The General Aviation Industry is Being Destroyed
I was asked by CASA to have my Part 141 manuals done nice and early to avoid a backlog later on.
Trouble is the sample ops manual is still listed on their website as "coming soon".
So I've been told to use the CAAP as guidance which is totally unrealistic for a small school and I already have an ops manual anyway!
My argument is why should I spend many hours writing manuals which they may or may not approve if they don't yet know what they want these manuals to contain.
Nor do I want to see my work appearing on their website.
Trouble is the sample ops manual is still listed on their website as "coming soon".
So I've been told to use the CAAP as guidance which is totally unrealistic for a small school and I already have an ops manual anyway!
My argument is why should I spend many hours writing manuals which they may or may not approve if they don't yet know what they want these manuals to contain.
Nor do I want to see my work appearing on their website.
yr right
Btw. There are NO structural problems with the drom. At all. Get your facts right before you flap your gums.
Btw. There are NO structural problems with the drom. At all. Get your facts right before you flap your gums.
BTW yr right, and subject of course to any objective truths you may condescend to reveal to us, my amateur opinion is that ALL aircraft have structural problems. That's why they all have limitations like VNE, VA, VNO/VC, load limits, G limits and life limits. But of course you'd know that, because of your extensive experience in aircraft design and test flying.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 13th Sep 2015 at 07:35.
Clare Prop - I'm in the same boat as you. My enquiries about "where is the Part 141 MAAT template?" over the last year (full year) have been politely fobbed off. Recently, it has turned into a "Sample Operations Manual" and promises to keep me posted have resulted in nothing. I too don't want to waste my time revising our already approved OPS manual. If anyone is in the same boat, I suggest as I have done, revise your submission of draft date to "90 days from receipt of the Sample Operations Manual." I have had that acknowledged in writing - but not accepted nor refused.
If you operate any aircraft at high weights in turbulence for extended periods, structural problems will arise. And what are the typical characteristics of fire fighting operations, and what are the typical types used in those operations, yr right?
BTW: How many aircraft have you operated at high weights in turbulence, yr right?
And none of this has anything to do with the justification for putting more regulatory complexity in the way of pilot training (unless you have an interest in making more rules and creating more complexity for their own sake, to keep CASA well fed.)
BTW: How many aircraft have you operated at high weights in turbulence, yr right?
And none of this has anything to do with the justification for putting more regulatory complexity in the way of pilot training (unless you have an interest in making more rules and creating more complexity for their own sake, to keep CASA well fed.)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you operate any aircraft at high weights in turbulence for extended periods, structural problems will arise. And what are the typical characteristics of fire fighting operations, and what are the typical types used in those operations, yr right?
BTW: How many aircraft have you operated at high weights in turbulence, yr right?
And none of this has anything to do with the justification for putting more regulatory complexity in the way of pilot training (unless you have an interest in making more rules and creating more complexity for their own sake, to keep CASA well fed.)
BTW: How many aircraft have you operated at high weights in turbulence, yr right?
And none of this has anything to do with the justification for putting more regulatory complexity in the way of pilot training (unless you have an interest in making more rules and creating more complexity for their own sake, to keep CASA well fed.)
What structural issues dose the Drom have.
I answered the question on why Casa has imposed these limits now on pilots. I didn't say it right but why they don't it. So answers the question. You made the statement.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clare Prop & thunderbird,
The whole question of Ops manuals has been a running sore for many years as their content is largely defined by a multitude of FOI's all with their own opinion. In reality, given the nature of our regulations Ops Manuals should be written by Lawyers, but then they would probably cost a couple of million Dollars and who could afford that.
CAsA spent half a billion on lawyers to write them so a lay person had no hope of ever understanding them, imagine if we stumped up with Manuals written in the same language? The FOI's would go spare!!
The inconsistencies across the regions is appalling. The hangmans nooses CP's have been forced to write into manuals to make a rod for their back at some future date is unconscionable.
I believe there is only one solution to this problem.
If CAsA is going to insist on the gobbledegook they call regulation it should be beholding on them to produce generic operations manuals, get their senior people off their asses and do something useful and useable by Industry for a change.
By doing that so many of the frustrations, confrontations and costs that currently occur would go away.
Many of what I call "GAisms" that creep into commercial operations from various FOI & AWI's opinions, some of which are downright dangerous, would go away, or at least industry would have a central responsible person to argue a case for safety rather than submit to the opinions of an aeroclub mentality with no operational experience.
