Proof that DAS Skidmore is a new broom
AOTW, thank you for your comments.
I don't believe there will be a revolution and GA, and later Experimental and Recreational, will just fade away under an ever increasing mountain of regulation. The sad part is that investment, jobs and economic growth will go with them or never happen.
I know a little more about the recreational marine environment where the same thing is happening. I proofread a Victorian Government study, commissioned around 1995, that discovered that rec. boating was worth about $350 million a year and God knows how many thousands of jobs. The report found that a modest investment in facilities and a slight change to regulations would result in double digit growth and a sector Three times larger - approaching $1.5 billion - the study was never released - to many NIMBY and regulator groups opposed.
Fast forward to today and it costs upwards of $20,000 minimum plus at least Six months work to comply with "safety standards" for a Sydney - Hobart race, we are going to get a graded national licensing scheme for yachtsmen and vessels which will severely limit what you are allowed to do, where you go and when you go.The police regulations are tightening every year to the point where Two glasses of wine, even at anchor, can get you prosecuted. Marina facilities are poor, expensive and badly designed and anything new faces a barrage of NIMBYs. I guess there are positives for me - most of the year I don't have to share the water with anyone.
Contrast that with NZ where boating is over 3% of GDP and their technological capabilities far surpass Australia in the yachting field. I gather they are doing the same with Antique aircraft, GA and RA niche markets as well - and all we can do is regulate ourselves to death???
I don't believe there will be a revolution and GA, and later Experimental and Recreational, will just fade away under an ever increasing mountain of regulation. The sad part is that investment, jobs and economic growth will go with them or never happen.
I know a little more about the recreational marine environment where the same thing is happening. I proofread a Victorian Government study, commissioned around 1995, that discovered that rec. boating was worth about $350 million a year and God knows how many thousands of jobs. The report found that a modest investment in facilities and a slight change to regulations would result in double digit growth and a sector Three times larger - approaching $1.5 billion - the study was never released - to many NIMBY and regulator groups opposed.
Fast forward to today and it costs upwards of $20,000 minimum plus at least Six months work to comply with "safety standards" for a Sydney - Hobart race, we are going to get a graded national licensing scheme for yachtsmen and vessels which will severely limit what you are allowed to do, where you go and when you go.The police regulations are tightening every year to the point where Two glasses of wine, even at anchor, can get you prosecuted. Marina facilities are poor, expensive and badly designed and anything new faces a barrage of NIMBYs. I guess there are positives for me - most of the year I don't have to share the water with anyone.
Contrast that with NZ where boating is over 3% of GDP and their technological capabilities far surpass Australia in the yachting field. I gather they are doing the same with Antique aircraft, GA and RA niche markets as well - and all we can do is regulate ourselves to death???
No point and I'm already worried about coming on CASAs radar when I try for my C of A.
For your home built, you don't need to go anywhere near CASA (or SAAA, for that matter) for your Experimental certificate. pm me.
Tootle pip!!
Moderator
Someone suggested a Poll?
Horatio
Is the second pilot acting only as a safety pilot (which usually satisfies the resource sector requirements) or as a co-pilot in a two crew environment? And how do you establish a two crew operation and environment in a single pilot certified aircraft?
Is there not a risk a safety pilot may log a heap of multi turbine hours, having done nothing more than wearing out the seat covers?
Horatio
In particular, it is hard to service mining contracts in small aircraft when (effective last September) the second crew member required by the client is not legally allowed to log any flight time.
Is there not a risk a safety pilot may log a heap of multi turbine hours, having done nothing more than wearing out the seat covers?
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Likewise, I would like to see GA thriving without undue restriction, but I don't see it being achieved with an adversarial 'get f@&#ed CASA' stance and prejudice against individuals because of perceptions of how their backgrounds mould them.
what you see is a reaction to the enduring behaviour of CAsA.
If anyone thinks that strict liability and the move away from the assumption of innocence as underlying principles in our legal system is conducive to safety then they have rocks in their heads.
"Ramp Checks" under a system of draconian law is quite likely to get CAsA staff killed. That I think is an inevitable outcome.
The reality is that if you are 'one of us' then CAsA will deliver amazing rights.
If you have never been CAsA staff or in the RAAF then you are assumed to be a criminal deserving of punitive attention and endless threats. History shows this.
I know of a former CAsA staffer who owned a rutan homebuilt. without any training behind him, totally on the basis that he was 'once one of us' CAsA issued him with a LAME's licence limited to his homebuilt.
