General Aviation Meeting [Archive]

Kharon

11th Apr 2013, 21:06

The thing that beats me is what, in all the thousands of words written in proposed, initiated or intended 'new' maintenance administrative legislation will make flying one tiny bit safer? It may hammer a few unfortunate LAME into a criminal court, it may well abrogate CASA responsibility and make a further 'horse's arse' of ICAO compliance. The changes will not ever come close to improving anyone's safety except for the endless stream of "aviation ambulance chasers" which will grow exponentially, fully supported by your friendly neighbourhood workshop.

ICAO is good, compatibility with ICAO compliant states is good, why, oh why do we need this enforced reinvention of the wheel? Are we really that 'unique'?

If Entsch, Truss, Joyce even Katter? would turn up and bring some of the RRAT folk (I reckon Searle would really enjoy the down to earth practicality of what AMROBA has to offer) with them, they may begin to see just how close to the far edges of reality we are, how far removed from the civilized world we are and just what a piss poor state the industry is really in. They may even get a free kick or two at "Our Tony" - bless him.

Theme song? - Thie me kangaroo down sport - or; My boomerang won't come back. Vote here. :D

PS. Don't watch the whole thing, you get it (or not) in the first 60 seconds.

hiwaytohell

11th Apr 2013, 21:13

Owen
Good luck to your guys. But please stay focused because some of the ideas put forward by Ken / AMROBA in the past have been positively nutty, such as adopting FAA regulations. As a result the good ideas have been lost.

thorn bird

12th Apr 2013, 10:10

Adopting FAA reg's "Nutty"????
If FAA reg's are nutty how the hell would you describe the current suite served up by our regulator??? "absolutely positively Insane" springs to mind.

my oleo is extended

12th Apr 2013, 11:17

I agree with the Thorny Bird. The FAA's suite of regs, although not a perfect fit, would be a better option at the moment than our current ****ty tampered with suite of pony pooh. But ultimately we could learn from our CAA brothers across the Tasman. What they have, and from memory (but I could be a little of que) took around 5 years to write and implement. Plus they have the added bonus that the suite pretty much works, again unlike our molested and muddy pile of regulatory ****e.
One thing is for certain, a giant set of jackboots needs to be taken not to industry, but those oversighting industry.

Anyway, best of luck to AMROBA, go in hard. But make sure you have all the 't's crossed and 'i's dotted first. Wear robust artillery, watch the left flank and take aim and fire.....

hiwaytohell

13th Apr 2013, 06:59

In 2008 and 09 the FAA was actively consulting with the ATA regarding discarding a whole bunch of outdated regs. This included their Part 65 which they know is out of date and totally compromised, and replacing with Part 66.

At the same time AMROBA (Ken) was actively lobbying anyone that would listen that we should forget about Part 66 and adopt the FAA A&P (Part 65). His comments were reported in some of the aviation media at the time.

Even the FAA's Dr Bill Johnson commented on the AMROBA proposal ... that "Australia would be nuts" to adopt the old FAA regs, when the EASA regs were becoming the world standard. Indeed at the time the FAA were actually following the way Australia was adopting the EASA regs.

Nutty seems about right.

Anyway all I am saying is stay focused on the good ideas. And if you keep Ken's past personal issues with CASA out of it, you can do a lot of good.

As for the new regs our current ****ty tampered with suite of pony pooh the problem was not the regs but what OLC did with them plus the regulatory reform process was not finished.

And yes the Kiwi CAA has done a pretty good job, but take a look at the composition of their Board and Charter compared to the irrelevant mob on the CASA Board.

Kharon

13th Apr 2013, 22:02

I've never been a great admirer of the sneak attack – Ken may well have a couple of old bones to pick over with the regulator, who has not?. Most of the experienced sane 'experts' do, in one form or another have a pet hobby horse which gets a flogging every now and then; some even revert to a familiar, default 'comfort zone' setting from which to expound a theory. Right or wrong KC is trying his very best to correct what he perceives as yet another iniquity, impost and increase in administrative costs being inflicted on industry. (i.e. to your benefit). I would like to see some of his detractors run an organisation like AMBOBA, achieve the same level of influence, present some form of alternate system and then have the balls, brains, energy and system knowledge to make a difference.

An erudite discussion of the various systems would be welcome here; FAA, EASA, NZ, PNG, Ghana all valid topics, how's about stating a case for or against (as pleases), rather then trying to denigrate the mans efforts. Who knows, he may even be philosophically wrong. Don't just bag the argument – put up an alternate.

There now, I feel much better. Steam off.

Sunfish

13th Apr 2013, 22:11

The main problem is going to be selection and maintenance of the aim.

Unless you guys can get very very clear about what you want to do and encapsulate it in a single easily understood sentence you will fail.

I suggest that your objective is:

- Easily understood simple plain english regulations, universally applied the same way throughout the country. In other words standard weberian bureaucracy with no possibility of creative interpretation by either operator or CASA operatives. And enforced in a reasonable and fair manner in line with the concepts of equity, procedural fairness and natural justice

How you achieve that is another matter. I am a great believer in the "strategy follows structure" school of business planning.

If the regulations were written by one group and enforced by a separate entity and audited by an independent ATSB there would be hope that something like the above might be achievable. However with the current mishmash of CASA and ATSB, reform is impossible.

For example, it is risible to watch CASA attempting to lock the door after the horse has bolted by its sudden discovery of the issue of "Fatigue Management" having hung out Dominic James to dry over the Norfolk Island ditching, whitewashing his employers fatigue management process and now coming up with new standards that they previously said were not needed - and incorporated in their best crappy mind numbing legalese to boot:

Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L00628)

.......And of course the double jeopardy problem remains. CASA must always have someone to prosecute and no liability itself:

16.1 It is a condition on each flight crew licence that the licence holder must not operate an aircraft if, considering the circumstances of the flight to be undertaken, he or she has reason to believe that he or she is suffering from, or is likely to suffer from, fatigue which may so impair performance that the safety of the operation may be affected.

16.2 An FCM employed by an AOC holder must, before any FDP, disclose to the AOC holder anything affecting the FCM or connected with the FDP, which he or she has reason to believe may affect his or her ability to meet the AOC holder’s fatigue risk management policies or the limits and requirements of the Appendix or Appendices that the holder has chosen to apply to the FCM.

Anyway, good luck, my guess is that this effort will once again fail. Don't be bought off with the standard bureaucratic tricks either (eg: A "working group" etc.)

Kharon

13th Apr 2013, 22:30

Sunny spot on: I have taken the liberty of spending four minutes rehashing some of the AMROBA adpositional phrases. It's not first class I admit, but it shows by rephrasing a law or a statement, how intention (spirit and intent) becomes clear. One may then agree or disagree with the argument, that's a democracy: but until the point, the pro's and con's, and a general acceptance has been achieved; you remain well and truly divided and ultimately conquered. Now that, is a truly tried and tested method.