The costs and time wasted on the back and forth argument to gain approval of this "Shelfware" would be mitigated.
The unsustainable costs and time of placing a new type on an AOC would be mitigated. One company I know of, a hundred grand and over twelve months.
The mind boggling costs of gaining a new AOC would be mitigated. I know of one person two years and over a quarter of a million for a single type.
CAsA would gain the benefit of reducing staff numbers as it would seem most of their FOI & AWI's time is taken up approving shelfware.
Selling manuals to industry could provide an income stream for CAsA and provide bonuses for the managers.
The whole question of Ops manuals has been a running sore for many years as their content is largely defined by a multitude of FOI's all with their own opinion. In reality, given the nature of our regulations Ops Manuals should be written by Lawyers, but then they would probably cost a couple of million Dollars and who could afford that.
CAsA spent half a billion on lawyers to write them so a lay person had no hope of ever understanding them, imagine if we stumped up with Manuals written in the same language? The FOI's would go spare!!
The inconsistencies across the regions is appalling. The hangmans nooses CP's have been forced to write into manuals to make a rod for their back at some future date is unconscionable.
I believe there is only one solution to this problem.
If CAsA is going to insist on the gobbledegook they call regulation it should be beholding on them to produce generic operations manuals, get their senior people off their asses and do something useful and useable by Industry for a change.
By doing that so many of the frustrations, confrontations and costs that currently occur would go away.
Many of what I call "GAisms" that creep into commercial operations from various FOI & AWI's opinions, some of which are downright dangerous, would go away, or at least industry would have a central responsible person to argue a case for safety rather than submit to the opinions of an aeroclub mentality with no operational experience.
The costs and time wasted on the back and forth argument to gain approval of this "Shelfware" would be mitigated.
The unsustainable costs and time of placing a new type on an AOC would be mitigated. One company I know of, a hundred grand and over twelve months.
The mind boggling costs of gaining a new AOC would be mitigated. I know of one person two years and over a quarter of a million for a single type.
CAsA would gain the benefit of reducing staff numbers as it would seem most of their FOI & AWI's time is taken up approving shelfware.
Selling manuals to industry could provide an income stream for CAsA and provide bonuses for the managers.
Operations Manuals have been turned into that exquisite tormentor's tool: the double bind.
Operators have no practical choice but to include provisions implementing the pet personal projects and opinions of the FOIs with which operators deal (and for whose time the operators pay), but CASA takes no responsibility for the content.
You are legally obliged to comply with "your" operations manual, even when its content is effectively dictated by someone who takes no responsibility for the content. But if you want your AOC ...
Operators have no practical choice but to include provisions implementing the pet personal projects and opinions of the FOIs with which operators deal (and for whose time the operators pay), but CASA takes no responsibility for the content.
You are legally obliged to comply with "your" operations manual, even when its content is effectively dictated by someone who takes no responsibility for the content. But if you want your AOC ...
At least you got Snarek to draft that one for you. 
PS: yr right has deleted his post. Typical coward.
PS: yr right has deleted his post. Typical coward.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 14th Sep 2015 at 10:45. Reason: Added PS
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thorn bird
I hope this finds you well, long time me no seem
It won't take long for the usual suspects to appear so I'll make it quick and get back to my life.
Three things.
It is possible, if you know what you are doing and work with your FOI, to gain a CASA AOC for >5700kg aircraft for unrestricted worldwide operations, from a standing start in my teams case, 100 calendar days, for the pedantic I might add the qualifier maybe +/- 10 days. Big up too, for the CASA peeps on the case.
I have in my top drawer no less than two generic internationally compliant (ICAO, FAA, CAA, TransCan) COMs for both < & > 5700 kg aircraft for Part 91, 135 and 121 operations. They "comply" with what was then and I haven't had any interest in checking later versions, with the CASA shopping list.
They flow like warm honey, have actual structure, follow a logical sequence and are extremely user friendly, to the extent that even pilots can follow them. Now wouldn't
that be nice.
Offered, including the above mentioned own COM, gratis to CASA as templates to be made available to industry gratis as a standard form, in order to avoid the financially ruinous "where's Wally" process. Answer, apart from a sincere congratulations on the best prepared application they had seen, ever, "not so much, everybody has their own way of doing things", with respect "dogs bollocks".
COMs are not "competitive" documents meant to give one operator an advantage over another, they are a compliance document, designed for the safe operation of aircraft within a regulatory environment and should be like most safety systems and processes, a shared and collaborative effort between all operations, at least to the highest, lowest, common denominator possible.