He could service and operate that aircraft as, in effect, a canadian owner maintainer.
Applications by other owners for a similar licence were met with a letter stating that they had no qualifications and CAsA could not possibly entertain the request until LAME theory and Schedule of experience requirements were met.
CAsA is rotten to the core. Rotten in thinking, Rotten in behaviour.
If you don't believe this then you were either "one of us" or you are ex-raaf.
If Skidmore wants to have the world behind him and CAsA then both of them need to start respecting the world outside their direct experience.
Unwind all the strict liability bull**** and introduce canadian owner maintenance would be two good starts to the changes.
The alternative is that we continue to pressure for the entire show to be lined up in the unemployment ranks behind the EASA clowns that they so admired.
Folks,
Look up Richard Green V. CASA in the AAT for a most interesting tail of CASA bias. Richard Green beat everything CASA threw at him.
During the short enlightened period of Bruce Byron as DAS, and Greg Vaughan as GM GA, maintenance approvals were granted to Mr. Green, based on compliance with the regulations, and demonstrated training and competence, for the maintenance of one private helicopter.
As soon as Byron and Vaughan left, the MAs evaporated, see the AAT history.
Tootle pip!!
Look up Richard Green V. CASA in the AAT for a most interesting tail of CASA bias. Richard Green beat everything CASA threw at him.
During the short enlightened period of Bruce Byron as DAS, and Greg Vaughan as GM GA, maintenance approvals were granted to Mr. Green, based on compliance with the regulations, and demonstrated training and competence, for the maintenance of one private helicopter.
As soon as Byron and Vaughan left, the MAs evaporated, see the AAT history.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Tailwheel,
Gees it was easier when you were on holidays.
Two things:
1/. safety pilots and co-pilots are two different things. The corporate standards I see refer to pilot and co-pilot with defined two-crew procedures. Safety pilot? Very 1980s.
2/. The B1900 and Metro are both single- pilot certified, but are required to have a co-pilot in some ops by dint of an arbitrary weight cut-off in a legislative requirement.
I have seen some B1900 procedures that are very single-pilot two-crew procedures; and some that more fully utilise both crew. You can write good procedures and you can write crap procedures. Why is a "Safety Pilot" a more valid enhancement to safety than a trained and checked co-pilot, regardless of aircraft type?
Gees it was easier when you were on holidays.
Is the second pilot acting only as a safety pilot (which usually satisfies the resource sector requirements) or as a co-pilot in a two crew environment?
Two things:
1/. safety pilots and co-pilots are two different things. The corporate standards I see refer to pilot and co-pilot with defined two-crew procedures. Safety pilot? Very 1980s.
And how do you establish a two crew operation and environment in a single pilot certified aircraft?
I have seen some B1900 procedures that are very single-pilot two-crew procedures; and some that more fully utilise both crew. You can write good procedures and you can write crap procedures. Why is a "Safety Pilot" a more valid enhancement to safety than a trained and checked co-pilot, regardless of aircraft type?
Why is a "Safety Pilot" a more valid enhancement to safety than a trained and checked co-pilot, regardless of aircraft type?
Thread Starter
Lookleft
Looky,
I completely agree when you say:
My question, however, was:
.
Having a properly trained Co-pilot (not a seat-warmer merely "satisfying a requirement") has possibly saved my arse at least once.
I completely agree when you say:
Without the appropriate training the other pilot can be a liability.
Why is a "Safety Pilot" a more valid enhancement to safety than a trained and checked co-pilot
Having a properly trained Co-pilot (not a seat-warmer merely "satisfying a requirement") has possibly saved my arse at least once.
"Ramp Checks" under a system of draconian law is quite likely to get CAsA staff killed. That I think is an inevitable outcome.
If you want to talk honestly about things, go for it, but forget about ridiculous veiled threats and similar. I do get on here quite a bit taking the devil's advocate stance, if that's how you want to view opposing rabid anti-CASA stuff, but this kind of talk is just hot air.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the mindset of the ex-raaf is incredible.
obey. accept the total perversion of the legal system.
don't think for yourself, follow procedures.
it is all in your own interests donchaknow.
rotten to the core.
obey. accept the total perversion of the legal system.
don't think for yourself, follow procedures.
it is all in your own interests donchaknow.
rotten to the core.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there not a risk a safety pilot may log a heap of multi turbine hours, having done nothing more than wearing out the seat covers?
