CASA v Fearless Phelan.

[Kharon]

(Buy a ticket now).

For many years Paul has earned his rightly deserved reputation as “Fearless”. Many erudite, articulate offerings, carefully researched and nicely written articles etc. trying to gently prod a recalcitrant, feckless, lazy regulator into some sort of interaction with its Minister and the traveling public it is paid to serve. All ignored.

For many years the Australian Coronial Inquiry system has well and faithfully served its public paymasters providing valuable advice, legal interpretation and considered opinion then watched, helpless as the many hundreds of recommendations made have been either pooh pooed, diluted or just plain ignored.

The ATSB, NTSB, FAA, ICAO, the humble, long suffering Chief Pilots and even the odd owner/operator has quietly offered recommendation, assistance and guidance in the matters P. Pheelan writes about with clarity. All ignored.

Countless millions spent on Royal Commission, Senate investigation, Inquiry etc. etc. all with recommendations. All ignored.

It’s about time CASA began to listen to somebody, anybody (CASA PNG perhaps); and got its house in order. Clearly a big cigar, hula shirt and an fcuck you attitude is not what the Australian tax payer, the traveling public the Senate or the industry, this body is supposed to serve, wants or warrants.

Experts! – Lord spare me; my Mama has forgotten more about running aircraft than this bunch ever knew to begin with.
Knock, knock; Hello ??? anybody out there ??.

Phelan 1. (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/02/filling-in-the-information-gaps/)
Phelan 2. (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/02/thanks-but-no-thanks-mr-mccormick/)
Phelan 3. (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2011/11/5328/)

[multime]

Very Impressive well researched from Pheelan. A leader in the industry.

[Jabawocky]

He has nothing to lose ;) and nothing to gain either. A legend in the making?

CASA should stop listen and reflect on why he is after them. Remember an enemy with nothing to lose is hard to do battle with.:D

[T28D]

Australia has always been proud of its free press, Paul is a great example of how the free press can deal with injustice in the dealings of bureacrats.

[VH-XXX]

Remember an enemy with nothing to lose is hard to do battle with

Which is exactly why CASA are so fun to deal with; it's not their money they are spending, it's ours!

[thorn bird]

"Thanks but no thanks Mr McCormick".
McCormick's letter repeated in the article perhaps illustrates why he's
"Not a Fit and Proper Person" to hold the office he has.
John's reply perhaps illustrates that no matter what CASA scumbags do
they can never take away your integrity or dignity.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Paul Phelan 1 quote
"We’ll try to avoid the familiar and odious tactic of sending this material by fax at 5:10 on Friday afternoon."I'm guessing legal are standing by that fax machine right now. I received one in the past at exactly that time too! Their tactics are being brought out into the open.

Is Flying Fiend standing by that fax machine?

[Frank Arouet]

FF has a new "moniker". Check the other threads.:cool:

[redned]

Not Fearless Phelan the Phantom Featherer.Thats what knickname he had way back in the early 70s.A good pilot,but a better journo.:D

[Sarcs]

FF has a new "moniker". Check the other threads.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cool.gif

Yeah we suspect his initials are really AA (and no not Minister Fumblenese) but the other bloke from Fort Fumble!:oh:

[Arnold E]

Paul is a great example of how the free press can deal with injustice in the dealings of bureacrats.

Errr and accomplished what with the regulator ??:confused::confused:

[T28D]

Arnold E He has achieved one hell of a lot more than I wager you have, keep knocking sooner or later you will actually achieve something.

[Arnold E]

Arnold E He has achieved one hell of a lot more than I wager you have, keep knocking sooner or later you will actually achieve something.

I'm not knocking anybody, I am asking a question. Many, many people on this forum say that CASA has not been changed in any way, much less a positive direction.
I have not claimed,(or have had claimed on my behalf,) anything.:=

[Frank Arouet]

Errr and accomplished what with the regulator ??

A few examples;

The Phelan Papers included cases that helped change the regulatory framework. Things such as Part 47 registrations to make a definitive statement about who is responsible for aircraft maintenance. this took the duty of care owed by the LAME away from the bloke paying for a dodgy MR and put it straight onto the owner/ operator to make sure a MR reflected the product being sold or hired. Those cases also prompted a re-write of schedule 4 which had deficiencies that were exploited in the past. In concert with pilots with medical problems he used his vast glossary to bring case history to light where it could be used for a successful outcome. Diabetes is one that springs to mind.

