Over 5 months ago I wrote to the CASA CEO, Bruce Byron, applying for a dispensation so I could do straight-in approaches (of less than 5 miles) and join on base at non-tower airports when it was safer to do so – as per the USA and other leading aviation countries. See
here.
The following week I wrote to Malcolm Campbell, Team Leader of Flying Operations, mentioning the CEO’s directive as follows:
Where appropriate, the aviation safety regulation are to be aligned with the standards and practices of leading aviation countries, unless differences are required to address the Australian aviation environment and these differences can be justified on safety risk grounds. Where the standards and practices of the leading aviation countries vary, CASA will align its regulations with those that effectively address the safety risks in the most cost-effective manner.
Once again I applied for a dispensation to conduct a straight in approach of less than five miles when it is safer to do so.
Here is a copy of the letter.
Three months after the original letter to Bruce Byron, I wrote again on 15 April 2008 (see
here). This letter contained a very apt question:
Is there anyone there who actually makes a decision?
Six weeks after this letter, and some four months after my original letter, when it became apparent that I was going to get no answer from CASA, I arranged for my solicitor to write to CASA stating that we had briefed a QC, and if we didn’t get an answer within 7 days we would commence proceedings in the Federal Court. (See
here).
At the stated 7 days, I instructed my solicitors to go ahead and prepare the documentation – as I never bluff, I always do what I say. The expensive documentation (see
here) and affidavit (see
here) were prepared and lodged on 11 June 2008. Remember, this is now some 22 weeks since the original letter to Bruce Byron, with no answer in any way.
Note particularly paragraph number 4 of the affidavit:
I sought CASA's approval to improve safety and efficiency, as well as for noise abatement. The current prescriptive requirements mean that at times when approaching to land I am forced to fly a single engine aircraft extra distance at low level over populated areas such as towns and schools, or over inhospitable terrain. An engine failure at that time could end in loss of life for those in the aircraft or on the ground. The approval would enable me to choose the safest and most direct route to the airport.
The following morning (that is, today) at about 10.00 am I received a letter from CASA from Mr Mick Quinn (Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Operations) answering the questions. Well, when I say answering the questions, not really answering them but at least replying. Note how no mention is made of Byron’s harmonisation directive.
This is of course after I have expended a considerable amount of money in the court action. The letter from CASA is
here.
The question is whether this is ethical. I will be requesting that CASA pays my quite considerable legal costs, because if they had replied to me originally, or at least made a phone call to my solicitors and said a reply was being prepared, these high costs would not have been incurred.
I will keep you posted on what happens.