Part 61 - Some Interesting Numbers
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cleared,
I agree; that would be the way to go. Also, with the NZ offences, you also have to look at offences under the ACT which are not included in the regulations as such.
Why this need to look at multiple documents, as in NZ, as opposed to a consolidated 'one stop shop'?
The 'one document' approach is the most user friendly way to go but there is certainly room for improvement in most places in the aviation world, including CASA, the NZCAA and, dare I say it, the FAA.
I agree; that would be the way to go. Also, with the NZ offences, you also have to look at offences under the ACT which are not included in the regulations as such.
Why this need to look at multiple documents, as in NZ, as opposed to a consolidated 'one stop shop'?
The 'one document' approach is the most user friendly way to go but there is certainly room for improvement in most places in the aviation world, including CASA, the NZCAA and, dare I say it, the FAA.
Why this need to look at multiple documents, as in NZ, as opposed to a consolidated 'one stop shop'?
Whatever you are smoking, it must be No.1 Good Sh1t!!!
Haven't you noticed we have an Act AND Regulations ( that's two "books") plus Manuals of Standards (another "book" of generally humongous proportions) plus "policy letters" and a few more, AMCs etc., if you look closely enough.
"consolidated one stop shop"??? This is a good one even for you, with your uncritical support of all things CASA.
I just can't imagine why we had the ASRR (and so many before it, including Royal Commissions) obviously it is not needed, along with the now who knows how many Legislative Instruments attached to Part 61. Just wrong headed, misguided industry, again, I guess.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The only ASRR recommendation CASA is pursuing with great dispatch is the one that results in a third tier of regulations: More Regulations, Whooppee!!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sled,
I am not a simpleton; we all know that there are multiple documents that must be consulted
in aviation in every jurisdiction.
And I do not support 'all things CASA'.
In your little world you may consider that no one knows anything other than OZ.
The ASRR is an unworthy document. Not from the fact that it criticises CASA, but from the
fact that it does NOT test the truth of any accusation made or position taken. It is an
'opinion' piece, not much else.
I am not saying it is not correct; what I am saying is that it is a document that does not and
will not ever stand the test of scrupulous probity.
The most recent graduating class of the UNSW aviation programme were told that in their
formal dinner commencement speech (not that I had anything to do with it).
And, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I believe Forsyth is the Chair of their advisory
board!
I am not a simpleton; we all know that there are multiple documents that must be consulted
in aviation in every jurisdiction.
And I do not support 'all things CASA'.
In your little world you may consider that no one knows anything other than OZ.
The ASRR is an unworthy document. Not from the fact that it criticises CASA, but from the
fact that it does NOT test the truth of any accusation made or position taken. It is an
'opinion' piece, not much else.
I am not saying it is not correct; what I am saying is that it is a document that does not and
will not ever stand the test of scrupulous probity.
The most recent graduating class of the UNSW aviation programme were told that in their
formal dinner commencement speech (not that I had anything to do with it).
And, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I believe Forsyth is the Chair of their advisory
board!
You obviously didn't read or comprehend many of the submissions of the representative bodies to the ASRR, actus.
But in a way you are correct. The Review was merely the usual distracting ploy used by governments to avoid doing or taking responsibility for anything that's not politically useful for the time being. The government needed a distraction that would "not ever stand the test of scrupulous probity". Hopefully some of the submitters have learned an important lesson and will not be fooled again.
But in a way you are correct. The Review was merely the usual distracting ploy used by governments to avoid doing or taking responsibility for anything that's not politically useful for the time being. The government needed a distraction that would "not ever stand the test of scrupulous probity". Hopefully some of the submitters have learned an important lesson and will not be fooled again.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balloon,
My point was that the submissions were never tested in any manner and that is obvious in the report. If someone said 'it'; 'it' was taken as fact.
That is unacceptable if anyone wants their report to be taken seriously. I think that Truss lamented the day that he ever promised all and sundry that he would have a 'review'. That is most probably the reason that he did nothing with the report for months and months.
