Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Thank you CASA, i feel so much safer.

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

Thank you CASA, i feel so much safer.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 7th Feb 2016, 09:10
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you CASA, i feel so much safer.

Its a beautiful Sunday mid morning, wind light and variable, 3 kts! perfect flying day, not a cloud to be seen.. all those aircraft at Bankstown, just waiting for an opportunity to corrode, and have the grass grow a little longer around them, as this thriving industry demands of such aircraft these days on such a day..
Sitting around the flying school, a knock at the door, OMG! A student maybe! Whoohooo.. there is hope! Oh oh, Oh, Hi Mr CASA dude? DAMP you say, of course none of us have been drinking or taking drugs, we are pilots remember, most of us are actually capable of taking responsibility for ourselves.. In the interests of safety yadda yadda, oh, the receptionist, you want a drug test? oh ok, any drugs? yeah i had a head cold the other day, no sir, i dont have a pilots licence.. yes, i do have airside access, how can i talk to the instructors? ok lick this stick and sit here and don't move for half an hour...

I have no way of conveying to CASA, just how grateful i am in knowing that my aviation career and time in the air is now that much safer knowing the dangers posed to us by a receptionist with a mild head cold! i mean, really, think of the SAFETY! YOUR SAFETY... and CASA's of course. now i can sleep easy, and take off safe in the knowledge that CASA, is doing all it can to tackle the real safety issues this industry obviously faces.. the receptionist.







though, after the DAMP test, 1, or maybe 2 aircraft were seen in the circuit during the day.. lucky they didn't take off earlier, the danger and all.
Ultralights is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 09:16
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
UL

That would be so damned funny……..if it were not a serious joke.

So did she pass, or did the Codral do her in?

Just been having a "chat" with Horatio Leafie on another E-Comms tool about the idea of making Rock Fishing illegal sans lifejacket. We should DAMP test them too.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 09:19
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
She passed.. and on a sunday morning, those guys must have been on at least double $$. doubling up the safety i guess.
Ultralights is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 10:59
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,345
Received 18 Likes on 9 Posts
Did that really happen today at BK, UL?


If not, when?

Last edited by gerry111; 7th Feb 2016 at 11:33.
gerry111 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 11:22
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,345
Received 18 Likes on 9 Posts
Jaba,


I agree with you on the rock fishing issue. (Particularly here in NSW where quite a few rock fishermen have drowned in recent years.) I reckon that it should be an educational rather than an enforcement issue. Modern 'Personal Floatation Devices' (PFD's) are available for under $100-00 from your local BCF store etc. They are very comfortable to wear and may save your life, if one is washed into the ocean.
gerry111 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 11:24
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Most, not all, Mr Ultralights, are capable of looking after themselves. It's because of the idiots who aren't able to that make us go through this BS.

Several past (and some not so long ago world wide) accidents have brought alcohol or drugs into it as a factor.

Does random testing really make it safer? That's debatable. Hopefully it does, considering the money spent on it!
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 20:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Several past (and some not so long ago world wide) accidents have brought alcohol or drugs into it as a factor.
I can only think of one, the six that in at Hamilton Island 10 or so years ago. What other incidents?

If you're talking about airline flight crew showing up hungover / drunk, yes that has happened but I'm pretty sure it was airport or airline security personnel that caught them out, not the regulator.

CASA loves making us feel "safe" from perceived issues, rather than addressing real issues within aviation.
iPahlot is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 21:04
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the Hamilton Is matter, there was not a therapeutic amount of any drug found that would have impacted on the event. This crash was the catalyst for what we have today. An imagined threat without medical substance. Or to put it another way, a solution to a problem that didn't exist.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 22:32
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Carson Air metro crash not too long ago.
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 22:43
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,693
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Most, not all, Mr Ultralights, are capable of looking after themselves. It's because of the idiots who aren't able to that make us go through this BS.
Wake up! These regulations have more to do with CASA bureaucrats furthering their careers than safety.

CASA and its predecessors have been collecting accident data for how many years?? At least since the 50's if not the 30's. There is a minimum of 30 years data. More than enough for CASA to make proper evidence based decisions. But when have we ever seen it??
Old Akro is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 23:39
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,872
Received 191 Likes on 98 Posts
The guy doing the testing at our field gave come crazy figure of 1 in 1000 positive drug detections and those tongue scrapers cost $40 each.

Do the numbers from there !

Let's say he can do those in a couple of months, include his salary and car etc and you'll see it costs a lot of money to catch a pilot or crew member using drugs, but it's hard to put a cost on a life or more should the worst happen...
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 23:50
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,287
Received 419 Likes on 209 Posts
But, as OA observed, where is the evidence of drugs or alcohol being causal factors in aviation accidents? A rumour that Fred smoked the occasional joint on his days off isn't evidence.

If it were an evidence-based system, DAMP resources would be diverted to quality control of food eaten by pilots - the single biggest cause of incapacitation.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 23:59
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 82
Posts: 3,096
Received 45 Likes on 20 Posts
Can I suggest...?

Re "Oh, the receptionist, you want a drug test? oh ok, any drugs? yeah i had a head cold the other day, no sir, I don't have a pilots licence... "

This should be described with date / time, the CASA person's name, and formally sent to Mr Mark Skidmore, with a polite, factual letter for notification / further explanation.

I would think it hard to convict a 'non-flying' person for what is obstensively, a 'flying offence'. (?)

The answer should be 'of interest'.

Cheers
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 00:38
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 1 Post
SSAA ??

I'd be interested to know what Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity the CASA people believed the receptionist was involved in.

If the answer is 'none' then why should she have to submit to a test?
over_centre is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 00:46
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,370
Received 29 Likes on 15 Posts
Over_Centre, if you want to be really pedantic (As I believe CASA are in this case) the receptionist has access to Airside and thusly to aircraft and in an inebriated state could mess with an aircraft by accident or on purpose.

I don't believe this is actually really a valid threat personally but that is undoubtedly how CASA would spin it.
Ixixly is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 00:49
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,290
Received 169 Likes on 86 Posts
Where do you draw the line?

And what if I was there that morning. Visiting friends in Sydney. Might pop out to Bankstown to have a look around, see what's changed.
Chatting to the receptionist when CASA arrives........
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 01:47
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Before strict liability with road rules in NSW, the police had to have reasonable excuse to assume intoxication to justify a breath test. Driving erratically for example. Random breath tests, like DAMP checks are fishing expeditions. A Rex/ Jetstar/ Virgin passenger CAN be airside on the tarmac at Sydney whilst legally intoxicated. The pilot has no valid reason to remove him/her but CAsA can? (NOTE: legally intoxicated, not blind drunk).


It would be less costly and more safe if the Regulatory Review Program were to tell us what "IS" permitted rather than what's "NOT" permitted because it appears "EVERYTHING" is illegal.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 01:57
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,071
Received 138 Likes on 63 Posts
1/1000 positive detections. Bet they don't say how many actual convictions they get or how manybof those are false positives.

The Police have a hard time making drug driving charges stick so I don't think CASA would have any better strike rate.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 05:11
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,287
Received 419 Likes on 209 Posts
It would be less costly and more safe if the Regulatory Review Program were to tell us what "IS" permitted rather than what's "NOT" permitted because it appears "EVERYTHING" is illegal.
A very simple system:

- One sentence in the Civil Aviation Act: "Everything is prohibited, except by exemption by CASA."

- Give everyone in CASA pads of exemption forms.

It's just about the way the system runs now.

Millions saved by shutting down the 'reform' program.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 07:28
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cancel All Sensible Applications


Or


Cancel All Sensible Aviation


??
Band a Lot is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.