Yes. They are called First Officers in the airlines
AOTW, while I don't necessarily agree with Dubblew Eight, he has a point - that people can be pushed too far. Hopefully without tragic outcomes but in my opinion the stress of a "confrontation" with an FOI is reason not to fly for at least 24 hours.
To put that another way, I, and the general community, find dealing with Police stressful even when we have done nothing wrong. Now add aggression, stupidity, complex regulations with strict liability criminal penalties and you have a recipe for an extremely nasty outcome.
Regarding ramp checks, I have a friend who was ramped while in charge of a C 172. He asked the FOI why there was not a simple checklist of things he was required to attend to to ensure he always passed a ramp check, but was told by the FOi that it was "too hard"to produce such a document.
Given the current state of regulations, I am quite sure that if an FOI decides he wants to prosecute someone, he can always find something that is illegal in his opinion and prosecute you for it.
Readers might like to contribute their stories of asinine FOI behaviour.
BTW, it is a common Police boast that if they wish to declare a car unroadworthy, they can always find a defect in any car. Furthermore, I am aware that traffic Police do have quotas and I'm speaking as someone with Two relatives in the Police and Judiciary. It is therefore not hard to imagine FOI's having quotas as well.
To put that another way, I, and the general community, find dealing with Police stressful even when we have done nothing wrong. Now add aggression, stupidity, complex regulations with strict liability criminal penalties and you have a recipe for an extremely nasty outcome.
Regarding ramp checks, I have a friend who was ramped while in charge of a C 172. He asked the FOI why there was not a simple checklist of things he was required to attend to to ensure he always passed a ramp check, but was told by the FOi that it was "too hard"to produce such a document.
Given the current state of regulations, I am quite sure that if an FOI decides he wants to prosecute someone, he can always find something that is illegal in his opinion and prosecute you for it.
Readers might like to contribute their stories of asinine FOI behaviour.
BTW, it is a common Police boast that if they wish to declare a car unroadworthy, they can always find a defect in any car. Furthermore, I am aware that traffic Police do have quotas and I'm speaking as someone with Two relatives in the Police and Judiciary. It is therefore not hard to imagine FOI's having quotas as well.
but was told by the FOi that it was "too hard"to produce such a document.
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...d-safely-and-0
Anyway, people will think whatever they want to think, so I'll butt out now before my ex-RAAF mindset becomes too much of a liability. Have a nice day one and all.
Interesting ramp check guide.
How many operators of private GA aircraft have a flight check system that has been approved by CASA (and revised as required by CASA), and have checklists of procedures from the approved system carried on the aircraft, per CAR 232?
When I learnt to fly, my instructor was critical of pilots who needed checklists to refer to, rather than memorising all of the normal and emergency actions. Has memorising actions been approved by CASA as a system for the purposes of CAR 232?
How many operators of private GA aircraft have a flight check system that has been approved by CASA (and revised as required by CASA), and have checklists of procedures from the approved system carried on the aircraft, per CAR 232?
When I learnt to fly, my instructor was critical of pilots who needed checklists to refer to, rather than memorising all of the normal and emergency actions. Has memorising actions been approved by CASA as a system for the purposes of CAR 232?
Thread Starter
A system is a system and multiple CASA blokes have told me that memory is a system... as long as it's a system, and not just trying to remember everything before something goes wrong.
But the ramp check 'guidance' says that the CASA chappie will ask to see checklists.
What happens when I say: "It's all in my head"?
CAR 232 says the system has to be approved by CASA. Has the system of rote learning and recalling normal and emergency actions been approved? Where is that approval?
What happens when I say: "It's all in my head"?
CAR 232 says the system has to be approved by CASA. Has the system of rote learning and recalling normal and emergency actions been approved? Where is that approval?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And therein lies the problem. As Sunfish said, just like the cops pulling you over, if they really want to get you, they'll find something. Depends on the individual doing the check, and what side of the bed he got out of that day. And possibly what directive he has received from up the line as to how 'hard' they are going to go that day. Also just like the cops, it depends a bit on your attitude towards them. That ramp check guide is better than nothing, but its still just a guide. Its not all encompassing. Despite peoples best efforts to do the right thing, if you get an a**hole with the CASA vest on who enjoys wielding the big stick, then you're stuffed.
LB,
If we have to submit out heads to CASA for approval, how long to you reckon before said approved bonce is returned. And if it is not approved, and deemed non-compliant??
Tootle pip!!
If we have to submit out heads to CASA for approval, how long to you reckon before said approved bonce is returned. And if it is not approved, and deemed non-compliant??
Tootle pip!!