There a many others to recount, but his best achievement is, and continues to be, to record every CASA abuse so others may not have to find out the hard way who they are dealing with.

[kimwestt]

In support of Kharon and et al, thanks but no thanks is the reply I've given to a prospective employer who needs a CP. The reason for this is the well documented and eloquently described conduct, behaviour, and utter bastardry of many well known FOI's. Not to mention the total lack of respect and common courtesy displayed towards the GA industry. Oh, I'm sorry, GA doesn't have a legal CASA definition or existence.
Would have loved to do the job, the operator is one of the industry's smaller stalwarts, and CASA and the AAT have failed on several occasions to successfully persue that operator.
Cheers
"Keep the shiny side up"
:mad:

[Arnold E]

Thanks Frank for actually answering the question I asked.:ok:

[T28D]

Yup, one of the most aggresive and ill mannered questions I have witnessed

Errr and accomplished what with the regulator ??http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

[LeadSled]

Filling in the information gaps (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/02/filling-in-the-information-gaps)

Folks,
The above is Fearless Phelan's latest, today.
Tootle pip

[Ultralights]

So next time the ATIS is reporting crosswinds of 15Kts +, im off for a ILS into YSSY! in my Tecnam! :E

[Kharon]

T28D - Yup, one of the most aggressive and ill mannered questions I have witnessed. Rude and aggressive I can live with, but pointless, purblind ignorance and terminal arrogance, that's an altogether different animal. The adage 'engage brain before opening gob' comes to mind.

Arnold, E - Errr and accomplished what with the regulator ??. For the information of those who choose to deny that there are significant problems being covered over by legal hyperbole, manufactured spin and plain old pony pooh a small study of P. Phelan article "Dudding the delegate" may prove educational.

That one piece, examined by a CASA executive who actually knew a bit about the game led to the demise of 3 bad boys and saw one promoted to a level of incompetency under the current regimes philosophy of turning loose incompetents, bullies and liars. Why?, because "if they have aggravated the industry, they must be doing their jobs correctly".

The subsequent loss of Mike Hart and Greg Vaughan was the price paid by the industry for allowing justice in one case to prevail. It is important to compare this outcome with that of subsequent outrages since their departure.

Arnold E should be aware that when there is a conflict journalists are there to report accurately on wars, not to fight them.

[LeadSled]

So next time the ATIS is reporting crosswinds of 15Kts +, im off for a ILS into YSSY! in my Tecnam!Ultralight,

That's what the law says is your right!! That's what CASA said was the mitigator in the "safety case" to "approve" the closure of RW18/36.

Personally, I would be declaring the emergency, and in a Tecnam or similar, landing into wind on what is left of 18 --- paying due care and attention to not use the fence at the end as a barrier net to stop me tumbling into the quite deep water filled gully that now runs parallel to the south taxiway.

Tootle pip!!

[baswell]

Personally, I would be declaring the emergency, and in a Tecnam or similar, landing into wind on what is left of 18
Taxiway Joliet seems like a reasonable choice also. :ok:

[Arnold E]

Yup, one of the most aggresive and ill mannered questions I have witnessed

Jeez, you haven't been around much have you.

[Fantome]

Rude and aggressive I can live with, but pointless, purblind ignorance and terminal arrogance, that's an altogether different animal




ah so old son . .. . . as the seasoned man about the horse you once were I know that you'll smile at what the late Kell B. Jeffery ("The Jeffery Method of Horse Handling") once said to a bunch of critics watching him at work.

"Now I'll do it the right way and show you there is no vice in any horse - that they are all kind and tractable provided the one doing the handling is not 'most ignorant where he is most assured.'

p.s. Fearless and I received our 'wings' on the same night at The Civic Hotel in Civic Centre . .. . . . Ist April 1960. Have photo as reminder of occasion. (Other six in the pic all dead . .. 'and so it goes' . . . 'Feelin' Groovy ' always did wear the hallmarks of the crusader.

