The unfortunate part of this is that there is no consistency in how either an AWI or a FOI answer a question. These people are supposed to be the experts, yet consistently I have seen these people having difficulties in answering even what are simple questions.
I am sure that the parlous state of the regulations does not help this situation. The rate of change that is being forced on the industry of what are now very complex regulations.
This will not make the way forward easy at all and those who should be able to assist the industry seem to be doing everything possible to ensure that the industry does not go forward.
This is not assisted by an executive who is devious and does things that are aimed at protecting themselves, not progressing the industry. The dis-connect between industry and casa is getting greater and greater.
The discussion in this thread indicates the issues - in a Maintenance Release situation. It can be extended to other threads [see Barrier (
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...-drift-13.htm) and Hardy's.]
The problem here is such that pilots, who have read the material provided by casa or by the owner or the operator are confused.
I have been an owner and have been told a range of answers to the same question by the AWI, FOI, ATO, other pilots etc.
It points simply to the problem of people having to "interpret" regs, MR's, opinions and listen to "directions" from owners or the LAME. It only gets more complex when someone is directed to bring an aircraft home.
Read the example of Dennis Grosser which goes back to 2003 at
Denis's trial - outcome and action.*
In part this says:
If Denis had not sought CASA out and asked for advice, none of this would have happened. His co-operation brought him down. He co-operated in Birdsville. He co-operated by sending back the ASR. He co-operated by handing over his logbook. He co-operated by going to the AAT (as CASA suggested). Once in the AAT he co-operated with CASA's cross-examination of him. Every single piece of that co-operation harmed him.
You might wonder why Denis went to such lengths to engineer his own downfall. I think it was because he misunderstood the legislation under which CASA operates. Denis is a farmer and a machinery dealer. I too am a farmer (of sorts). When I have a problem with weeds, I call the local weeds officer. When I have a problem with erosion, I call the Soil Conservation officer. When I have a problem with pastures, I call the Department of Agriculture. No doubt Denis does likewise. I know full well that the Weeds Officer has power to prosecute me in Court if I fail to control noxious weeds. But I also know that the Court won't punish me unless I actually do something that is against the law. Having received his advice I am free to follow it or not, as I choose. If the weeds officer thinks I should use spray to control the blackberries, for example, and I choose to use feral goats instead, that's fine. The weeds officer has no power to impose his opinion on mine, and it would be unthinkable that the weeds officer could unilaterally cancel my farming license.
But the aviation law is entirely different. Australia's aviation law is extremely punitive, and it gives CASA officers immense powers to impose their own opinion on others - and they are protected from responsibility for the outcome. I don't think Denis had the slightest suspicion that the aviation law was so un-Australian. I know that if you have an aviation problem, the LAST thing you do is call CASA because CASA officers can and do unilaterally cancel pilots' licenses if there is a difference of opinion. But I suspect Denis did not know that.
So Denis flew his aircraft back to Horsham solo, with the gear down all the way, quite uneventfully. He was so innocent, in his own mind, that he wrote the flight in his logbook!
and the notice to the pilot:
Notice from CASA to Denis Grosser to surrender licences, logbooks, and maintenance releases
We must see this all stop, particularly with the issue of "Strict Liability" and the ability of casa to "nail" you.