PPRuNe Forums


The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11th Sep 2015, 14:08   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 173
What I saw, was that anyone in the military that got above the rank of Group Captain, Colonel, Comander got there by being a consumate career politician, tea room advocate, officers mess gadfly and poodle faker.

Thats the only way to get ahead in the peacetime military. One foot wrong or unwise word and they're out on the street.

Hale to the soldiers.

Last edited by ramble on; 12th Sep 2015 at 05:49.
ramble on is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Sep 2015, 21:16   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,469
I thank Dick Smith for his well meaning efforts but I suggest that he has missed the first link in his chain of reasoning. The cost, complexity and confusion of Australian aviation regulation destroy opportunities for investment, growth and jobs in the AUstralian aviation industry.

The litmus test for all legislation and regulation regarding aviation is to ask the question: "How will this regulatory action affect Jobs, investment and Growth in the aviation industry?". If this is not done then the GA sector, and later Experimental and Recreational aviation is just going to wither and die.


With respect to Itsnotthatbloodyhard, I think you do not appreciate the situation:

Quote:
I can't see where Dick is making any such point at all, nor that there's any evidence that Skidmore doesnt or won't listen. He mightn't be doing exactly what Dick & his cheer squad want, but that's not the same as refusing to listen. As for this being a proper forum for airing these concerns, I think you're having a lend of yourself if you think venting on here achieves anything beyond gratifying the cheer squad.
Aviation has been subject to a raft of reviews, the latest being the Forsyth Review, and they all say substantially the same thing: the system is broken. Every alphabet organisation in the country and hundreds of well meaning individuals have spent Twenty years of their own time and money on any number of consultations and patient attempts to get some sanity into the system and have received SFA! That is why we are reduced to squealing on PPRuNe! There is nothing left to do except start a political pressure group to declare war on CASA and what it stands for which is corruption, inefficiency and bias. It is an industry funded parasite.

We now have the situation where CASA decided to go the full EASA micro managed complexity route of aviation regulation in the name of "conformity" without any consideration of how that might affect industry, even though blind freddy knows that the Europeans have tied themselves up in regulatory knots so complex and expensive that GA is Europe is mega expensive where it occurs at all.

To put it another way: What is CASAs reaction to EASA's decision to substantially reduce the regulatory burden on GA after it became apparent that its regulatory approach is going to kill it?

No. This is no time for "tinkering around the edges", we are not having "a few teething troubles". The system is rooted and nothing is going to fix it. The system is run for the benefit of the bureaucrats that run it. Their 'customers" are risk averse politicians in Canberra. We are just "consumers' who get fed this ____ every day.

Now I must go and write to Airservices to get the aircraft noise "Certificate that says I am exempt from needing a certificate". I already paid $700 to learn how to write a maintenance release. I am up for a new ASIC, medical, biannual flight review and a $2500 transponder. Luckily I don't run a business or have required any special permissions from CASA or the costs would run much higher.

To put that yet another way: Why in hells name would any Governmennt approve of a regulator charging by the hour to "consider" an application for anything? Don't they understand that it is an open invitation to inefficiency?

As for AVM Skidmore, I'm sure he means well but the bureaucrats will wait him out. Even if a few heads are lopped, the structure of the system. wording of regulations, delegation of approvals, financial controls, etc. etc. have been set up for the benefit of a few bureaucrats, not the industry, and new appointees will succumb to temptation as quickly as a trade union official.

If I had my way, I would go to PM & C and confess. Then with their advice, set up a tiger team with no CASA involvement to adapt the NZ/FAA regulations to Australia n produce the legislative and regulatory package. I would get some organisation design girls to split up CASA and separate rule making from enforcement and ensure the independence of ATSB and incorporate that split up into the legislative package. I would then get the legislation passed, with transitional provisions and make everyone in CASA reapply for jobs in the new organisations. The guiding principles of the new legislation? Safety, fostering the development of the industry and an end to rule by "exemption".

Last edited by Sunfish; 11th Sep 2015 at 21:38.
Sunfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Sep 2015, 21:40   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Qld
Posts: 102
When are we going to say NO !