[Creampuff]

I think a number of people, including the author of the article at the link posted by LeadSled, are making the (fairly common) mistake of conflating maximum demonstrated crosswind and maximum crosswind limitation.

And this, from the linked article, is champagne comedy:The Australian Government Solicitor is acting for CASA in the Polar matter, and Comsure is not mentioned as a party, suggesting that if CASA is found to have a liability, it is uninsured.:D:D:D

[Brian Abraham]

Fearless and I received our 'wings' on the same night at The Civic Hotel in Civic Centre . .. . . . Ist April 1960Not an auspicious date Fantome :E

[LeadSled]

------- are making the (fairly common) mistake of conflating maximum demonstrated crosswind and maximum crosswind limitation.

Creamie,
In AFMs, maximum demonstrated crosswind has superseded (absolute) crosswind limits in the Limitations section of the AFM or equivalent.
You will still find hard limits for crosswind plus gust, or crosswind including gust, in such columns as autolands and Cat. II/III operations, in the AFM or equivalent.
Various NAA have different approaches to what is in an Operating Specification or equivalent, as to how the maximum demonstrated crosswind will be used bu pilots on a day to day basis.
Tootle pip!!

[T28D]

The old saying, " The pen is mightier than the sword", is appropriate for "Fearless Phelan "

Ultimately the written word will unseat those in CASA who abuse and violate the system.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

The old saying, " The pen is mightier than the sword", is appropriate for "Fearless Phelan "

Ultimately the written word will unseat those in CASA who abuse and violate the system.


Too true and there are some in casa that have put enough in writing to do just that.

[Creampuff]

Leaddie

I couldn’t possibly comment on the extraordinary intricacies and complexities of the aircraft to which you referred.

Could we concentrate on the humble C152 referred to in the article?

The POH says, under the heading “Speeds for Normal Operation”:Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind Velocity ….. 12 KNOTSThere is no crosswind limitation in the Limitations Section.

The “Normal Procedures Section” says, under the heading “CROSSWIND LANDING”:When landing in a strong crosswind, use the minimum flap setting required for the field length. Use a wing low, crab, or a combination method of drift correction and land in a nearly level attitude.In the “Performance” section there is a wind components diagram – one of those quarter compass jobbies, with tailwind/headwind on the vertical axis and crosswind component on the horizontal axis, plotted by projecting from the tailwind/headwind component on the vertical axis across to the wind velocity and wind-to-runway angle arcs.

Intriguingly, there is a ‘Note’ above the crosswind diagram. The note says:Maximum demonstrated crosswind velocity is 12 knots (not a limitation).

[b]What is the crosswind limitation on a C152?

[Kharon]

Ah Fantome; you speak of the old days; when the earth was soft, the sky was misty, all Fokkers were Friendly and flight deck sandwiches were always soggy. Such was life then.

These Fokkers ain't so friendly now, tea and biccy's - not on the menu. There is a measurable, demonstrable negative impact on operational and public safety being 'enforced' on the aviation community. Regrettably, as there is no viable avenue to reach a voice of reason it has become necessary to hang all of the industry dirty washing out, in public.

You will find there are some who will split hairs, argue endlessly, witlessly and pointlessly about the differences between a hard set limitation and a demonstrated crosswind component, even about demanding a full blown stall in aircraft with strict AFM prohibitions against exactly that.

Even my Mama knows that in the hands of a "pilot" a 12 knot crosswind is child's play; in the hands of a first solo cadet, that the instructor needs his arse kicked for sending young spotty out to play in dangerous conditions. But when the hairdressers, cross dressers and the letter of the law mob "Golden West Mafia" get involved; well it's time to shoot straight and take no prisoners.

The days of respect, probity, responsibility and good old fashioned horse sense have been sacrificed to the Gods of "we, the experts place blood on the hands of those brave enough to defy us".

Experts – Bollicks !. Rejects from the pencil sharpening cupboard, loadmasters, has been, wanna be, failed or sacked from industry; not a halfway decent pilot amongst them anymore. At least someone got smart and stopped them flying before there was an elegant no responsibly black letter law version of a smoking hole. Praise be.

