PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - WA Air Operator sues CASA and Officials
View Single Post
Old 11th May 2010, 22:41
  #33 (permalink)  
Sunfish
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 89 Likes on 32 Posts
Dear Clinton,

Disclaimer: I know nothing about this particular case.

I am a PPL holder. I have had nothing but good service from CASA. I have seen nothing but good behaviour from CASA towards others, and I try and operate as a law abiding pilot.

However, and this is what concerns me,

The little purple Class D airspace brochure that was mailed to me by CASA last week. contains the following introduction inside the front cover:

"This booklet is produced for aviation safety education purposes. It does not replace information contained in Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP), En Route Supplement Australia and/or NOTAMS. Pilots should always refer to these documents for up to date information.


This is "advisory"(CASA Quotes) material only and is not the only methodology that could be adopted. It is not legally binding.
...........

....This information is a brief outline of the practices and procedures set to be adopted at Class D aerodromes and is designed to provide insight into the general philosophy behind the procedures. The information is not necessarily definitive and the information should not be used operationally without first cross referencing with the appropriate documentation.
Clinton Mate, this same disclaimer can be applied to everything that CASA has ever produced!

The laws, rules and regulations are a confusing mish mash of contradictory legalese such that CASA can not even provide cogent "Advice" as to how to comply with its own regulations without the need for the aforesaid page of disclaimers.

Many of the regulations compound the problem further by being framed in that legally satisfying but totally useless "Thou shalt not .. except for" construction that leaves all of us guessing as to how to comply. Of course you provide "Advisory " information that hints at how we might comply, but it is always covered by the same disclaimer. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

Do you understand what a mess this makes of our miserable efforts to try to comply?

Do you further understand that then giving public servants considerable latitude to make their own interpretation of what "compliance" means creates a nightmare of a lack of consistency in application of the rules - and that is without having to make any allegation whatsoever about the character and motives of the enforcers or the members of the industry?

If we then make allowance for the occasional perfectly normal human failings among regulators and regulated, do we now understand how disputes ( regularly chronicled here and elsewhere) may arise? If there are "bad apples" in the industry, then is it not safe to assume that there are "bad apples" in CASA?

I am well aware of the consequences for a public servant of a bad decision. It also behoves of a public servant to be aware of the consequences for a business or pilot.

Were I a Minister of Aviation, would I be forgiven for thinking that the fact that the Buttson matter has even entered the courts points to systematic failure of CASA on many levels?

To put it another way, if any FOI were to give me a ramp check and didn't like me, do you think he couldn't find some infraction if he wanted to?


Now the personal consequences, and I expect these are amplified over thousands of pilots and prospective pilots. I am hoping to build a kit aircraft. I have succeeded in finding some information regarding registration from both the web and one or Two personal enquiries, however that has been like getting blood out of a stone.

I am aware that registering as VH experimental requires that CASA has to satisfy itself as to airworthiness etc., etc. I am also aware that I have to comply exactly with the kit manufacturers instructions. These leave considerable latitude in engine choice, positioning of radios and antennas, autopilots, fuel system component location, etc.. I am aware that some or all of this requires clearance from the manufacturer.

But in the back of my mind, amplified by events like the Buttson case, is the fear: "What if the FOI doesn't like me or my project? What if he takes it upon himself to decide I haven't complied? What if he takes it upon himself to apply restrictions?" If you think this is an exaggeration, talk to the boys at Gippsland Aeronautics.

Such questions are weighing on whether I will forget the whole thing. There must be thousands of similar people who are in exactly the same situation.
Sunfish is offline