So many of these posts are to the POINT

When are we going to see some accountability in office for large sums of money being spent ???

DICK >>> HOW LONG WILL WE CONTINUE TO ROLL OVER & COMPLY PLS

What has Part 61 achieved to advance aviation safety pls ???


How much money & time have we as operators spent on compliance to these new rules to get what results ???

I remember Gillard saying she had " TOTAL CONFIDENCE " in CASA after the Pelair Westwind ditching at Norfolk Is inquiry >>> well I can't begin to tell you how many holes that Doc had in it !

ITS NOT JUST ME SAYING THIS EITHER, PEOPLE ARE DISCONNECTING FROM THESE GRUBS NEW RULINGS / PROCEDURES
DutyofCare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Sep 2015, 23:58   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,045
if the whole industry disconnects from CASA and the new rules, and continues to operate under the old system, regardless of CASA, what can CASA do about it? fine and shut down the entire industry? just how will politicians charter aircraft then? i know such actions wont happen, its the major thread running through our society, we just suck it up, and put up with ever more regulation and removal or rights and privileges, whinge and complain, but never take action
Ultralights is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 00:34   #25 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,593
Jabawocky;

Yes my friend we do disagree on some issues. Take for example the mandatory fitment of ADSB. Even after the fraud of free installation was exposed. I also note Mr Skidmore doesn't see the industry call via AOPA for a moratorium on the ADSB installation date. Do you have common ground here and is this compromising your assessment? What is the SAAA position on this?

This matter with AOPA is probably the reason people are using PPRuNe to voice their concerns as it seems he just won't listen to industry input despite calling for more consultation.

At the risk of more repetitive "noise" becoming wearisome for the AVM's batman, may I ask where does your new information stand in regard this ADSB matter?

And just a quick note to the person who made the comment not to take personally any issues they may have with the regulator. Can I say I've been fighting this mob for decades and this DAS is a carbon copy of the train of incumbents before him. To me this points to a systemic problem with political identities within the organization, but that's another matter. Just how much loss is definitive of the point where one should take it personally? Have you suffered a financial, personal, family, loss at the hands of CAsA?

They say an average pilot has as many take offs as landings. Skidmore has a job demanding more than an average. If this means having a few crashes, the industry he has oversight of will make allowances if they see him doing so in the pursuit of bettering their present predicament.

To date he demonstrates he is just average.
Frank Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 01:01   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 210
Hi Sunfish, thanks for a very well-reasoned and well-written post. I fear you may be misunderstanding me somewhat. I'm in what I think is a quite privileged position in aviation, with a relatively secure income and a fair amount of insulation from unnecessary costs and BS - but that doesn't mean I haven't had a gutful of overregulation, over-complication, and unnecessary charges. It's getting beyond a joke, not just in aviation but in society in general. One of the greatest growth industries of the last couple of decades has been the imposition and administration of regulations, and I think a lot of us are plain bloody sick of it. We're even seeing the success of governments measured by the numerical quantity of new legislation they've foisted on us, for God's sake. So I'm philosophically far closer to Dick and yourself than you might think. It's just that I've got a couple of issues with some of the discussions here.

One is the pointlessness of a lot of it, and what I think are unreasonable expectations. If a government monolith has just spent a huge amount of time, money and energy on new licensing regulations, however stupid and pointless (can anyone tell me exactly what the real benefit of Part 61 is?), they're just not going to suddenly bundle the lot up and throw it all in the nearest skip, however much we think they should. A lot of the carping negativity here doesn't achieve anything, either. "Squealing on PPRuNe"' is a long way from "starting a political pressure group", after all.