And yes, it's not very much like the world of my much loved four legged friends where it's still a question of judgement not black letter law which will ultimately keep you and those you care for alive.

Selah.

[NZScion]

What is the crosswind limitation on a C152?

A: There isn't one, as you alluded to in your post. The maximum demonstrated is just that, the maximum crosswind demonstrated for that aircraft type. Above that it is a judgement call by the pilot, who assesses the factors on the day, and makes a decision what to do.

In other words there is no line in the sand. Just a big grey area.

[Creampuff]

[S]ome who will split hairs, argue endlessly, witlessly and pointlessly about the differences between a hard set limitation and a demonstrated crosswind component.More champagne comedy! :D:D:D

(Correct, NZ. :ok: And a lack of understanding of the difference can have safety consequences.)

[LeadSled]

Creamie,
Subject to having a look at the manual to which you refer, as far as I am concerned ( and, I strongly suspect, most insurance companies) that means the cross wind limit is 12 knots.

A lot of GA manuals are a bit of a mess, even some more recent Cessna manuals, allegedly in the GAMA format, illustrate the wide interpretations of the GAMA recommendations. I should imagine that even the most recent editions of a C152 manual are not exactly new.

A later rather gung-ho ( as I was once, until I grew up -- or was it experience - I've got a lot of time in the RHS of a C-152) poster clearly doesn't understand the "new" certification term "maximum demonstrated crosswind". I recommend he has a look at an FAA certification flight test guide for a partucular FAR 23 aircraft --- 'tiz all on the net.

Given the several C-152/172 I have seen flipped on their backs, including one on the taxiway at Rutherford, immediately in front of me, an eyewitness, so to speak, I treat any high wing Cessna with great caution, you might get it on the ground, but then you have to taxi ---- and the aeroplane I was in flying at the time didn't even rock in the gusts ---- as a Bonanza would have behaved.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The latest, AC23-8C doesn't help much, unless you have what has been agreed between the FAA and the manufacturer for the type. As a matter of interest ( or just to confuse you) there is also a minimum maximum demonstrated airspeed that the aircraft (under 6000lb) must achieve.

[gobbledock]

Forget what the manuals say, it is not what is written that counts, it is the INTENT of what is written that counts! Just ask your local CASA specialist.

You see if you CASArise the manual from the aspect of Intent then technically you are all correct, no hang on, you are all incorrect. Hang on a bit longer while I contact numerous field offices around the country for their varied opinions which will be based on whether they have a vendetta against me, then I will run those non consistent responses and answers through the CASA Voodoo office in Canberra for some additional seasoning in deflection and spin, sprinkle a dash of malfeasance over the top, remove all traces of accountability and then serve it nice and warm up some poor unsuspecting operators ass!

[aroa]

As you are battling as per 'gobble.d', hows this for affirmatiom that CASA is seriously negligent and deficient...
I posted this statement in full elsewhere but it is an admission from CASA itself that the regs are a clusterfcuk.." difficult to interpret, understand and enforce".. "ambiguous and prescriptive" Not sure about the enforcement bit.

The coroner posted the question, since CASA have been "re-writing" the regs since 1997, and (he's) not advised of any outcomes...is that statement an indictment of CASA.?
Because of reg rubbish and the mish-mash of inconsistent interpretations, what hope is there for joe blow when they can't even work it out. :eek:
The only way forward is to bin the lot and get rid of the people that spew up this stuff. :ok:
And adopt the NZ or FAA.

[Sarcs]

.." difficult to interpret, understand and enforce".. "ambiguous and prescriptive"

There was a similar statement from CASA in relation to an ATSB report into a 2006 Dromader fatal accident near Cootamundra, the aircraft was water bombing a local bushfire:

SAFETY ACTIONS



Civil Aviation Safety Authority

In June 2006, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued Regulatory Policy CEO-PN008-2006 Fire Fighting Operations. This policy was not issued to address any safety concerns identified in this or any other occurrence, but to replace a previous policy that CASA considered ‘over prescriptive, too procedural and difficult to understand’. The stated intention is to incorporate the key elements of the policy into the proposed Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 137.