It also sets a common economic safety bar for operating costs and releases the FOIs for the job they least enjoy, for which by definition, they are paid and are employed, and that is surveillance for compliance. The "approval" process is therefore a relatively simple clerical procedure requiring ONLY FOI oversight without the usual technical wine tasting.
Operators should then be competing on the other commercial and business processes available to them.
Mind you that was one, or was it two DAS ago.
I hope this finds you well, long time me no seem
It won't take long for the usual suspects to appear so I'll make it quick and get back to my life.
Three things.
It is possible, if you know what you are doing and work with your FOI, to gain a CASA AOC for >5700kg aircraft for unrestricted worldwide operations, from a standing start in my teams case, 100 calendar days, for the pedantic I might add the qualifier maybe +/- 10 days. Big up too, for the CASA peeps on the case.
I have in my top drawer no less than two generic internationally compliant (ICAO, FAA, CAA, TransCan) COMs for both < & > 5700 kg aircraft for Part 91, 135 and 121 operations. They "comply" with what was then and I haven't had any interest in checking later versions, with the CASA shopping list.
They flow like warm honey, have actual structure, follow a logical sequence and are extremely user friendly, to the extent that even pilots can follow them. Now wouldn't
that be nice.
Offered, including the above mentioned own COM, gratis to CASA as templates to be made available to industry gratis as a standard form, in order to avoid the financially ruinous "where's Wally" process. Answer, apart from a sincere congratulations on the best prepared application they had seen, ever, "not so much, everybody has their own way of doing things", with respect "dogs bollocks".
COMs are not "competitive" documents meant to give one operator an advantage over another, they are a compliance document, designed for the safe operation of aircraft within a regulatory environment and should be like most safety systems and processes, a shared and collaborative effort between all operations, at least to the highest, lowest, common denominator possible.
It also sets a common economic safety bar for operating costs and releases the FOIs for the job they least enjoy, for which by definition, they are paid and are employed, and that is surveillance for compliance. The "approval" process is therefore a relatively simple clerical procedure requiring ONLY FOI oversight without the usual technical wine tasting.
Operators should then be competing on the other commercial and business processes available to them.
Mind you that was one, or was it two DAS ago.
I have more experience in the operation of high weight high turbulence operations low to the ground than you will every have. As for being a troll that is yourself.
I am informed you are a LAME (unlikely as that may seem) but not a pilot.
If that is, in fact, the case, you have precisely nil/zero/zilch experience of operating an aircraft at high AUW in low level turbulence.
Please enlighten us as to you qualifications and experience as a pilot.
Given your self confessed quite amazing level of knowledge of all things aeronautical, I am very surprised that you would claim a high weight firefighting Dromader is not, in fact a, a Dromader. If it is not a Dromader (despite the Type Certificate that says it is, in fact, a Dromader) please be so kind as to advise us what, in fact, it is.
I am bound to say, not knowing the difference between a sled and a balloon is a bit of a problem.
It is possible, if you know what you are doing and work with your FOI, to gain a CASA AOC for >5700kg aircraft for unrestricted worldwide operations, from a standing start in my teams case, 100 calendar days, for the pedantic I might add the qualifier maybe +/- 10 days. Big up too, for the CASA peeps on the case.
With the very greatest of respect ( which you know damned well I don't mean, I am just being the very polite chap that I am) for absence of doubt, I will edit your above para; to make your meaning clear.
" All GA's problems with FOIs over "acceptance" of Operations Manuals and timetables measured in years are caused by incompetent, ignorant and inept idiots that make up most of the management if GA companies (and airlines, for that matter) and only if GA was smart enough to employ me, all their problems would go away.
And, by the way, the ASRR was a work of fiction, with the nearly 300 contributors to Forsyth ( including all the major airlines) merely representing the combined incompetence of everybody except me.
CASA is a simply wonderful organisation that doesn't deserve the Australian industry it is lumbered with".
It won't take long for the usual suspects to appear so I'll make it quick and get back to my life.
Quite simply, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, which is no surprised to anybody who has known you for as long as I have, right back to your Rex days.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 14th Sep 2015 at 14:54.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ rules
Anyone here who thinks NZ is the answer is wrong.
I just got back from 6 days there talking to quite a few industry people and GA is in dire straits there. Small aero clubs closing, idiot rules which just make life difficult to impossible and CAA costs well into the brigandry area.
