Originally Posted by
VH-MLE
Hi Torres. Who was the General Manager of General Aviation Operations at the time?
Me.
I always despair that legitimate grievances are not distilled into the real issues.
UZU and others were conducting RPT without RPT AOCs. That was against the law. The AAT agreed with CASA’s interpretation and its application to the facts.
In my view the legitimate grievance was, and continues to be, that the classification of operations rules have been diarrhoea for decades. UZU and others were the victim of the muddy messes that are the definitions of RPT and Charter - precisely the issue that Commissioner Staunton identified in 1996 as requiring “urgent” review. (That’s not a typo. That’s nineteen ninety six.)
I know it will be cold comfort for you, Torres, but I was the subject of more internal criticism than external about the regulatory action that was taken. The basis of the internal criticism was that the classification of operations rules were “just about to change”. CAR 206 was going to “reformed” “soon”. But that was bull****, as has been demonstrated by the ensuing 20 plus years. The remote island AOC concept just put another hump on the classification of operations camel - yet more complexity in an already-complex and confusing classifications system.
By 1999 the regulatory ‘reform’ program had become, in my view, an ongoing expensive hoax on the industry and the taxpayer. The 20 years of ‘reform’ following my departure from CASA have not altered my view. (That’s not a typo. That’s twenty years.)
I’m sure CASA will get around to ‘reforming’ classification of operations ‘soon’. However, I doubt whether the product will be clear or concise or welcomed by industry.
But I could be making it all up and it could all be my fault. Feel free to blame me if it makes you feel better.