The policy was issued to clarify that CASA considered that aerial fire fighting, while not specifically listed in Civil Aviation Regulation 206, was an aerial work activity. The policy addressed safety issues such as operations over populous areas, aircraft gross weight limits, flight crew qualifications and flight and duty limitations8.

So it seems there is at least a small number of CASA Flight Ops staff who are of the same opinion.:D

Investigation: 200600851 - Aircraft loss of control (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2006/aair/aair200600851.aspx)

[Kharon]

Thanks x 1000 for your interest; - unvarnished, unedited results at the survey end.

1. Do you have confidence and trust in the regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority ?. 94.74% – No.

2. Do you know of any CASA misconduct that has occurred?. 79.12%. Yes.

3. Did this CASA misconduct involve you personally?. 55.26%. Yes.
4. Did this CASA misconduct involve your employer?. 57.89%. Yes.
5. Was any commercial harm done to the company?. 74.03%. Yes.
6. Was any commercial harm done to yourself?. 53.95%. Yes.
7. Are you aware of any CASA misconduct towards any of your associates?. 85.93%. Yes.

8. Are you aware of factual information regarding conduct against another operator?. 67.11%. Yes.
9. Are you aware of factual information regarding conduct against another pilot that you know?. 67.09%. Yes.
10. Are you aware of any instances in which CASA has been dishonest towards yourself?. 69.74%.Yes.
11. Are you personally aware of CASA dishonesty towards a group or individual other than yourself?. 76.32%. Yes.

12. Did this CASA misconduct or dishonesty involve any of the following? (Please tick for Yes). 76.32%.
Falsifying etc. 19.25%.
Fabrication etc. 20.86%.
Losing Info etc. 17.32%.
Tampering etc. 12.85%.
Blatant Lying etc. 30.17%.

13. Have you witnessed any past CASA conduct that you would consider malicious or vindictive?. 86.08%. Yes
14. Are you aware of any behaviour that suggests a vendetta against a pilot or operator?. 86.08%. Yes.
15. In which area offices have you witnessed misconduct? Please tick below. CASA HQ. Canberra – 23.53% : Cairns/Townsville 16.54% : Bankstown 14.96%. Melbourne 9.56% : Darwin 8.09% : Archerfield 5.15 : Jandakot 3.68% : Parafield 2.21% : Tamworth 2.21% : Other 14.07%.

16. Should a Judicial Inquiry or Royal Commission into CASA misconduct be initiated?. 92.63%. Yes.

17. If suitable protection was guaranteed for a witness in either form of inquiry above;
Would you be prepared to testify. 38.21%.
Do you have factual testimony etc. 25.20%.
Do you have anecdotal evidence etc. 36.59%.

[Seabreeze]

Kharon

How many respondents were there?

SB

[blackhand]

Do you have anecdotal evidence etc. 36.59%.

Well thats admissable then.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Would you be prepared to testify. 38.21%.
Do you have factual testimony etc. 25.20%.

Backhand you missed the bit that is?

[blackhand]

As Samuel Clemens once said, Lies, Damn lies and Statistics

[Frank Arouet]

I believe this question should be asked once again next Tuesday, when all the mob in Canberra get back to work.

Can't expect them to work flexi days, contracted days, or RDO's can we.

Tuesday to Thursdays only please.:{

[Kharon]

50 ml at the vet last week - good effort to hit the little pot. :D

For week end contemplation :

Hamlet: Why, man, they did make love to this employment,
They are not near my conscience. Their defeat
Does by their own insinuation grow.
'Tis dangerous when the baser nature comes
Between the pass and fell incensèd points
Of mighty opposite.

[Fantome]

For this relief much thanks; 't is bitter cold,
And I am sick at heart.

[blackhand]

Friends of my soul, you twain
Rule in this realm, and the gored state sustain.

[Sarcs]

BH said:Well thats admissable then.