Primarily, the proposed meeting is not focussed on the integrity or quality of maintenance provided to Australian aircraft, but on background administrative and regulatory compliance issues which have no or little effect to the physical well being of an aircraft or the safety of air operations. Industry operators and organisations are finding it difficult to be certain that compliance with the implemented regulatory requirements is achieved. The uncertainty is partly due to ambiguity within legislative requirements; and, partly due to the often confused, differing applications and interpretation made by individual CASA offices and staff. This is particularly noticeable where the legislation combined with subjective interpretation presents a 'hidden', unintended effect exposing the organisation or individual to prosecution. The confusion, uncertainty and ambiguity creates an impression that a businesses while attempting to comply may be incriminating itself and subjected to prosecution as a result. This perception makes interaction between safety regulator and industry businesses uncomfortable and strained. Now for a coffee and perhaps a cigar, who knows - it being Sunday and all.

thorn bird

14th Apr 2013, 06:57

"the problem was not the regs but what OLC did with them plus the regulatory reform process was not finished."

Ermm?? problem not the reg's ??? Its not??? Oh I see its the lawyers fault.

Now I seem to recall way back when Abraham was a pup that a good deal of reformed regulations were just about ready to go, nicely aligned with the FAA.
These were discarded because, in between cocktail parties and visiting sacred sights in Europe, someone got convinced that EASA was the all new way to the promised land. Of course the clique within the regulator, who opposed any sort of change, let alone going the FAA way, jumped on this as a perfect opportunity to derail the reform momentum, hence the quarter of a billion dollars of tax payers money and 25 years p..ssed up against the fence.
Now lets see, which country by far builds and operates the most aircraft be they airliners or GA types?
Have their regulations, though unreformed, "FOSTERED AND PROMOTED" their industry??
Have their regulations, though unreformed, "PRODUCED BETTER SAFETY OUTCOMES" than Australia's have??.
Is this country about to embark on a massive reform program? not to bury its industry in further administrative costs and imposts but to free it up and actively find ways to reduce regulatory cost burdens.
They understand that there are limits to what a customer is prepared to pay for a service. For a commercial operator it is two thirds cheaper to operate the same aircraft there than in Australia, and it aint the cost of fuel!!
In Australia we have reached the tipping point of cost, people will look for cheaper alternatives, generally to go by road, which of course is a lot safer than by air. Then again it may be difficult to find and operator given the number that have been raped by CASA largely for minor administrative infractions that have nothing to do with safety.
I wonder, since the reign of the screaming skull began what the dollar cost has been in destroyed businesses, and additions to the dole queue.
So what's happening in EASA land???
I hear that due to complaints from industry and various regulators they are having a rewrite, really!!..already??.
Not to worry the "Reformed" Australian regulations are not even close to EASA ones except for the chapter headings so Swanny and Albo wont have to find another quarter billion.
All this begs the question what is ICAO for? if your not going to follow it other than the neat all expenses paid trips to Montréal and Switzerland (hear the skiing there is awesome).
Want an example of what good regulation does, look no further than over the Tasman, wrote them in five years, only cost five mil or so, and already their industry is starting to thrive. Aligned with FAA..you bet!!!
Singapore, almost the same as Kiwi land and the only reg's so far completely ICAO compliant. Aligned with the FAA...you bet!!!
I think there's only one Nut on this forum and it aint Ken.

Avgas172

14th Apr 2013, 08:00

Bloody Hell! a first, I can actually understand what Kharon is on about ... but I digress .... one of the problems we seem to have with the current CASA regulation rewriting (amongst other things) is the issue of constantly trying to re-invent the wheel in Australian Aviation. All of our aircraft (with a very small exception) systems, hardware , software, etc etc come from somewhere else (mostly the USA) but we seem to be able to tell the makers of same how it all should be run, spending millions on the way to prove F@ck all, (rant paused) but why should we be surprised with the current crop of dimwits that seem to be our leaders spending the country into a Banana Republic, with no return in any concrete infrastructure that we can take into the future, bring on September 14th (or the meteor shower on
22nd Apr) to help us end it all.

Kharon

14th Apr 2013, 09:39

The My bloody Kitchen rules thing is on the TV tonight, so I get to play on Pprune; and just this one time, for Avgas – I'll attempt to explain some of my Pprune twiddles. Avgas says - "Bloody Hell! a first I can actually understand what Kharon is on about" etc. From me a big, big smile...:D - why????. Avgas probably completely understands the maintenance issues, therefore the arguments, subtle or overt, pro and con are 'seen' and may be 'discussed' on an equal footing.

Point - It's when the reader fails to understand the context (plot) that the reader struggles with the refinements of the subtext and where problems with 'comprehension' arise; it's no ones fault. Just like a rocket scientist may have a 'shorthand' chat with another; or an expert LAME may have a deep and meaningful with the manufacturer on the specifications of a complex system – all double Dutch to me.

But, Avgas managed to "get it", why?; because the problem is understood, by him; therefore the response can be assessed and a rebuttal offered; it's called a discussion (row or dust up if you like). If you don't 'know' the problems or issues, (like a books characters, the hero's, the villains or who's the good sort) in a complex issue such as the AMROBA presented case, then it may as well be writ Mandarin. Anyway Avgas – I always try to get the message through to those who'll best understand it; sometimes, it's just not possible to do anything else other than be cryptic. I would like to be less so, indeed, I can be when the muse descends - but mostly - needs must when the Devil drives.

Anyway, in an attempt to elaborate the point, I have taken further liberties with the AMROBA invitation – (Some just can't be bothered to see past the 'words' and read what's written) so, with apologies to Ken and crew, elaborating the AMROBA opinion from above:-

Seeking legal advice has now become a reality as CASA attempts to prosecute ‘safety’ into the industry. The net result is that CASA, due to a failure to manage change now prosecute businesses rather than assist an industry adapting to a significantly changed regulatory and administrative processes. CASA is now seen as a policing agency, rather than a safety regulator.

The involvement of legal advice increases the cost of complying with an ever growing, confusingly 'unique' system of administrative and regulatory management not compatible with the majority of international NAA systems; we fail to even harmonise with our close neighbours – New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

During the transition process, CASA have failed to identify ‘causes’ underlying many operator or organisations perceived 'administrative' deficiencies. World practice calls for the implementation of an ICAO model Corrective Action Plan as a primary action, before initiating any form of punitive or enforcement action as a last resort.

ICAO also calls for educational programs to assist industry through a transition period. CASA has provided no in-depth training, assistance or guidance to an industry which has been under philosophical, operational, administrative and regulatory change for over two decades.

Without adequate education and training for the Chief Engineers legally responsible for regulatory compliance, it is becoming impossible for small businesses to comply with the burden of ever changing regulatory legislative system.

Without a marked improvement in communication, education and the almost non existent flow of information the industry cannot, fully and comfortably participate in promoting aviation regulatory reform without seeking legal advice in support of any correspondence with the Authority.

CASA are not promulgating the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices; but are instead instructing the Government to ‘criminalise’ ICAO “Standards”. CASA is very effectively abrogating its responsibility under the Civil Aviation Act by persuading the government into converting “Standards and Recommended Practices” into criminal regulations for administrative, not operational safety purposes. A rose, by any other name etc..

Creampuff

14th Apr 2013, 09:55

“Selection and maintenance of the aim”?

