OEI, or the real thing, during training for aircraft with no certified OEI performance. The ATSB are lucky to have (the only time in history) a surviving crew of a OEI training prang. There are questions that need to asked at the highest level on that episode.

Mandatory de stabilizing of final approach (blue line or bust). OEI decision height, no Joyce, not for us, not today.

Demanding, despite AFM warning stalling aircraft which the manufacturer states, categorically should only be done by qualified test pilots under tightly controlled conditions.

Approving check systems which don't get within a bulls roar of the AFM and then; in one place approving 'procedural' check systems and wildly decrying the same procedure 300 miles away.

One guy insisting an aircraft be operated under 20.7.4 another insisting the same aircraft must be operated multi crew, while the left hand is merrily spruking CAO 20.7.1B. just down the track.

It's a cynical joke, you need to restructure the asylum before giving the inmates a nice shiny, sharp new toy to use. Although, then again, they may just cut themselves. All those in favor of tough love, hands up.

If the pollies can't or wont do it, perhaps the ATSB can. This time bomb (not if but when) has a real potential to create a political nightmare for the incumbent Minister. Remember SEAVIEW, that should have brought down a government, never mind the hapless suit stuffed in the 'hot seat'. Poison chalice. You bet.

Fetch the buggy Joyce, but leave the rocks, Tempus fugit.

[kimwestt]

And don't start me on Checklist stuff. As I understand it, and I guess I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, a Manufacturers Checklist forms part of the original certification for an aircraft. If, then, the checklist is changed, (at the demand of a CASA FOI), does that then compromise the basis upon which the original certification was founded.
What then, in a court of law, or indeed, a worst case scenario, in a coroners court?
"Sir/Maam, can you please explain why it is that you considered that your preferences in regards to a checklist are better than the Manufacturers published Checklist?"
Respondent puts thumb in mouth and sucks hard.
"Well - - - eerrrr - - -um!"
Oh yeah - that scenario is currently being visited upon portions of the GA sector, with seemingly no resolution in sight.
Basically, change the Manufacturers checklist to the way I want it, or your 217 org approval and other stuff probably won't happen.
There are many who are struggling to
aqueam servare mentum
:ugh::ugh:

[Kharon]

Just how deeply set in the rot is.

No one seems (justifiably) to trust the Politicians to even break wind properly on "Air Safety" issues. They will run a mile when they get told "Well minister, on your head be it". The old chestnut dragged out to scare children and technical NFI 's. The ICAO and FAA audit would scare the crap out of me if I was remotely publicly (politically) connected at ministerial level, yet, that small ticking bomb seem to have been swept under the rug. We won the prize for the best crash comic didn't we, It's a bit tragic really.

It is sadly impossible for anyone to trust the Administrator any longer. Rules which were written in good faith, years ago to serve an industry and provide guidance to "wise men' seem to be being used as a weapon of destruction, rather than a starting point for safety compliance. . Particularly in the face of world best practice which everyone else seems to be able to manage. It's a bit tragic really.

Could the ATSB be an answer to the pagans prayer, possibly, but where are the resources coming from. The ATSB report to the Senate beggars belief. They only had resources available to investigate 70 issues out of some (from memory) 8000 odd. That, stand alone, is a political hot potato. The public should be screaming for answers. "Oh we had the report m' lud, but we just couldn't get off the Big Q case in time to discover that Bloggs died because of a major design fault. It's a bit tragic really.

Perhaps, there is a voice of reason somewhere out there, I know there is a toof fairy, had a beer with Santa Christmas Eve and cuppa with the Queen only last Tuesday, so perhaps it's possible. Next week I'm going to afternoon tea with an honest, caring politician who promises to bring the mad dogs to heel.

Selah.

[Fubar_x]

It's about time. What a great day to kick off the 'revolution', Australia day.

Some folks fight for independence, what did we do ?, Eureka Stockade, that was about it wasn't it. Except for Ned of course.

Much better effort required this time.

[OpsNormal]

Rose, Kharon - whatever you wish to call yourself each log-in.... If you keep up with the emotive diatribe, Dorothy Dixers and red herrings you might be surprised who might decide to write a short essay about your recent life and times on here and let the greater Pprune community decide if they'll keep listening to you trying to be their bestest mayte...:yuk:

I usually don't ever write something here unless it is something good about someone however your ego and actions (and funnily enough, the lack of them) have put a significant number of people in this industry offside, and ultimately including those who pulled your approvals recently.

Enough.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Read Sunfish's last post again, have a really good think about what he said, then read it again ----

------ Particularly about the opportunity costs ---- and there is the reason for the stunted aviation industry in Australia.

Once upon a time, there was a thriving parts and components manufacturing and overhaul business in Australia, now most of it has gone, unless the organisation is big enough to have EASA and FAA approvals.

As of now, Australian certification (CASA paper) is no longer acceptable in most of SE Asia ---- accounting in large part for the demise of the many small businesses once engage in this export industry.

Even the revamped US/AU Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement has given no real respite, thanks to CASA "discouragement".

CASA isn't the only example of a very negative regulatory body, but it is the worst, because it trades on the holy cow of "air safety".