Hey blackie I think you'll find in 'civil proceedings' that anecdotal or 'hearsay evidence' is permissable, from wikipedia:


The law concerning hearsay in civil proceedings was reformed substantially by the Civil Evidence Act 1995 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civil_Evidence_Act_1995&action=edit&redlink=1)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_English_law#cite_note-10) ("the 1995 Act") and is now primarily upon a statutory footing. The Act arose from a report of the Law Commission published in 1993[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_English_law#cite_note-11) which criticised the previous reforming statutes' excessive caution and cumbersome procedures. Section 1 of the Act says
In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Macduff: 'Let our just censures attend the true event, and we put on Industrious soldiership.'

(= We better join the union, boys & gals....& get a good solicitor.... QC(?)
.
Siward: 'The time approaches that will
with due decision make us know
What we shall say we have, and what we owe.
Thoughts speculative their unsure hopes relate,
But certain issue strokes must arbitrate;
Towards which advance the war.
(Exeunt, marching....stage left...)

Cheers::ok:p

[Kharon]

Aviation Advertiser – Phelan - Polar on the ropes? Not yet!
CASA Director John McCormick replied that Mr Butson was “a bit delusional if that is what he thinks the outcome of the court cases has been so far". Butson is a fair minded, honest, hard working solid citizen who contributes to the countries economy, provides employment and training to future airline pilots, runs and minds his own business; very well indeed. I wonder who is the delusional party involved here. Certainly not WA Senator Alan Eggleston. At least one Senator is not complacently 'spin dizzy'.

AA_Phelan_Polar: It’s also true that Federal Court Justice Kenny struck out the claim against CASA and its Deputy Director Terry Farquharson (and others) on the basis, in broad terms, that CASA and its officers owe no duty of care to the public in the performance of their duties. (My bold).
I am certain that the Australian travelling public would love to see this statement spread over their Sunday newspaper. What in all the hells is the Government, Senate and press thinking. Certainly not that this statement will be made headlines at first (next) major accident.

Beginning with Monarch and ending with Lockhart River CASA have consistently demonstrated exactly this attitude. Response to Coroner recommendation Zero, response to ATSB recommendation Zero. Why?. Not only do they simply not give a 'rats', they simply don't have to, by their lights.

AA_PP_Polar: However CASA didn’t mention that Polar and Butson successfully applied for leave to appeal against this decision. In granting that application, Justice Middleton said that it was prima facie incorrect for Justice Kenny to have struck out the statement of claim on the basis that she did so without hearing the evidence. (My bold). This is becoming a feature of any case where it's CASA v Some unfortunate. With the 'myth of safety' the carrot, the confused state of the regulations the stick and the tacit compliance of government (wriggle room provided) to ensure that not one night of sleep is disturbed by the truth, fairness or heaven forbid, common sense.

AA_PP_ Polar : In a similar recent decision in the Federal Court in Perth, on a successful application to extend time to file and serve an amended statement of claim against CASA for negligence, Federal Court Justice McKerracher agreed with the statement made by Justice Middleton regarding the liability of CASA for negligence, saying that CASA can be held liable, but the court must hear all of the evidence. (My bold).

"We" have been quietly working through some 250 odd items of interest related to publicly available 'evidence' from Coroner, ATSB, AAT and "Court" proceedings. It is interesting to note just how many needles are hidden under the 'haystacks' of paper work generated when the CASA boys 'get busy'.

Is time for the Public and their elected representatives (Politicians) to pay attention, become concerned and stop allowing themselves to be spoon fed on 'spin lotion' ??. I believe so.

Yep, the SS got one thing straight – someone's deluded, I wonder who??.

[blackhand]

Paul's article on "Birds, What Birds" has won the Aviation Technical Story of the Year.
Congratulations Mr Phelan.

[Kharon]

YSBK - Rwy 18/36. - Aviation Advertiser - Phelan : "Let's be quite clear about this. Several attendees at a meeting with the Bankstown airport management while privatisation was in process, confirm that Kim Ellis, the (then) general manager of Bankstown airport, told the meeting when it was discussing problems related to runway 18/36, that they could forget all of those complaints, because the closure was a condition of the company accepting the lease from the Commonwealth in the first place. That suggests that all the consultations with users and safety studies by CASA and Airservices have been a charade". (My bold)
Things to make you go Hmmm !. It begs the question - how many other 'charades' have been foisted on the long suffering public purse for little if no safety return. Love to see those tax dollars at work.