Second is the constant ad hominem bullshit we see here, in which Dick is sadly a regular offender. Dick, with almost clockwork regularity you slag off Skidmore as having no awareness of costs, due to his military background. How on earth would you know? Consider that, as was mentioned earlier, the bloke started a successful aviation business, and owns his own aircraft. Is it just possible that someone in that position might have just as much appreciation of costs and fine margins as, say, a bloke who's sitting on a huge pile of money, having sold his electronics empire for a fortune? Had that ever occurred to you, Dick, or do you just prefer to keep trotting out the same trite old lines because they happen to suit your view of the world? I just fail to see what continually slagging the bloke off here achieves. When I suggested calling him up and talking to him instead (have you ever done so?) I was quite serious, because it might actually be constructive.

I suspect you're right in that nothing is going to make much difference, but surely the best chance, if there is any, is to engage with these people in a mature and sensible fashion. What's going on here is more the internet equivalent of hanging from trees, making hooting noises and throwing bits of bark and dung at passers-by. Great fun, but hardly helpful in solving what are some very real problems.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 01:34   #27 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,049
I said from the start that this person was the wrong person for the job. Ex military are like school reach out off touch with reality.
However with may have a chance with Geoff leading the way now.
You only have to look at what the difference between the two are. One that has been there done that and the other that hasn't.
But what we need is accountability with Casa awi. If found to be neglected in their actions and fraudulent there needs to be compensation
yr right is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 03:56   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 521
SOPS, the gusty 20 knot crosswind at Jandakot yesterday would have had something to do with how quiet it is, but you are right it is a shadow of what it used to be.

The changes are as irreversible as the tilt up concrete jungle on the way in to the airport. It is quiet here because businesses haven't adapted.

If only Dick would concentrate his considerable energy, influence and resources into putting pressure on the government to actually do what they said they would do in their pre election policy statement. The Coalition?s plan for Aviation | Liberal Party of Australia How about it Dick?
Clare Prop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 06:55   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 772
Here's a great example where Part61 isn't just affecting the bottom dollar of GA, it has actually increased the risk to the community.

Last month CASA released a further exemption (CASA EX148/15) to allow pilots that were previously carrying out firebombing/firefighting activities prior to 01SEP14 to continue to operate without the need for the Aerial application rating-firefighting (whether it be Helicopter or Fixed wing). Whilst CASA has at least woken up to allow previously experience firefighting pilots to continue to operate under the exemption, it doesn't cater for NEW pilots to operate on fires until such time as they receive the Aerial Application rating - firefighting on their license.

Now here's there clincher, CASA is taking months (if at all) to issue the Training Approval to pilots (instructors that were line pilots on firefighting ops as well as previously training up pilots prior to 01SEP14 on firebombing etc with logbook evidence). This then has the knock on effect that without the Training Approval, the Flight Training and Testing Office cannot issue a Flight Examiner approval for the rating. CLARC has tied itself up in knots wondering how they are going to 'legally' issue the training approvals without there having been a previous qualification in existence (chicken/egg scenario).

In the meantime we can only employ pilots that have previous firefighting/bombing experience prior to 01SEP14 and we cannot train up any new pilots in the meantime.

Now the industry typically employs the usual suspects every season, but that usually only makes up 2/3 to 3/4 of the pilots needed on the fire season. So in effect CASA is essentially putting the community at risk by way of not allowing NEW firefighting pilots be trained up and be issued with the CASA introduced Aerial Application-Firefighting rating.

All in the name of 'safety', here's a clear example of CASA where the new regs have in fact decreased safety. This doesn't even take into account the added cost of the training/checking new rating, which won't make an ounce of difference to increasing safety in itself anyway (the industry was doing well enough self regulating by way of client requirements).

Food for thought.
havick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 07:59   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 1,423
To CASA, a suburb full of houses and a few farms burning to the ground is an externality - in plain English, not its responsibility.

But think how safe the pilots who would otherwise have been trained to fly aircraft to fight those fires will now be, because of Part 61 and CASA's corporate incompetence. That should provide considerable comfort for the community which would be at lesser risk were there more pilots able to operate fire fighting aircraft.
Lead Balloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 09:55   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: low and heavy
Posts: 107
I have been issued with an aerial application flight instructor rating post part 61. (I believe I am the only person in Australia that has). I work part time for an approved part 141 Ag flying school, I have 5 seasons firefighting experience but they won't approve me to teach or issue the fire fighting endorsement, even though we have an APPROVED syllabus because, and I quote, "we are not issuing FF endorsements whilst the exemption is in place". Well done CAsA👍
plucka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 15:31   #32 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 772
Plucka, I'm in the same boat as you albeit in the final throws of getting my Aerial Application-Firefighting (helicopter) rating and training approval (added to my instructor column) issued.

