Reply to QFF in Post 203
A brief precursor to this post for anyone not familiar with the terminology. I will use the term "GA". That refers to General Aviation. CASA, have a complicated and everchanging definition. The industry in its entirety, considers "GA", to be predominantly the charter industry, aerial work, flight training, and the maintenance and support services behind those operations. .Anyway, to the post....
.
QFF, you make an interesting point that is perhaps the root cause of my problems, and is in fact the issue that effects the entire sector of the Industry.
Simply ask ANY small business operator operating in the General Aviation (GA) sector, what the biggest challenge to their business is. Im convinced over 90% of GA business owners will tell you its "CASAs failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards."
Its not a "nice to have" or a "try your best" or a "pink elephant stamp for trying." The achievement of clear and concise aviation safety standards is actually the core function of CASA. Its in the Civil Aviation Act and its copied below. I have bolded some of the more interesting parts.
Importantly, and I call on AOPA to conduct a survey to test my assertion. Over 90 % of the intended recipients of that legislation will state that they cannot fully understand the rules because they are not clear and concise. Imagine how quick the Deputy Prime Minister would act if 90% of road users couldn't understand the rules. Somehow, he gets away with inaction on rules regarding aviation safety. Its absurd. If the public knew there would be an outcry.
What better way than to demonstrate CASAs failure than me posing this simple question....
Dear Mr Crawford, could you please show me the legislation that lead you to initiate the action against my business?
The simple fact is that you cant. This all started because CMT 3 had a different opinion, and sadly and unnecessarily, it was not well intentioned. The legislation is more disjointed than "cards against humanity".
There were no regulatory breaches. Its all opinion, and regulations that are not clear or concise. An environment in which CASA should engage professionally with Industry to enhance safety. At least engage in accordance with your own regulatory philosophy that you came up with, because your previous approach to industry was found to be inappropriate. Only in Australia, could this happen, seriously.
Part II—Establishment, functions etc. of CASA8 Establishment of CASA
(1) An authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is established by this subsection.
(2) CASA: (a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession; (b) shall have a seal; and (c) may sue and be sued in its corporate name.Note: The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 applies to the CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including reporting and the use and management of public resources.
(3) All courts, judges and persons acting judicially shall take judicial notice of the imprint of the seal of CASA appearing on a document and shall presume that the document was duly sealed.
9 CASA’s functions
(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;
by means that include the following: (c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;
(b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.