[aroa]

For those that posed the Q about the benefits of the Phearless P,s writings,be advised that there is NO other investigative Journalist looking into aviation matters ( like ongoing CASA perfidy) in the country.
Much of what he has written would never see the light of day otherwise, and victims know that they are not alone.:ok:

And not only that... he has freely given his valuable time and wordly expertise to others when compiling responses or queries to THAT dreadful and mendacious place that is not a "fit and proper" outfit to be in charge of Aviation in OZ.

Well done, that (pen) man.!
The industry owes ya !

[LeadSled]

Folks,
And he ain't finished, by a long shot. But he will be taking a short break, a couple of weeks, from which I am certain he will return fully recharged.
Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

And Paul is no spring Chicken, so who will aspire to fill his shoes one day?

[LeadSled]

Jaba,
Ain't that the truth!!!
Tootle pip!!

[ramble on]

Leadsled!

Are you he? Bruce Wayne?

[T28D]

Leaddie is the John Wayne of regulatory review and a true font of wisdom on the way regulation interfaces to operation.

[Kharon]

The article is here : Dudding the Delegate. (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/03/dudding-the-delegate/)

(http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/03/dudding-the-delegate/)
Be warned, it's a long, technical and slightly tedious read. You need to read it though if you intend to read between the lines, that's where the headlines are.
Summary - P Phelan.
1. Numerous grave errors appeared to have been made by Mr Flannery as the delegate, and by CASA staff who have been his sources of technical aeronautical input. If Mr Flannery was duly qualified to make the decisions he has made, both he and his employer were responsible for the material errors which damaged the career, reputation, and financial circumstances of Max Davy.


The “decision letter” contains several allegations of serious breaches of the Civil Aviation Act and Regulations. If the regulatory authority really believed such breaches have occurred it clearly had a duty to prosecute the alleged offender. The fact that no such prosecutions were launched, clearly indicates the lack of legal credibility that CASA ascribed to the allegations, and the poor quality of its sources of information.
In the recent past, especially following Minister John Anderson’s initiatives to restore a measure of procedural fairness and natural justice to CASA enforcement processes, CASA had increasingly adopted a practice that is designed to circumvent those measures and remove individuals from the industry. A favourite tactic had become the practice of withdrawing “approvals,” which CASA claims isn’t subject to automatic stay, or to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Another tactic is simply not to renew certificates or approvals, and then to claim that there’s no reviewable decision because CASA didn’t actually do anything. This practice has resulted in the termination of air operator certificates, and of individual pilot approvals. Sorry Ministers, they’ve dudded you too!
Any competent assessment of the allegations against Max Davy thus invites the interpretation that Mr Flannery’s decision represented a gross miscarriage of justice, unsupported by credible evidence, and attributable to incompetently negligent or maliciously selective input from officers at field and/or at district level.
By its actions as we’ve discussed, CASA either deliberately and maliciously, or negligently and incompetently, made and implemented decisions based on:

(i) deliberately inaccurate statements; and/or
(ii) inaccurate and therefore incompetent analysis of technical material; and/or
(iii) selective and incomplete applications of parts of the Act and Regulations; and/or
(iv) the subjective opinions of the delegate or other employees based on one or all of the above. – My bold.

Max was one of a dozen similar cases, some of those would say that he was actually the 'lucky one'.

This story should never have needed to be written, but you know that, don't you.

Selah.

[gobbledock]

Lack of legal credibility???? Oops. I don't think the Witchdoctor or Flyingfiend will take too kindly to such assertions!!
Turds.

[Sarcs]

Ben is giving the 'fearless Phelan' a run for his money lately:D: ATSB delays air ambulance ditching report again, and again | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/03/31/atsb-is-like-a-rotten-egg-good-in-parts/) He has got a few more readers as well!:ok:

[Kharon]

Mr Murphy (SMH) like all journo's is seriously muzzled by fear of litigation but had a lash at it; the writer was obliged, I expect to 'fluff' it up for the punters; so the messages get lost in the hearts and flowers. But a good effort, at least the 'big boys' are paying some scant attention. Would the SMH have the cojones to tackle the unvarnished truth is a question for another day. SMH- Norflok ditching. (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/the-crash-that-goes-on-forever-20120330-1w34a.html#ixzz1qis9TFYm)