The FTTO is waiting for the above two items to be added to my license before they can process the flight examiner for above rating, admittedly the FTTO has been quite helpful, it's CLARC that's the issue.

It is just ludicrous that we are unable to train up NEW firefighting pilots because of CASA painting themselves into a corner with regard to regs. What happened to the adage "what you could do prior to 01SEP14, you can continue to do afterwards". What an absolute load of crap.

Last edited by havick; 12th Sep 2015 at 15:48.
havick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 18:52   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK, US, now more ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Age: 34
Posts: 902
plucka.

That's utter insanity!!

You jumped through the hoops or bureaucrapic non-sense, complied with the new system/Part 61 stuff to get instructing endorsement, have sufficient experience, your employer has NEW and current/approved syllabus,

YET

You cannot train what the piece of paper of yours says you can and your company paperwork says.

BECAUSE

you're an exception to the ridiculous status quo marasm CASA regs and their makers got the industry/pilots into. Now round TWO of the exemption instrument, designed to (in theory) bridge the knowingly induced issue while they cook up more regulations patching up insanity of current status quo.

Because everyone else wasn't able/given chance/allowed to be trained from beginning for FF ops, THE ONE exception like yourself (and company), gets discriminated against FOR COMPLYING WITH NEW SYSTEM.

Yes, well said havick The apparent impunity/little accountability of causing all this or even so blatant discrimination against pilots and companies with genuine need for having the paperwork for work/ops. I assume nobody would fancy career and financial suicide taking all this up in court against CASA. I've read some *interesting* cases from past.
MartinCh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 20:38   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,469
Wouldn't it be ironic if someone from CASA loses their home to a bushfire this summer due to lack of pilots without the necessary papers?
Sunfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 20:55   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,049
With out saying to much there is more to this with fire work than meets the eye.
Post recent accidents and aircraft, Casa now in a failsafe mode.


And also add RFS and some operators as well are also included.
yr right is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 22:10   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 1,423
We all know about the tragedy of David Black and the structural issues with Dromader aircraft used in firefighting, yr right.

None of that justifies putting ever-more regulatory barriers in the way of training pilots to conduct firefighting operations.
Lead Balloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 22:42   #37 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 173
You talk about Government & CASA regulatory barriers detroying businesses....

There is also the story about a freight company at Bankstown that brought a prefectly working EU registered BA146 to Australia to add to their AOC and business, together with experienced maintainers and operators.

CASA have forced the aircraft to sit on the ground and rot for 2 years while they made them do the paperwork dog and pony show, not allowing the aircraft to fly. There is not much worse for any aircraft.

All that while the extreme costs of the CASA paperwork battle on tight GA margins run the business to the ground.

Yet in any of our major cities another crap apartment complex is approved and thrown up in a heartbeat by development companies who have the local governments in their pockets.
ramble on is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Sep 2015, 22:50   #38 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,593
Remember the Australian PADS system that the regulator regulated to death. The Gruzman one.


http://services.casa.gov.au/airworth...s/PADS-001.pdf
Frank Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2015, 00:38   #39 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
We all know about the tragedy of David Black and the structural issues with Dromader aircraft used in firefighting, yr right.

None of that justifies putting ever-more regulatory barriers in the way of training pilots to conduct firefighting operations.

What about the 3 others pilots that lost their lives. Read what I said. They gone into fail safe mode because they F up. Full stop.
Did I say that it justifies what they have done. NO I didn't I said why they done it.
yr right is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Sep 2015, 00:40   #40 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,049
Btw. There are NO structural problems with the drom. At all. Get your facts right before you flap your gums.
yr right is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:42.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1