Sunfish, your well-intentioned objective has been the stated objective of the regulatory reform process and ‘charter letters’ for decades. The precise terms of the various motherhood statements have changed a bit, but the warm fuzzy feeling they (used to) provide is the same.

The single most effective way to achieve real change in Australia is to stop electing Laborials. The Coalition’s shadow Minister for Transport cares as much about regulatory reform and CASA, the ATSB and Airservices as the incumbent Minister.

You want to really change things?

Elect Independents!

If people in the GA sector are unwilling (as most are) or unable, as a block (that’s the killer: there are not enough votes in GA) to elect people who actually care for their constituents rather than power for power’s sake, nothing will change.

Avgas172

14th Apr 2013, 17:30

The single most effective way to achieve real change in Australia is to stop electing Laborials. The Coalition’s shadow Minister for Transport cares as much about regulatory reform and CASA, the ATSB and Airservices as the incumbent Minister.

You want to really change things?

I like Dogs, however if the dog I have at the moment keeps biting me, I shoot him and get another dog, hopefully trained a bit better this time. However I dont go and get a giraffe because it isn't going to do the job my dog does, I believe Mr Windsor & Mr Oakshot proved this last time around.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

14th Apr 2013, 21:15

Little initiative from the UK CAA
Red Tape Challenge - General Aviation Theme (http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/themehome/general-aviation-theme/)

OZBUSDRIVER

14th Apr 2013, 22:27

Wow!:ooh: and the pommie CAA is EASA compliant....so where do our fun police get their current direction?

With the current regs on "Big Aircraft" warbirds, I am very worried my son will be forced away from his apprenticeship.

OzzieH4U

15th Apr 2013, 05:50

601, if you hadn't already done it I, too was going to draw attention to the very same piece of poor English in the extreme - i.e. the very latest CAO part 48. They must realise how poorly written it is because they have produced a 35 page document to "explain" how we should interpret the rot!:sad:

Here are the first few statements

PART 1 GENERAL
1 Name of instrument
This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013.
2 Commencement
2.1 This instrument commences on 30 April 2013.
2.2 Despite paragraph 2.1, the provisions of this instrument take effect for an AOC holder and an FCM in accordance with subsection 4.
3 Repeals
3.1 On 30 April 2016, each of the following Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) is repealed, namely CAO 48.0, CAO 48.1, CAO 48.2, CAO 48.3 and CAO 48.4.
3.2 To avoid doubt, on 30 April 2016, each of the following Civil Aviation Amendment Orders (CAAOs) is repealed, namely CAAO (No. R47) 2004, CAAO (No. R48) 2004, CAAO (No. R49) 2004, CAAO (No. R50) 2004 and CAAO (No. R51) 2004.
3.3 To avoid doubt, on 30 April 2016, each CAO mentioned in paragraph 3.1, and each CAAO mentioned in paragraph 3.2, as continued in force by subregulation 335 (2) of CAR 1988 as if it had been made on 4 December 2013 under regulation 210A of CAR 1988, is repealed.

Up-into-the-air

16th Apr 2013, 00:42

The following thread has a collection of these - You might like to add your thoughts.

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/490723-casa-regs-english-please-6.html#post7747444

Socket

22nd Apr 2013, 07:23

This thread is very quiet given the meeting was two days ago, what happened?

Jabawocky

22nd Apr 2013, 10:10

I have heard that it was a very poor showing by the regulator. Many people very disappointed and much anger and disbelief.

This was from a passive, calm and rational observer. I hate to think what the highly motivated folk thought.

I wish I could have been there. But kind of glad I wasn't....I am not good at tolerating some things.

LeadSled

22nd Apr 2013, 15:38

Folks,
I believe it is reasonable to say that CASA made a fool of themselves in front of Senator Ian McDonald, who will, without doubt be discussing the matter with fellow Senators and MHRs, particularly the LNP variety.
Tootle pip!!

parkland

22nd Apr 2013, 23:12

Sounds interesting. Anyone who can provide some details? Issues? Who was foolish?

aroa

23rd Apr 2013, 08:19

Heard that the Dear Leader...you know the one that cant abide "unwarranted demagogy, criticisms and etc", was there to defend the indefensible with a quality BS spray. Cut short by request, was it ?:mad:

Would be great to hear some good news, outcomes and anything about changes that the Maint Orgs require/demand.... to stay sane ...and in business.

In another post Thorny made the point of how we are at this sorry impasse because we have just let the bs bureaucrats run off at the mouth and pen rotten regs without major fightbacks.
I know, I know... its very difficult when folk are busy with the business of trying to stay in business. And any upsetting of the CASA night soil cart can bring "repercussions", as we know. Heads down and all that.

After 25 + years and $250+ mil. we are still drowning in it. :mad:

The spinning "dervishes" and the BS continues.....:mad:

aroa

26th Apr 2013, 08:28

Did anyone go to this meeting ?? Someone ? Anyone?
What was discussed,? what were the issues?
Any outcomes??

I'm sure many folk that lodge their flying machine in workshops (approved, of course) would dearly like to know.

Should I email the Skull? :eek:

hiwaytohell

26th Apr 2013, 23:03

I think most people respect Chatham House Rules.

But a friend of mine summed it up thus:

We witnessed the most extraordinary performance from McCormick who firstly showed up early, which shut down people who were sharing their experiences, and his performance treated over 80 small business representatives with no respect.

He started by bullying and talking over the top of people so that they would not talk but Ken Cannane, who was the MC, got people to speak.

Even Senator Ian McDonald, who opened the meeting, told McCormick to shut up and listen to what the industry had to say.

He scoffed at virtually every issue that was raised.

He was completely OTT in his comments on who had to transition to Part 145 – he got it completely wrong telling that it only applied to high capacity (>36 seat) aircraft when in fact it applies to any aircraft or aeronautical product that may be fitted to an aircraft performing RPT operations.

When the complaints issue was raised he virtually stated it was the first he had heard of it until attendees stated they had sent the complaints to him.

Another friend said:

The meeting closed by highlighting the actual conduct of CASA FOIs and AWIs is completely at odds with what McCormick believes, the high level of distrust, the lack of confidence by industry in CASA and an apparent total lack of respect by many CASA officers towards industry, in particular the huge financial investment they have tied up and the jobs they provide to many dedicated people who do their very best every day.

Any outcomes??? I doubt it unless Senator Macdonald, Warren Truss and the Coalition seriously take up the issue. But at least it is a step. Congratulations to Ken & AMROBA.

And credit to John McCormick for actually showing up rather than sending some lackey along. Hopefully some message gets across.

thorn bird

27th Apr 2013, 02:09

So did Mc Comical have someone in a trench coat, wearing ray bans
down the back taking notes and sly pic's of complainants for future consideration?
It would appear exactly what we feared.
From the top down CAsA believes it has unquestionable power.

That CAsA has a complete monopoly on knowledge and competence in all things "aviation".
That it is completely unaccountable to anyone...the parliament, therefore the "people"and therefore the representatives of the people.
That it can prejudice,manipulate and subvert the law of the land.
That in no way shape or form should they consider or be required to consider the opinions of those that in their eyes are mere cretin criminals they havnt caught yet. Yet these "Criminals" are the ones who actually produce something, employ people both directly and indirectly and contribute to the economy.
If CAsA's corruption is allowed to go unchecked, what hope for the rest of the country?