Ben Sandilands (bless him) was threatened and sued by the department glove puppet for daring to be forthright and honest about the Lockhart River imbroglio at the time. Lord knows, someone had to. It's reassuring to read that he can still years later "maintain the rage", although reading through his piece, there seems to be still plenty of scope to help him. Plane Taking - Norfolk and the ATSB. (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/03/31/atsb-is-like-a-rotten-egg-good-in-parts/)

The ATSB in the pantomime part of Cinderella have to mind their manners and not rock the boat too much, but Shame ATSB, shame on you. You have the legal horse power, skilled people and the support of Parliament, what's the hold up??.

[Kharon]

Well and truly. Plane Talking and Aviation Advertiser both carrying the Senate Inquiry story. Music to listen to while you read the articles.

Aviation Advertiser. (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/09/senate-to-review-norfolk-island-crash-investigation/) Plane Talking. (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/09/13/senate-probe-into-pel-air-crash-will-focus-on-atsb/)

Curtain up, first the Allegro

[UnderneathTheRadar]

See the last paragraph of Phelans article - CASA has offered him his license back. Rightly so, he's not trusting that it's simply goodwill.

Could this be the beginning of the end of bad-CASA?

[601]

What is the crosswind limitation on a C152?

If you are operating the 152 under an AOC, the OM will, most likely, have the "demonstrated crosswind" speed as published in the AFM as a company crosswind limitation.

[aroa]

Now thats a title I'd like to see writ large.
CASA complete with the appropriate goodness and functional..?? , methinks thats a pipe dream for the NEXT generation.

CASA reminds me of the church that shifts the bad apples to another diocese.
Got a cock-up in CNS, shift to Bankstown. Balls up in DWN, move to CNS.
Its a classic way of keeping things quiet... and folk at the other end ignorant.
Its an Authority for the Evil Abuse of Power. :mad:

[gobbledock]

Nice one Aroa.Could this be there new mantra? There new catch call? There new leaf??
No more voodoo, no more pony pooh, no more secret police and Stasi like activities? Surely not.

The 'new leaf' -

"CASA we regulate with the appropriate goodness and are functional"

The new CASA and industry:

http://www.rosesandsweets.com/sc_images/products/large/heart_love.jpg

[advo-cate]

Well done Paul, for your new web site. The article Publish and be Damned – Case Study (http://proaviation.com.au/?p=590)

Posted on March 26, 2013 (http://proaviation.com.au/?p=590) by Paul Phelan (http://proaviation.com.au/?author=2)

This example is a complex one which details more than one apparent abuse. The most serious of these was the decision to ground a commercial charter operator based on ten unsubstantiated allegations, and then to publish the allegations on the CASA website.
Although it may be claimed that analysing a 13-year-old event is pointless, readers are reminded that the patterns of regulatory conduct we record are all too familiar in more recent events, as are the identities of some of the CASA employees who are still with the regulator.

The background for these types of issues in the publicly available material has been brought together in one place. The material is growing day-by-day as more material comes to light.

Much material comes from Senate Inquiries or by competent trawling of available aviation sources: Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/) Involving problems with the Regulator (http://vocasupport.com/)

[advo-cate]

Well done Paul, for your new web site and the article Publish and be Damned – Case Study (http://proaviation.com.au/?p=590)

Posted on March 26, 2013 (http://proaviation.com.au/?p=590) by Paul Phelan (http://proaviation.com.au/?author=2)

This example is a complex one which details more than one apparent abuse. The most serious of these was the decision to ground a commercial charter operator based on ten unsubstantiated allegations, and then to publish the allegations on the CASA website.
Although it may be claimed that analysing a 13-year-old event is pointless, readers are reminded that the patterns of regulatory conduct we record are all too familiar in more recent events, as are the identities of some of the CASA employees who are still with the regulator.

The background for these types of issues in the publicly available material has been brought together in one place. The material is growing day-by-day as more material comes to light.

Much material comes from Senate Inquiries or by competent trawling of available aviation sources: Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/) Involving problems with the Regulator (http://vocasupport.com/)