---- about why the previous version of the Regs based on the FAR's was recalled on its way to Parliament house
Socket,
Who told you this fairy story ---- no such event has occurred in my lifetime, and I have been around for quite a while.
Or perhaps you would like to give us chapter and verse, because I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds to me like more internal propaganda --- CASA is always right, industry is always wrong.
As a matter of fact, the first time I came across a recommendation that the FARs were the way to go, was in a Ministerial report to Parliament in1966, consequent on a DCA study tour of the US.
The very great bulk of the industry has supported this position, ever since. At the commencement of the CASA Review in 1996, it was the unanimous position of all industry representative bodies, and the individual corporate positions of QF and AN.
The one set or regs. that were withdrawn at the last minute, because of united industry opposition, from QF down, and believe me, they were an amazing CASA concoction that was about as FAR from the FARs as it would be possible to get, indeed they were FARout.
The Minister of the day, John Anderson, thought, probably correctly, that there were the numbers in the Senate for a motion to disallow to get up ---- given the united industry opposition.
I refer to a set of regs. for continuing airworthiness, about 2003 or thereabouts. They were so FARout, that it even attracted the interest of FAA, have a look at the results of the FAA and ICAO audits for another take on CASA.
CASRs 21-35 are largely based on the FARs --- they work well, except in the opinion of the usual diehards and recalcitrants.
By the way, how is "Craig" these days?
Henry,
I have no idea who you are referring to, please enlighten us.
I am a little confused at why you continue to link CASA today with its predecessors the CAA and DOT, they are all quite different bodies.
Socket,
Grow up, get unconfused, there is a direct lineal history through all the iterations of the "Department of Changing Names", and a continuity of employees.
Indeed, fiddling with the enabling legislation, many times over the years, had done nothing do curb a culture that does nothing to achieve the best air safety outcomes, and does much to inhibit the Australian aviation sector.
That the "commercial" parts of the the old DCA have been split off into various quangos over the years is irrelevant to the continuing and enduring culture of the "bit" that is the air safety regulator.
It costs you nothing to go to the AAT.
You obviously have no idea of the AAT in the real world, or the serious shortcomings of the AAT in the eyes of much of the aviation sector, often as the result of very expensive and unsatisfactory experiences ---- but, of course, in your eyes that is the AAT properly upholding the CASA position. It is a great pity that the rules of evidence in not followed in the AAT, and hearsay "evidence" is allowed.
Sunfish,
On the mark, as usual.
Tootle pip!!