Originally Posted by Torres
CAR206 is not about passenger safety and never was.
It was to define the difference between commercial (RPT, charter, aerial work) and private operations. That was poorly drafted from day 1, it is at odds with their primary role which is safety management. The test should have never had been “commercial” or “hire or reward” which gives us the mess we have today where they are required to use that test, rather than an end user test, i.e. what level of safety would the end user expect, hence the push to have one passenger transport standard to cover todays “charter and RPT”.
CASA do not like the situation as much as the industry does, they "do not", and "cannot" regulate "commercial activities", that is not their role, hence the push for part 135 and 121. Under the new classifications, part 135 will be for small aircraft, and 121 for large aircraft. Under parts 121 and 135 and passenger transport be it schedule or non-schedule should have the same level of safety if it has be publically advertised or arranged by, or at the request of, others. That should terminate the open/closed charter and RPT commercial/non-commercial debate for good.
The sooner the new parts come into play the better, and the sooner all reference to "commercial" is removed from legalisation CASA administers the better. I would even like to see the SPL, PPL, CPL, and ATPL to be renamed to get industry stop thinking along “private”, “commercial”, or “non-commercial” lines.
Originally Posted by thorn bird
Distrust!!!..good grief where are you from??. Anyone who talks to CASA without their lawyer present is a fool. CASA is now so endemically corrupt that any trust has long gone.
I am in industry, and when I was required by my position to talk with CASA, be it an AOC variation, audit, or flight test, I never had needed to have a "lawyer present", nor do I consider myself a fool. I have always had a good working relationship with them. At the same time I always made an effort to know the regulatory environment that I was working in, I had always been proactive, rather than reactive.
On two occasions I have been invited in for a cuppa tea and bikkies, both times the format of the formal meeting was providing information and education, we went back and amended the paperwork and/or procedures, they were happy. Both times we were obviously “dobbed in” by our competitors.
No further action taken. I am obviously from the other end of industry that does not get any press, where we far exceeded the minimum standards in the legislation, and CASA was not seen as the “enemy”.
CASA were complete gentlemen compared with ruthless independent industry auditors employed by our clients.