Horatio Leafblower's questions were very interesting . . .
Quote:
as a charter operator I will be required to maintain aircraft as Class A or B in this brave new world?
Isn't the objective to remove the distinction between RPT and CHTR?
...so all CHTR aircraft will be "Air Transport" category?
For us beers of small brain can someone please supply three yes/no answers thank you.
1) will charter operators have to maintain aircraft as Class A? yes/no 2) is the objective to remove RPT and CHTR distinction? yes/no 3) will all CHTR aircraft be "Air Transport" category? yes/no
Last edited by weloveseaplanes; 7th Aug 2012 at 03:49.
1) will charter operators have to maintain aircraft as Class A? yes/no 2) is the objective to remove RPT and CHTR distinction? yes/no 3) will all CHTR aircraft be "Air Transport" category? yes/no
Err let's see now 1) "No comment", 2) "Maybe or none of the above!" and 3) "That is open to interpretation!"
These questions are best directed to your CASA AWI.
...and he says, according to you...
Quote:
Bankstown office feels you are confusing requirements for Class A aircraft maintenance with requirements for Class B aircraft maintenance. Chalk and cheese
..and yet you yourself now agree
Quote:
Reading through CASR 135, appears charter operations are include
(sic).
Looking forward to a public recanting on all the smart-arse comments you have made about the confusion and people's apparent failure to comprehend.
Perhaps if such esteemed experts and interpreters of the English language such as yourself and the Bankstown office of CASA can have differing opinions, lowly illiterate pilots such as myself can be forgiven for strugglling?
One or two good points raised in the maintenance article, seems there is at least a semblance of hope, this provides a 'reasonable' explanation of what's going on:-
Quote:
Progress - presumably this will soon be incorporated into the CASR 's as is the current CASA process for developing new rules - remove old rules and the bulk of new ones using instruments (or CAAP) to fill any gaps until all can be incorporated into the new suite. This takes time and can lead to confusion with rules and regulations spread amongst CAR, CASR, CAAP and Instruments until it all gets consolidated.
Then again –
Quote:
LS - Those of you with any actual familiarity wit EASA Part 66, 145 etc., will know that the CASA "EASA like" engineering and maintenance suite is unrecognizable in EASA terms. Indeed, unrecognizable compared to any other major aviation country's continuing airworthiness regulations.
If two respectable, sensible experts can't agree 'fundamentals' perhaps it's understandable that we 'Plebs' in matters maintenance are scratching our heads.
One thing is certain though, it's a first class revenue generator; heard a yarn recently about a 'minor' unserviceability at an outfield location which normally would have cost 1 hour of local engineer time which, by the time the aircraft returned to service, cost almost $6000 in CASA administrative fees. Could this end up the real issue, hide the fault and have it fixed at home or, trade honestly and go broke trying?
Last edited by Kharon; 8th Aug 2012 at 22:06.
Reason: Just to bask in a troll snot free zone
Interesting interview, I did note that there had been a couple of failed attempts to get the reg passed and enough 'horsepower' in the industry to at least kick up some dust. Ah, democracy at work (well nearly).
That's as may be, but at least old 'Feelin' Groovy' does end by saying -
“It’s a pity that CASA doesn’t confer with Industry when they intend to raise such a general Instrument, but at least they’ve admitted that there was a conflict. It takes a lot of noise to get CASA to correct issues they create.”
Finally a patch of sanity in the lunatic asylum! Although Phearless Phelan, I phear, does highlight the regulator's true philosophy at Albo's bigtop:
Quote:
Three separate industry identities who have discussed this with us report that one official who is directly involved has openly stated his belief that aviation in Australia should be limited to airline and defence operations.
“I believe some acknowledgement is also owed to a CASA lawyer who has publicly said that he doesn’t believe Australia’s aviation industry is ‘mature enough’ for the introduction of outcome-based regulation.”
Funny ain't it; the rest of the world disagrees, but we are still stuck with the same old prescriptive, Mummy smack rubbish. The hoodoo of Voodoo we all now so well.
Who'll chip in for a couple of rooms at a remote PNG aged care nursing home?
[QUOTE][
“I believe some acknowledgement is also owed to a CASA lawyer who has publicly said that he doesn’t believe Australia’s aviation industry is ‘mature enough’ for the introduction of outcome-based regulation.”
/QUOTE]
Without knowing who is responsible for the above quote I can only observe that if this is the case where has the "maturity" gone which allegedly has Australia at the forefront of Aviation. Did the immaturity set in when CASA and it's most recent forerunners decided to take on "micromanagement" of GA. ControlFreaks make poor managers, look at the fiasco of the rewrite of the Regs. Or is this a deliberate safety move which my own immaturity won't let me identify with?
Maybe we could start by identifying the "maturity" within CASA. The CFIT of GA is remote controlled from CB and certainly shows a maturity of manipulating control. To think I and many others have been training an immature australian public to an outcome based standard (without knowing it) and through luck achieved the best standard. 46 years of luck!!! No wonder CASA grounded me for my own good.
“I believe some acknowledgement is also owed to a CASA lawyer who has publicly said that he doesn’t believe Australia’s aviation industry is ‘mature enough’ for the introduction of outcome-based regulation.”
What is he saying? (Use perplexed Milligan accent. He may as well say 'introduction of appliances')
If he said there's going to be be more and more 'income-based regulation' bleeding all you mug air operators dry, then many sage heads would nod, knowingly.
In effect, CASA’s lawyer is claiming that its officers can do what they like to whomever they like, using the cloak of respectability of “safety” under s9A (1) of the Civil Aviation Act, with impunity and at the discretion and subjective opinions of the officials concerned, with a total disregard to any person’s personal or business rights, no matter how trivial (or negligently false) the alleged “safety” issue might be, and no matter how devastating the effect any such heavy handed action might have on an individual or business. -
Thinks I'll go fishing.
Last edited by Kharon; 13th Aug 2012 at 20:43.
Reason: Remove a 4 page rant
In concept, it means that when a regulator identifies a 'safety' issue, the economic or any other associated impact should not influence a decision taken to promote a safe outcome. It's a fine principal and; in theory, a very correct one. However. Safety, like veritas has a chameleon like quality under the current administration.
Quote:
Sunfish - To put that another way, CASA is using a self referential loop to justify itself. Furthermore, just like in Alice in Wonderland, the penalty often comes before the verdict, in the form of shutting down operations so that the subject bleeds to death financially before they can defend themselves. CASA can do anything whenever and wherever to whoever in the interests of SAFETY. However SAFETY IS WHAT CASA SAYS IT IS.
Kharon - it means that when a regulator identifies a 'safety' issue, the economic or any other associated impact should not influence a decision taken to promote a safe outcome.
yes/no yes/no yes/no