Socket

27th Apr 2013, 07:10

Well Hiway, if your quotes are accurate how about pointing to where they were drawn from?

Thornbird, speculation like yours achieves nothing but generating more.

As for Chatham house rules, I dont believe anyone suggested they were in place for the second part of the meeting. Interesting that there has been no REAL report on what was said. Could it be that some of what the Skull said shot down some malcontents?

thorn bird

27th Apr 2013, 07:29

Socket old fellow,
I dont think anyone is listening anymore.

Creampuff

27th Apr 2013, 08:36

But what is the impediment to someone simply quoting who said what to whom and when during the meeting? :confused:

It wasn't the National Security Committee, and everyone's entitled to know what elected people and public officials say about what the rules currently require and may require in future.

Frank Arouet

27th Apr 2013, 10:12

I've got notes here, but nobody has given me permision to reproduce them.

I think any impediment may have something to do with payback if a visitor log was signed, or they were recognised by the incumbent cororate psycopath or his small '(m)' mates.

PM me if you want the name of a Lawyer who was present. But you already know that don't you?

Frank Arouet (C)

aroa

27th Apr 2013, 11:00

As given " The meeting closed by highlighting the actual conduct of F0Is and SAWIs is at odds with what McCormick believes" :eek:

If that is the case then McCormick has either altzheimers and /or brain damage causing memory loss, or is exhibiting sociopathic bully tendencies which is denial by bullsh*t and bluster of any valid criticism.

HE KNOWS how some of his employees entertain bastardry as a work qualification and useable ethic. And there are plenty of folk out there who can prove the case. As much the poorer JQ can attest in spades. :mad:

"He scoffed at virtually every issue raised.." :mad: Says it all really.
Sounds like a real leader for industry...#$!!@$&!!:mad:
FFS. There really is no hope for the place.
Or the GA industry.
Forget the pollies..not worth a cracker. Those that are there just want to stay and keep flinging yr dollars around and those that aren't there yet want to be there to be those that are flinging yr money around. See Sept 14.
GA? Aviation? What the...!!!
Oz skies are unsafe skies... :{

my oleo is extended

27th Apr 2013, 11:06

Chatham house rules my spotted arse. Why is a public meeting about public aviation regulations, issues and even safety now classed as 'top secret'?
Did the Skull bring with him his friend from CAsA HR, the ex ASIO guy, to run background checks on all attendees as well as profile them?

And why wouldn't he talk to people like ****e? He has done it with the Senators, other parts of industry, his executive management team, fellow line pilots in the old days, and of course who could forget the 49ers where he rose from the ashes to be promoted for his robust work in 'bullying' other pilots!

I couldn't attend as I was on the opposite side of the country, but I would have loved to have seen the angry man starting to steam up slowly. It doesn't take much really, and it certainly must have hurt for him to have mingled with the clay of the earth, common folk, peasants who dont all have a history of flying 747's (as if that is what makes you a real man anyway), those who don't swap spit with Ministers or grab their ankles for ICAO! Yes what an experience for the angry man!

Sunfish

27th Apr 2013, 22:05

Socket, by definition, if people feel angry enough to organise and attend a public meeting then there is obviously some evidence of CASA misdeeds somewhere.

People don't organise and expend time and money on such activities without good reason.

PAIN_NET

28th Apr 2013, 00:34

PAIN Observation
For your consideration, did the AMROBA meeting conclude that the FAA/ICAO audit findings had been acquitted?
Appendix 3-5-1

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Appendix_351_zpsf53b21f7.png
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Appendix_351_2_zpsee01050b.png

P1. a.k.a. P1.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

28th Apr 2013, 00:39

This summation says it all, really...

"When the Civil Aviation Authority was created in 1988, one of its primary functions was to provide safety regulations by paragraph 9(1)(c) of the Act that states:

by means that include the following:

(c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

25 years later this has been a total failure. There are no ‘appropriate, clear and concise safety standards” promulgated by CASA. This original function was misunderstood when CAA/CASA decided, in 1991, to “two-tier” the aviation regulatory system – a total failure as “appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards” are now subject to the criminal code and become intelligible. "

I guess by virtue of my 'vocation' in life, (I love aviating) I have the potential to become a 'hardened criminal'....

Not cheers
:ugh::{

my oleo is extended

28th Apr 2013, 01:55

In the eyes of 'He who wears Hawaiian shirts on Fridays' all 'aviators' are guilty of something, all are ills of society, all are guilty until proven innocent and even then they are still guilty, all must receive the big stick and jackboots, all are sinners and must confess and repent of their aviation crimes.

onslope

28th Apr 2013, 04:15

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

39. In reaching these conclusions about the scope of its review the Tribunal also wishes to express its sense of disquiet and frustration about the way in which it has been asked to determine this matter. It is quite remarkable that the respondent's own legal advisers seem to have been so ill-informed about the status of the regulatory framework applying to the issue of the AOC for the applicant that as late as 15 January 2001, when the respondent filed its detailed written submissions, no mention was made of Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No.20) 2000. It would seem that this particular CAO was only discovered through the diligence of the applicant's legal advisers - a discovery which as has been noted was only drawn to the attention of the Tribunal on 18 January 2000 after all of the evidence had been heard and in the course of closing oral submissions. The Tribunal has no doubt that the applicant must have been prejudiced in the way in which it presented its case by these actions of the respondent. They are not the actions of a model litigant, nor those of a regulatory body which appears well-informed concerning the way in which its own senior officials exercise their very extensive delegated powers.
8 February 2001
) No N2000/1697
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re SYDNEY HARBOUR SEAPLANES PTY LIMITED
Applicant
And CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Respondent

Kharon

28th Apr 2013, 21:54

Paul Phelan – extract – To hell with the rules. (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=639)

In October 2005 CASA’s (then) CEO Bruce Byron commissioned a comprehensive study of the agency’s regulatory structure by an “industry/CASA EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency (http://www.easa.europa.eu/home.php)) team.”

In the following year Byron, having briefly toured Europe and engaged with some of its EASA rule-makers, returned with the firm intention of enforcing the Government policy for outcome based-regulation justified by risk and cost benefits analyses. This would be done by replacing regulation that was currently under development, with a rule set based on EASA in what industry stakeholders described as “an ambitious but entirely achievable timetable.”

The new EASA approach, which Byron said already fitted Australian Government policy, was to develop new maintenance, repair & overhaul (MRO) rules that were closely harmonised with ICAO, EASA, FAA, and particularly Canada and New Zealand. This would replace CASA’s “Engineering Suite” which industry sources say comprised “some 9600 pages of complex and absolutely prescriptive maintenance laws, the breaching of any one of which would be a criminal offence.”

Because EASA did not yet have a full suite of general aviation MRO rules, Australia would draw on rules developed by a former consultative panel, abandoned in 2000, and on Canadian, US and New Zealand outcome-based rule sets with “acceptable means of compliance” customised for the Australian risk equation.

One stated outcome of the changes was to be that criminal offences would be limited to high-level genuinely criminal acts, as in other major aviation countries. All “unique” Australian rules were to go, and Australian aviation businesses of all sizes expected relief from what they described as a “regulatory straightjacket.”