Currently NZ CAA is charging NZ$351 to register and administrate your PPL medical. They also demand blood tests etc for cholesterol, an ECG and hearing test. For a PRIVATE licence. Even if nothing is wrong with you it will cost around NZ$700 to 1000 for all this including the administration fee.
Add in that NZ CAA don't even have a class rating system but require a type rating on each type of simple bugsmasher and the instructor you do your BFR with in THAT type of aircraft also needs a type rating in that aircraft and the instructor rating is getting harder to keep and you find you have trouble finding an instructor to do the BFR with. The BFR also seems to have morphed into a flight TEST instead of a review. More expense.
This is reflected in noticeably falling prices for small light aircraft. No wonder.
I'm going to change the question to ask of the CASA people at the next safety seminar I go to from "what would your organisation be doing differently if it was actually TRYING to destroy private aviation?" to "are your regulatory changes which are destroying private aviation merely the result of advanced incompetence or are they actually malice?"
(Sufficiently advanced incompetence being indistinguishable from malice - a small rewrite of an original quote from Arthur C.Clarke - sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic))
I just got back from 6 days there talking to quite a few industry people and GA is in dire straits there. Small aero clubs closing, idiot rules which just make life difficult to impossible and CAA costs well into the brigandry area.
Currently NZ CAA is charging NZ$351 to register and administrate your PPL medical. They also demand blood tests etc for cholesterol, an ECG and hearing test. For a PRIVATE licence. Even if nothing is wrong with you it will cost around NZ$700 to 1000 for all this including the administration fee.
Add in that NZ CAA don't even have a class rating system but require a type rating on each type of simple bugsmasher and the instructor you do your BFR with in THAT type of aircraft also needs a type rating in that aircraft and the instructor rating is getting harder to keep and you find you have trouble finding an instructor to do the BFR with. The BFR also seems to have morphed into a flight TEST instead of a review. More expense.
This is reflected in noticeably falling prices for small light aircraft. No wonder.
I'm going to change the question to ask of the CASA people at the next safety seminar I go to from "what would your organisation be doing differently if it was actually TRYING to destroy private aviation?" to "are your regulatory changes which are destroying private aviation merely the result of advanced incompetence or are they actually malice?"
(Sufficiently advanced incompetence being indistinguishable from malice - a small rewrite of an original quote from Arthur C.Clarke - sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic))
Folks,
The problems of pilot medicals trans-Tasman is an interesting one, and an excellent exzample of what a malevolent group can do, despite the regulation, not because of.
Indeed, it can be reasonably said that the problems of pilot medicals in both Australia and New Zealand can be sheeted home to a group of "public service" doctors who have the system (and pilots) by the throat, and have reversed common sense progress in pilot medical over the last 30+ years.
The prime example is CVD, just on the opinions of a couple of highly opinionated DAMEs, we have taken a giant leap backwards in Australia --- and ignored all the experience since the Denison case.
In Australia it is not the "rule" that is wrong, it is CASA Medical ignoring the meaning of the rule, as established in Denison.
Aviation should not be pushed and shoved on the basis of the vagaries of CASA/CAA Department of Aviation Medicine or any other group in a regulatory body.
Personalities should not rule, but they do.
Tootle pip!!
The problems of pilot medicals trans-Tasman is an interesting one, and an excellent exzample of what a malevolent group can do, despite the regulation, not because of.
Indeed, it can be reasonably said that the problems of pilot medicals in both Australia and New Zealand can be sheeted home to a group of "public service" doctors who have the system (and pilots) by the throat, and have reversed common sense progress in pilot medical over the last 30+ years.
The prime example is CVD, just on the opinions of a couple of highly opinionated DAMEs, we have taken a giant leap backwards in Australia --- and ignored all the experience since the Denison case.
In Australia it is not the "rule" that is wrong, it is CASA Medical ignoring the meaning of the rule, as established in Denison.
Aviation should not be pushed and shoved on the basis of the vagaries of CASA/CAA Department of Aviation Medicine or any other group in a regulatory body.
Personalities should not rule, but they do.
Tootle pip!!
What he's manipulated into thinking, of course.
It doesn't take too much guesswork to know who's whispering in his ear. Same people who were whispering into McCormick's ear, and Byron's ear, and Toller's ear ...
It doesn't take too much guesswork to know who's whispering in his ear. Same people who were whispering into McCormick's ear, and Byron's ear, and Toller's ear ...