Even the flight training sector is a pale shadow of what it should be, while the sector booms in NZ/CA/US etc., and significant training hear moves to EASA certified organisations.

In a country with a chronic balance of payments deficit in the traded good sector, it is economic lunacy for Government regulation to squeeze the life out of what little is left of exporters in the sector.

If you go back through the CASA annual reports, it is not to hard to pick up the collapse in numbers of Certificate of Approval holders ----- and not to hard to verify the increasing number of organisation FAA/EASA certified, to ensure their survival in the export market.

It's all about sovereign risk, and the sovereign risk of dealing with CASA is a huge incremental cost in doing aviation business based in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Jack R., do you really think more regulation will make an incompetent LAME into a competent one.

For those of you who don't understand, all Australian aviation regulation is (but doesn't need to be) criminal law.

[Rose_Thorns]

ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing sword is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you. :D

[Kharon]

From and old and much valued friend. The heathen, Paganini and fools have never, ever valued the benefits civilization, like the three RRR 's, but for our counterproductive friends and comrades in exile (As you like it act 2 scene 1). The following (I apologize, from memory E&OE) are some eloquent words, from which much may be learned.

Alas! poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; (me mate of course). (Hamlet, scene i).

I'll speak to it though Hell itself should gape
And bid me hold my peace. (Hamlet, scene ii).

And, if you can get anywhere near truth, as a concept:-

This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Hamlet, Act I, scene. iii.

Heigh Ho, back to the salt mines. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif.

How are the horses Lillum, you left them out the finale yesterday. Safe home mate. :D

[Rose_Thorns]

BUMP. this one up.

[gupta]

Can we go back to Modern English?
Please
Monty Python & Willy S ....... FFS

[Rose_Thorns]

Come in and try it, we do Latin, English a bit of German (lap dancing optional - we still have a soup scon of pride). Have a bit of fun and when requested or required, a bit of "'eavy lifti'n.

But consider, the abilty to switch between multiple failures, can you understand "multiple concepts", find a laugh for the crew and get the wrekage home, in one piece; if not leave the kitchen, now, before you burn your precious paws.

No prisoners Joyce, none.

[Rose_Thorns]

Adjective pāgānus m. (feminine pāgāna, neuter pāgānum); first/second declension

1.Of or pertaining to the countryside, rural, rustic.
2.(by extension) rustic, unlearned
3.(substantive) villager, countryman
4.(substantive) civilian
5.(substantive, Ecclesiastical Latin) heathen, pagan.

:ugh: := http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

[Stink Finger]

Rose, fair enough.

You guys look like a bunch of fools carrying on with this criptic diatribe.

This is a real topic that deserves discussion amongst peers and is being destroyed by a pair of try hards that can cut and paste from google, grow up and get back on topic, or go play with each other somewhere else, preferably in private.

The CAR 206 reference as is being discussed here is an interesting one, scenic flights, IMHO better fit the description of RPT, to and from fixed terminals, fixed schedule, general public and seat rate. More fitting the definition than most of these island hopping flights and cattle station mail runs.

But is this the intent of the legislation ?.

Why has it taken so long for this to become an issue in CASA's eyes ?.

What of the private seat limitation when applied to parachute ops in SC7, Twotter, C208, "Super" Beaver, BN2 and Cresco ?. Should the APF be able to regulate something that really looks like a commercial operation with paying pax strapped into a VH registered aircraft ?, even if only for half the flight .

CAR 232 check lists where an FOI stipulates different to the certified check list, based on his/her personal opinion ?.

There are others, please add as you see fit.

[Horatio Leafblower]

You guys look like a bunch of fools carrying on with this criptic diatribe.


Bravo Sir, well said :D

I suspect, however, Rose/Kharon is only one fool with split personality :suspect:

If an operator has been shut down, where is the hue and cry? Which operators? Where? Isn't the tourism industry up in arms? no?

It's a load of tripe if you ask me :=

...oh and as for the fancy prose: it reads like the drunken ramblings of a simple man out to impress or intimidate the feeble minded.

All except this: Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy which of course is true.

[Jack Ranga]

I once had a LAME do some work on my aircraft. When he put the priming lines back on there were a few 'extra' crimps. It was only by chance that I spotted the fuel p!ssing all over the exhaust pipe (cold thank Christ) A student was priming while I was closing the cowl. If I hadn't seen that somebody WOULD have primed while the exhaust was hot in the future.

Leadsled, I replied to you on the other thread about this. I posted the above more in the vein of devil's advocate. I, and I suggest others have probably been stung by LAME's in the above fashion. Try taking the above to court, whilst you may achieve 'justice' how long is it going to take and how much will it cost you?

People who operate in this manner know that you wont take action and couldn't give a sh!t.

I'm saying that it's probably people like myself who've experienced something like this want action taken and CASA and government departments come up with what you speak of.

I agree with yours and all the others' sentiments. Personally I'm sick and tired of law targeted at the lowest common denominator but what do ya do?

[601]

Why has it taken so long for this to become an issue in CASA's eyes ?

This one has been through the mill about 10/12 years ago. Nothing came of it. It just quietly disappeared or was buried.