Byron announced in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM 0604MS) in October 2006 that CASA now planned to adopt a completely new regulatory format for the “maintenance suite” of regulations – CASR Parts 42, 66, 145 and 147. The NPRM explained in part:
Because of the availability of a new regulatory style pioneered by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), CASA decided to amend the package of proposed regulations and commence a further period of consultation. CASA considers that it is necessary to seek comment on the changes made to the regulations as a result of areas of policy change and the new style of regulation writing. Some of these regulatory changes have, however, previously been consulted on.

One of the main drivers for Mr Byron to shift to the EASA style programme was that it could be delivered quickly and would purge the proposed Manuals Of Standards (MOS) of all the “hooks and barbs” that could be hidden in them. It was known that while CASA diligently consulted and produced some “vanilla flavoured” regulations, much of the MOS’s were not consulted on at all, and so became potentially a hidden “third tier of regulation” which industry believed would not be “disallowable documents,” and therefore not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. At the time Byron stated that getting the maintenance regulations harmonised first would allow large Australian MROs to operate more effectively in the international market.

The NPRM commented at length on the outdatedness and complexity of the existing maintenance regulations, their lack of conformity and harmony with international regulatory practice, and their lack of clarity and conciseness. The decision however virtually meant binning the newly developed rules which had been almost ready to be sent for drafting, and starting again in a format that blended with that of EASA. It also created the problem that EASA rules had no coverage of general aviation, as well as giving those CASA officials who were opposed to most of the guiding principles anyway, an opportunity to launch a campaign which would turn the maintenance regulations into the mess they now represent.

The airlines were satisfied with the EASA style Regulations as they were. As EASA had no general aviation regulations, CASA believed that Australia could provide a body of ready-made material that could easily be uplifted into the EASA format.

Work on that aspect has yet to begin.

The EASA decision was unpopular within CASA and with many in industry because it negated much of the regulatory development work already completed.

On Monday October 26, 2004, Bruce Byron held a meeting of all his executive managers in Melbourne. He announced major intended changes in CASA direction, including a requirement to move CASA out of the administration of private general aviation, to focus primarily on the oversight of passenger-carrying operations, including support sectors such as large MROs and airports, and detailed a new approach to regulatory reform, supported by specific directives, that would to return it to conformity with its by now often-stated goals.

Flogging a dead horse comes to mind.

Sarcs

29th Apr 2013, 00:54

As this is posted (http://amroba.org.au/breaking-news) on the website I guess it is for general consumption...Breaking News

Acacia Ridge Industry Meeting produced quite a different outcome than what was expected by all that attended. When the industry organisations in the local area decided to hold a meeting to discuss the change in interaction with local CASA office it quickly became a national meeting. CASA was invited and CASA CEO Mr J McCormick attended with other senior staff.

read more Breaking News…..

Sadly, industry expected a mature and open discussion with CASA that turned into a very bullish attack on anyone that had a different opinion to John McCormick. He started by stating AMROBA and others are misleading industry and that those attending did not need to obtain Part 145 approval as it only applies to high capacity RPT. Everyone in industry understands that CASR Part 145 applies to aircraft and components of aircraft that are operating under CAR206(1)(c). This can be any aircraft operating a schedule airline service not just high capacity RPT aircraft.

Whenever anyone in industry tried to raise an issue, they were talked down by McCormick. Most could not believe that a head of a goverment agency would not listen to the issues they wanted to raise. There has been a breakdown in communications betwen industry and CASA and after the meeting over 80 owner and managers of organisations and operators came to understand the attitude of CASA staff.

McCormick tried to tell the industry they actually receive very few complaints and when many in the room stated they had submitted complaints he stated he had not seen them even when those attending told they had sent them to him and they were replied by someone else.

CASA ICC, Elizabeth Hampton has the confidence of those that attended and it is expected that she will recieve more complaints now.The fear of reprisal is high by those that attended and even Senator Ian McDonald, who opened the meeting, sensed this from comments in the audience. He asked for anyone that believes they are harassed or victimised as a result of attending this meeting or submitting a complaint to contact him.

When costs of transitioning to Part 145 were explained to McCormick, he scoffed at the figures being put to him. These are organisations that have to provide the financial resources to fund transition. The actual figures make a mockery of the transitional costs that accompanied the NFRM.The agressive approach and lack of respect paid to those that attended from Qld, NSW, NT, WA & Vic was well noted by all that attended.

The statement that NZ and other regulatory systems are not as good as what we are getting demonstrated the lack of understanding of other systems. A review of the NZ audit report that suppose to support the impression that NZ is a basketcase actually supports how good their regulatory system is. The consensus of those at the meeting support alignment and adoption of the NX aviation requirements for the non airline sectors.

However, until McCormick is replaced with the next CEO, AMROBA will, on behalf of its members disagree with McCormick and lobby for adoption of the NZ aviation safety standards.
Sounds like the DAS was behaving true to form...:E

owen meaney

29th Apr 2013, 01:00

LATEST FROM AMROBA
We now know why CASA field staff, mainly new employees that have been indoctrinated in the McCormick training methods, no longer have interpersonnal skills and can talk maturely with people in industry that are responsible for the safety of this industry. AMROBA will, on behalf of the attendees at the Industry Meeting, be making a complaint to the Board of CASA, cc to the Minister, Opposition Shadow Minister and Senator Ian McDonald.

There is a genuine fear within the industry of victimisation by CASA, especially if you have raised a complaint with CASA. It was obvious from the meeting that McCormick was not aware of the complaints that had been lodged with CASA and neither was their ICC, Elizabeth Hampton. McCormick denied receiving complaints even when industry representatives informed that were sent directly to him but the reply came from someone else.

It was reported to me at the end of the meeting when one female attendee clearly enunciated that the problem in aviation was not the industry but McCormick himself, the people in the front of the meeting and also a prominent lawyer sitting alongside McCormick heard McCormick mutter “wanker”.

That sums up his attitude to small business in aviation. An extraordinary performance by a very belligerent person.

Senator Ian McDonald expressed his concern on busineses being harassed as a result of attending the meeting and sending a complaint to CASA.

The Senator encouraged any person that feels they are harassed by CASA to not only lodge a complaint but to let him know.

Senator Ian McDonald’s contact details are:
Townsville Office
131 Denham Street
(PO Box 2185)
TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810
Ph: (07) 4771 3066
fax: (07) 4771 3411

owen meaney

29th Apr 2013, 01:05

MORE FROM AMROBA
The meeting today had mixed outcomes. Full details will be promulgated post reviewing the meeting tapes.
When CASA CEO, McCormick, Jonathen Aleck, Elizabeth Hampton and Peter John were invited to join, we experienced a CEO that would not listen to those trying to make a point.
It demonstrated why industry has stopped telling CASA what is wrong with their proposals – because they are not listened to by CASA.

There was no respect shown by McCormick to business owners attending – about 80 odd GA representative from around Australia.
No wonder the industry feels like it has not been heard.