He had no idea anyway and was on his way to his long overdue retirement, in my opinion.
Having said all that, I am in fierce agreement with all that you say.
Cheers to better times!
My point was that the submissions were never tested in any manner and that is obvious in the report. If someone said 'it'; 'it' was taken as fact.
That is unacceptable if anyone wants their report to be taken seriously. I think that Truss lamented the day that he ever promised all and sundry that he would have a 'review'. That is most probably the reason that he did nothing with the report for months and months.
He had no idea anyway and was on his way to his long overdue retirement, in my opinion.
Having said all that, I am in fierce agreement with all that you say.
Cheers to better times!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would'nt it be easier, and considerably cheaper to do what Singapore did and just adopt ICAO recommended reg's? Save a lot of argument as well.
CAsA would still not have to take responsibility for anything, anything untoward they could just blame it on ICAO.
With the half billion $$ saved we might even get the development sharks off our airports.
CAsA would still not have to take responsibility for anything, anything untoward they could just blame it on ICAO.
With the half billion $$ saved we might even get the development sharks off our airports.
The ASRR is an unworthy document. Not from the fact that it criticises CASA, but from the fact that it does NOT test the truth of any accusation made or position taken. It is an 'opinion' piece, not much else.
I have heard some nonsense statements in my time by the sycophants of CASA, but that just about takes the cake.
Clearly, in your distorted view, unless every submission can be cross examined, it cannot be accepted as valid, it is just an "opinion". Not objective.
Whether you want to accept it or not, close to 300 submissions, including from every major operator in the country, was critical of CASA ---- and you want to delude yourself that those views are just "opinion" ---- "opinion" on a large scale that there are very serious issues in CASA and with CASA's approach to aviation safety administration.
But just opinion, not objective fact, despite the "factual" examples given in many submissions.
On of the things that struck the two overseas experts that assisted David Forsyth was the sameness of the complaints of CASA operation, from the biggest to the most lowly contributor. More normally, one would expect relatively restrained input from major airlines, and the more outlandish complaints to come from disaffected individuals.
In this case, it was the fact that the major operators had very much the same complaints about CASA, that had a major impact on the Canadian and the Englishman.
And you have the gall to suggest it is "just one opinion". That is is not objectively true.
Maybe it is "just one opinion", but it is the considered opinion of the greater part of whole Australian aviation community, including multi-billion dollar businesses that contribute significantly the the Australia economy, and you want to write then of as not really having a worthwhile view of the shortcomings of CASA.
The arrogance of your "opinion" is breathtaking, and a good measure of the seriousness of the issues that beset Australian aviation thanks (but no thanks) to CASA.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Thorney,
FAA helpfully publishes a compete ICAO style set of model regulations, free to anybody, that are ICAO compliant, and designed for third world countries that are incapable of producing their own compliant and workable regulations.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There you go Leadie, exactly what a bankrupt country like Australia should take advantage of, rather than pissing another half billion dollars up against the wall, a half billion that we will have to Borrow.
The only consolation, third world we may be, but you can still drink the water......for now.
The only consolation, third world we may be, but you can still drink the water......for now.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sled,
I could give you chapter and verse where your statements concerning the inputs that led to the the Forsyth drivel are just plainly wrong: wrong; wrong; wrong.
And by the way, I happen to personally know both the 'Englishman' and the 'Canadian' which you may not?
Their 'view' of the report will come out in time.
Patience, grasshopper.
You are just a fool. I am not going to waste my time with any more of your stupidity.
Tootle PiP!!
I could give you chapter and verse where your statements concerning the inputs that led to the the Forsyth drivel are just plainly wrong: wrong; wrong; wrong.
And by the way, I happen to personally know both the 'Englishman' and the 'Canadian' which you may not?
Their 'view' of the report will come out in time.
Patience, grasshopper.
You are just a fool. I am not going to waste my time with any more of your stupidity.
Tootle PiP!!
Last edited by actus reus; 2nd Jul 2016 at 13:05. Reason: Sorry, left off an exclamation mark and a good deal of disgust