McCormick’s continual berating of anything not CASA from bagging AMROBA for ‘misleading’ industry, the FAA and NZ rules, etc whilst not knowing what his field office staff were doing, demonstrated what type of person you have to deal with and why CASA field staff act in the manner. The one thing for sure – industry’s respect for CASA took a nose-dive.

Based on today’s response from CASA’s CEO, we now understand why our members and others have had unsatisfactory relations with CASA.
Like all organisations, the staff reflect the boss’s attitude.

The one thing we agree on, if we don’t like how CASA operates then we need to get the Civil Aviation Act changed – that is exactly what we hope to achieve.

AMROBA will continue to put the real facts in front of its membership which continues to grow.

The one thing I am sure of from today’s meeting, is that CASA Executive either does not know how their staff interact with industry by their own answers.
Across this country we see, mainly older experienced CASA staff having good relationships whereas, where new staff predominate, the relationships have soured.

The answer is political and we will work hard to achieve this change.

Ken R Cannane
Executive Director
AMROBA
phone: 61 (0)2 9759 2715 61 (0)2 9759 2715
facsimile: 61 (0)2 9759 2025
mobile: 0408 029 329 http://www.pprune.org/skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png0408 029 329

Note: AMROBA site has been hacked, if you want a copy of latest AMROBA newsletter contact Ken or PM me

Cheers

my oleo is extended

29th Apr 2013, 01:47

A bad day for the angry man? Ran out of fuel, mr temper got the better of him yet again, cussing under his breath at some poor lass and treating industry like they are the dirt beneath his feet??
It seems that fuel in his car isn't the only thing that ESSO has run out of. You can add maturity, fairness, patience and humility to the list as well. This man has contempt for other humans.

It seems that ESSO has either truly outdone himself, or as I suspect, the 'real man' is shining through in all his glory. An apology and resignation is required forewith. This man represents the highest bastion of aviation in this land, and this is how this Government appointed representative acts? Not only is the beast off its leash and uncontrollable, the CAsA Board and Minister are sitting on their hands. (Please somebody buy the man 2 cigars, a pot plant and 100mg of Lithium). The Board should also go. As for Mrdak, well if I were the Minister I would be wondering what mr Mrdak has actually been advising me?

I wonder if the general populous, Senators, media and other observers will now,
finally, pay homage and respect to those in industry who have been saying for years that they are being bullied, abused, harassed and victims of 'legalised payback'?
CAsA has self destructed. The situation is palpable and the roles of virtually every executive is untenable. With no disrespect to AMROBA or to Senator McDonald this issue includes the likes of Aleck and Hampton. They, along with the Skull are all members of the ICC panel, so complaining to them is about as useful as a prisoner in Auschwitz complaining to the Fuhrer about their treatment. The ICC has become a farce since Mr Hart resigned.
The Board are equally useless, however they may recommend action to the Minister, but only if their precious troughs become endangered or if their precious Minister faces potential negative attention.

How much is enough? It is time to pull the plug on the top tier of CASA.

owen meaney

29th Apr 2013, 02:02

How much is enough? It is time to pull the plug on the top tier of CASA.
How does one go about this?

my oleo is extended

29th Apr 2013, 02:11

Owen, it is beyond the powers of us plebs. It has to be done at a high level.
The solution is simple, yet it is also difficult. All you need is a half decent media outlet to steer its attention, investigations and direction at the very issues we are tautologically mentioning and have said media throw all this at the Minister, very publicly, over and over and you will likely see at least a couple of scalps taken by Albanese. It could be just the start needed.
The inept board will also be under pressure to remove what they will see as a stain on the Ministers silk shirt, remember the role of the Board is to to protect Big Tony from any loose cannons.

One thing is certain and cannot be hidden any longer - CAsA is in trouble, it has some serious serious problems and after decades they are eeking out like a pus embodied sore that is neglected. Not even a dash of pot plant palm oil will remove the source of the infection.

thorn bird

29th Apr 2013, 02:30

"AMROBA site has been hacked,"

By whom I wonder??

Maybe CAsA's resident spook?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

29th Apr 2013, 02:41

The AMROBA site seems to be OK now....29 0241Z that is....

AMROBA :: Breaking News (http://amroba.org.au/breaking-news)

Cheers:ok:

my oleo is extended

29th Apr 2013, 02:50

Owen, not a problem. Hate to think my posts are viewed as hijacking. I saw it as support, however respectfully I shall desist from any further input in this thread.
Best of luck with whatever course of action AMROBA take.

owen meaney

29th Apr 2013, 02:53

I editted it Oleo, your input is always valued.

Sunfish

29th Apr 2013, 04:21

Be very careful what you say about people here and remember that this is about developing a just, fair, equitable and economically efficient system of safety regulation.

Failure to stay on message and descending into hatred, ridicule and contempt dooms your cause.

Your best approach is to fail to understand why certain inconsistencies eventuate.

Creampuff

29th Apr 2013, 04:28

He started by stating AMROBA and others are misleading industry and that those attending did not need to obtain Part 145 approval as it only applies to high capacity RPT. Everyone in industry understands that CASR Part 145 applies to aircraft and components of aircraft that are operating under CAR206(1)(c). This can be any aircraft operating a schedule airline service not just high capacity RPT aircraft.Perhaps Mr McCormick, or those who are briefing him, are confused by the term “air transport AOC” in Part 42.

If they are confused, they shouldn’t be.

The definition of “air transport AOC” for the purposes of Part 42 is pretty clear: “an AOC issued for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 206 (1) (b) or (c) of CAR”. That is, all RPT and Charter AOCs (but the transitional arrangements for the application of Part 42 knock out Charter for the time being). There are also definitions of “large aircraft” and “small aircraft” in Part 3 of the Dictionary in CASR, and they are pretty clear too, but have no effect on the definition of “air transport AOC”.

But the important bit is CASR 42.295, which sets out who is permitted to carry out maintenance on Australian aircraft to which Part 42 applies (which, as a consequence of the transitional provisions, means aircraft operated under an AOC authorising RPT). CASR 42.306 is the corresponding provisions for maintenance of aeronautical products.

The table in CASR 42.295 lists:

- Part 145 organisations, and individuals doing stuff on behalf of Part 145 organisations, and

- Subpart 42.F organisations, and individuals doing stuff on behalf of Subpart 42.F organisations.

There is no one else on the list.

The table says Subpart 42.F organisations are permitted to carry out maintenance on “small aircraft [that are] not authorised to operate under an air transport AOC”. That means Subpart 42.F organisations are not permitted to carry out maintenance on any RPT aircraft (or Charter aircraft if Part 42 applied to them) of whatever size, given that, by definition, RPT aircraft and Charter aircraft operate under an “air transport AOC”.

Who’s permitted to carry out maintenance on aircraft that Subpart 42.F organisations are not permitted to maintain? That can only be a Part 145 organisation, because that’s all that’s left on the list.

That means only Part 145 organisations are permitted to carry out maintenance on:

- aircraft that are authorised to operate under an RPT AOC (or Charter AOC, if Part 42 applied to them), irrespective of the size of the aircraft, or

- any large aircraft that are not authorised to operate under an RPT or Charter AOC (if Part 42 applied to them).

Maybe there’s an amendment to CAR 206 hidden somewhere? :confused:

Sunfish

29th Apr 2013, 09:02

Explained today by an FOI that charter disappears in 2015 and anyone who carries a passenger for money from point to point is RPT. Even an out and back joy flight is RPT if it lands at a different place during the flight.

"slight changes to the operations manual" was all that was allegedly required.

I said nothing.

So that is the solution to the CAR206 grey area- there will be no such thing as charter, from the point of view of reduced supervision and cost burden. All will require an RPT AOC and associated maintenance.

Jabawocky

29th Apr 2013, 10:45

Creamie :D:D:D

Now what was all that about? :confused:

I know you claim to be just a dumb..."insert profession" but if your explanation of all that is that complex, what chance have industry folk got of making sense of it?

My head hurts.....:rolleyes:

Creampuff

29th Apr 2013, 10:49

All will require an RPT AOC and associated maintenance.On my reading, an aircraft will still be able to be operated under a Charter AOC, but the outcome in relation to maintenance will be the same as if the aircraft is operated under an RPT AOC (which is probably what you intended to say – in not so many words).

If the aircraft is operated under an RPT or Charter AOC, the outcome is that the aircraft is operated under an “air transport AOC” as defined in Part 42. If follows, from CASR 42.295, that the only persons permitted to maintain the aircraft will be Part 145 organisations. It’s just that the requirement is, for the time being, confined to aircraft operated under RPT AOCs rather than Charter or RPT AOCs.

Sunfish

29th Apr 2013, 11:55

Most probably right Creamy. I sense this business will close in 2015.

CASA is part of a wider economic malaise whose chief characteristic is waste and inefficiency.

By contrast I had to renew a licence via Vicroads in person today and I was simply amazed at how fast and efficient the whole process was, I was out in twenty minutes.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

29th Apr 2013, 12:04

Looks like the 'Ex FSO Griffo' Tiger Moth Joyflight / Charter bizzo is about to become an RPT....and fade off, stage left...into the sunset...???

Or I could go and do the ATPL / B727 Course....to qualify on the Tiger again....

And, Part 145 Maintenance.....do they handle Gipsy Majors...??

:*:yuk::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

thorn bird

29th Apr 2013, 13:13

Corse they will Griffo, same, same, except for a warehouse large enough to store all the box ticked paper work and a minimum of the national library book count in shelfware, ten full time librarians and a lot of carbon credits to cover all the trees required to make your paper. Then of course your Bill!!
Lets see??change a spark plug??

Maintenance controller....Work Order
10 hours @ $150 per hour $ 1500

Supervisory Engineer.....
Find which documents required 10 hours @ $100 per hour $ 1000
Locate maintenance procedure 10 hours @ $100 Per Hour $ 1000
Ticking all the boxes 30 hours @ $100 Per hour $ 3000

Apprentice (if there are any left)
Replace spark plug 10 mins @ $ 12 Per Hour $ 2

Total $ 6502

Cactusjack

29th Apr 2013, 13:29

Is that including GST on parts and labor?
Plus add an extra 11 hours CASA surveillance and an extra 18 hours of them auditing you.

Kharon

29th Apr 2013, 20:32

Thorny – you must have missed the detailed explanatory memo. None of the problems would exist if you w@n#k$r%s would only listen. Fair dinkum, you fellah's....:ugh:

Listen up.

onslope

29th Apr 2013, 23:01

Until we have some proper checks and balances nothing will change. CASA,s whistleblower protection is a sham. An absolute sham. It makes a mockery of justice. I spoke at length with the person in charge of the company given this job. They had no powers of investigation and merely removed details and in my case, worst of all, it would have been sent to the senior staff member who was supplying the disingeneous information in the first place. Forget the pot plants and talking in riddles these are the issues.

aroa

30th Apr 2013, 01:51

eSSo, you beauty !...top performance, leadersh*t and all that. Respect for the industry, taking on board alternative views.... NOT.:D:D

IMHO his performance makes serious breaches of the CAsA "code of conduct"..no criminal provisions therein, but admin ones apply.
And the CAC act provisions for a "ceo"...?

Who's to swing the cudgel...or the feather.?

Wont do any good but I'm putting pen to paper to the Miniscule, with a complaint, cc the Sen. McDonald and others.

Maybe a blitz of letters will rattle Albo's ear, and send a message..??:confused:

Too late she cried...!
Don't expect any answer until after Sept 14..oh no...he'll be gone.!
Just a WOFTAM then.:mad:

Up-into-the-air

30th Apr 2013, 03:39

I would not recommend anyone relying on the "ICC" Elizabeth Hampton.

My experience is that she does not deal with matters reported to the ICC.

Remember, the "ICC" reports to the head of casa Legal, the FOI person, reports to head of casa Legal and the casa investigators report to head of casa Legal.

No way would I ever approach the "ICC" again. Last time, refused to answer my letter, as "...It is over 12 months old...."

Can publish the letter here so all can see!!

Who should you write to:

Local member;
Senator Fawcett;
Senator Xenophon;
Senator Heffernan;
Senator Nash;
Warren Entsch and Warren Truss

Don't bother with the system as you will not be properly represented.

aroa

30th Apr 2013, 06:35

Funy that... presented ICC E Hampton with serious issues pertaining to one Ms N Tredrea, now, God/Allah/whoever, help us, is "Senior Advisor, Complaince and Investigation." She, of ESP skills (sic), determines yr guilt first and any investigation comes later, maybe...or not. :eek:

I listed breaches of the CAsA code of conduct, the CAC Act and and the Compliance and Enforcement manual....
..the response..."cant ( read: wont/advised not to) look at any of that..because its more that 12 months old." :mad:

So its just too bad if any issue comes to light later than 12 months.
Sounds like a 'get out of jail free card' to me. A CAsA home made 'statute of limitations' What a crock.:mad:
12 months is but a minute in the CAsA scheme of things...25 years and counting are we.?
The list of what the ICC DOESNT do is longer than the 'can do' list.
Dont see this 12 months thing on that list. Cobbled up by AA / LSD. as a go away excuse.?
Knowest thou the CAsA way...any old bulsh*t will do.! :mad:
(see Chapter 2, CYA 101)

And I'll metioned costs..from the Dark Side FOI request..could have 25!! pages out of HUNDREDS for $1600. $64 a page.!!!
Having had 11 out of 130 before , that told me nothing...not prepared to gamble on getting any "infomation" at all for the money.
We all know CAsA is a sick joke...so is their (NON) FOI. :mad:

Cactusjack

30th Apr 2013, 07:38

Interesting as CASA is happy to dig back through time on an operator and use past activities that are sometimes years old against you. Yet here they are saying "sorry, your grievance is over 12 months old, not interested".
As has already been plainly pointed out, the ICC is a crock, the cards are stacked in CASA's favour, if one wanted to one could even raise an eyebrow that members of an ethics committee could very well be bullies themselves? That is just thinking out loud, ones mind tends to wander.

Ultimate power corrupts ultimately.

Sarcs

8th May 2013, 20:40

Paul Phelan's latest article " (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1316)Preaching to the unconverted" (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1316) is worth the time to read on that meeting!:ugh:

Creampuff

8th May 2013, 21:38

The intriguing question is: Who set Mr McCormick up to make such easily-disproved statements about the application of Part 145?

I don’t understand why Jonathan Aleck didn’t just lean across and whisper: “Psssssst, pssssst, John, that’s not quite correct. Come 30 June, all RPT aircraft, irrespective of size, will have to be maintained by a Part 145 organisation. Eventually that will apply to Charter as well. That’s what the rules say.”

Up-into-the-air

8th May 2013, 23:51

McCormick wouldn't listen anyway Creamy!!

From Pauls article:

Everybody we spoke with shared those concerns, which were also acknowledged by Senator MacDonald. He urged people who feared victimisation not only to send their complaints to Ms Hampton, but also to send a copy to his office or contact him directly. The sense of being bullied came up so frequently, unprompted, and from so many separate individuals, that it is informative to quote the comments of a few, emphasising that each paragraph represents the volunteered opinion of a separate individual who was present at the meeting.I have had experience with Ms Hampton before and she won't deal with specific problems in a proper manner, demanding all complaints be "new" and less than 12 months old. This current poblem would not comply with her requirements.

Besides which, she reports directly to head of legal - casa and you are only talking with McCormick. Better to submit to the Senate Inquiry about the problems.

Game Over

my oleo is extended

9th May 2013, 02:11

Yes UITA, it is indeed game over. These buffoons have lost the plot. The reason Aleck remained silent is strategic in my opinion - He is giving ESSO the rope required to finish the job. Game over indeed.
The Star Chamber president loves using those 'ill' catchphrases such as 'ills of society' and 'ill informed statements in the aviation press'.

It is CAsA that is ill, very ill. Evidence of that disease was on stage at the AMROBA meeting.

Indeed, GAME OVER.

tnuc

9th May 2013, 06:02

General Aviation business in Australia is by the large one of the MOST unprofessional industries around, a problem that unfortunately has now been proven to go all the way to the top of the regulator. If something doesn't change it will be RIP to GA in Aus

halfmanhalfbiscuit

9th May 2013, 07:08

The APS link is worth a read.

Australian Public Service Commission - Code of Conduct (http://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-employment-policy-and-advice/aps-values-and-code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct)

behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS employment;
act with care and diligence in the course of APS employment;
when acting in the course of APS employment, treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment;
when acting in the course of APS employment, comply with all applicable Australian laws;
comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by someone in the employee's Agency who has authority to give the direction;
maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings that the employee has with any Minister or Minister's member of staff;
disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment;
use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner;
not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee's APS employment;
not make improper use of:
inside information, or
the employee's duties, status, power or authority,
in order to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or advantage for the employee or for any other person;
at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS;
while on duty overseas, at all times behave in a way that upholds the good reputation of Australia; and
comply with any other conduct requirement that is prescribed by the regulations (regulations available on the ComLaw website)

Creampuff

9th May 2013, 08:06

CASA personnel are not part of the APS.

thorn bird

9th May 2013, 08:07

Sorry bickie,
none of those wonderful ideals applies to CAsA.
By an amazing sleight of hand, they aint public servants!!
CAsA is an independant somethingorother those guidlines dont apply to them.
Which is why they can behave as thugs and bullies with impunity.

Creampuff

9th May 2013, 08:14

Not sleight of hand.

The deliberate decision of successive governments.

However, it does not mean they can behave as thugs and bullies with impunity.

thorn bird

9th May 2013, 08:23

Maybe you should have attended the meeting.

Kharon

9th May 2013, 23:00

CP # 77 "However, it does not mean they can behave as thugs and bullies with impunity." Does it not ?, indeed, someone needs to pass the word along then:

Had the chance to spend a bit of time with a fellah who was actually there, who does, in a quiet way know a bit about how the engineering world wags. Normally he is a sanguine, easy going sort of chap, but he was cranky. The normal 'rough, tough' by plays CASA use to subjugate the masses tend not to ruffle his feathers too much, says they can easily been seen through and generally dismissed for what they are. But, even he was "disgusted" by not only the McComic display, which we have all come to expect and be mildly amused by, but the incestuous nature of the ills affecting organisation generally. McComic is a dead horse, bye-bye – hope y'got an air bag and don't let the door hit you in the ass. So why flog it?. The thing my mate reckons bothers him most is the residual damage; he frets that those enamoured of and embracing the thuggish, loutish ways have become deeply entrenched within the hallowed halls and will coerce or infect any new blood with the same awful disease.

The dark side of the force is powerful and seductive. Refer Yoda.

aroa

9th May 2013, 23:26

The APS Code of Conduct is all embracing AND has criminal provisions.:ok:
For bureaucracies that have some 'accountability'

The CAsA "code of conduct" (sic) has NO criminal provisions and is brief, trite and.. as far as many CAsA employees are concerned, a load of bollocks that doesnt apply to them. We have the power...we can do what we like.:mad:
As a Commonwealth agency, you have to ask 'why no criminal provisions?'
CAsA runs amok on its true code of NO liability, NO accountability.

Just look at the Skull's upchuck some years ago to bypass ICC Hart. It was called the "Ethics and Conduct Committee" and made up of people that had none of either. What a sick, sick BS establishment.:mad:

Anyone else had a ruling from that Committee? Or has it, like so many other great pronouncements, just faded away, died in the ar$e, whatever.
The four pages of top class bureaucrap received couldnt even be signed by the author.!!
Worlds best practar$e, indeed.!:mad:

Which allows the thugs and bullies to practice with immunity. As we know.
:mad::mad:

Creampuff

11th May 2013, 01:28

And McCormick is being given the boot.

What's your point?

LeadSled

11th May 2013, 06:56

Industry operators and organisations are finding it difficult to be certain that compliance with the implemented regulatory requirements is achieved. The uncertainty is partly due to ambiguity within legislative requirements; and, partly due to the often confused, differing applications and interpretation made by individual CASA offices and staff. This is particularly noticeable where the legislation combined with subjective interpretation presents a 'hidden', unintended effect exposing the organisation or individual to prosecution.

Folks,
As a systemic problem in aviation regulation, this problem was identified in the "Lane" Report, first volume, in the mid-1980's. "Dusty" Lane, then DFO of Ansett, headed up a group to look at the problems with aviation regulation in Australia.

This was the first time I came across the term "inadvertent criminal", a direct outcome of "non-compliance" because regulations were ambiguous, complex, misleading or incomplete, or all of the above.

Every major inquiry into CASA and its predecessors since then (how many have there been --- I can get to 19, including "Morris", the longest Parliamentary inquiry since Federation in 1901 ) has highlighted "inadvertent criminal non-compliance", in various ways, as a major problem with aviation regulation in Australia.

This has been a major problem for aviation regulation for years, with the rise of bureaucratic (as opposed to Parliamentary) Government and its spread, this is now a problem across all sectors of "ruled by law" Australia --- something quite different to "rule of law".

For those of you who have not already had a look at the Rule of Law Institute web site, look up the papers by Robin Speed, an eminent lawyer.

| Rule of Law Institute of Australia (http://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/)

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/the-rise-and-rise-of-the-regulators/story-e6frg6zo-1225819417079)

Tootle pip!!