Misleading situation cleared up at last.

[Frank Arouet]

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project MS 09/22 (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_93520)


In 1999, CASA agreed to introduce the internationally standardised Form 1 Authorised Released Certificates (ARC). The number 1 for CASA forms was not available for use and an alternative number was allocated. The CASA Form 1 ARC currently has the number 917 allocated to it. The difference between the Form title and Form number causes some confusion.
This confusion will be remedied by CASA with the introduction of a form that is both titled Form 1 and has the number 1 allocated to it. As part of the amendment, further compilation guidance in addition to that currently available will be provided. The consequence of non action would be that the current misleading situation would continue to generate confusion and queries.

Thank Goodness for that!:ooh:

[Mach E Avelli]

Er...does that mean the old Form 917 has been re-titled Form 1?

[flying-spike]

Thank goodness for that. Now I can sleep at night

[triton140]

You know the really scary thing?

They've set up a special project to renumber it, with a Project Leader, a Project Stakeholder and complete with a Standards Development Contact!

And, they've given themselves until February to change to the new number!

Wonder how the new decisive management team feels about that?

[PyroTek]

triton, mustn't forget the millions spent on consultants:}

[Ando1Bar]

It's all about protecting jobs down at CASA. Instead of streamlining the business lets create a project to keep mediocre staff employed.

Don't get me started about the GAAP to Class D debacle. :ugh:

[triton140]

Don't get me started about the GAAP to Class D debacle.

Ahh no, not going there. But from my discussions, Airservices is pretty pissed off about it.

Plus CASA is backing off, with some recent pronouncements by the new Director opening up the possibility of a delayed implementation. Not surprising, since AsA was apparently not consulted, and they're the guys who actually have to do it - and if you don't have the trained controllers then it's not going to happen despite CASA's demands.

Debacle? Yep, I think so. And it is yet to play out, and as it evolves it may claim a few scalps ......

And three months to change "917" to "1" on a coupla documents? Sheesh, gimme a break! Pay me a decent consulting fee and I'll do it in a week, promise! :ugh::ugh:

[Ando1Bar]

triton140,

Yep, went to the AsA HazID workshop last week. At the time of the meeting CASA still hadn't provided AsA with the exact criteria for Class D, which meant most of the HazID assessments were guesswork. No doubt you've heard a similar story. All the necessary staff must have been over at Project MS 09/22 :hmm:

Class D at existing GAAP airfields looks like it will be different to Class D elsewhere, with overall not many benefits and only a whole heap of extra burden at these airfields (contiguous airspace with Class C being one if the cloud base drops below 1500). Hence, a huge waste of time and money, just like the form change that is the basis for this thread.

Love to sit from the sidelines eating popcorn while the poop hits the fan, but unfortunately it's my airspace CASA are playing with (rather ineffectively).

[triton140]

Class D it is - but CASA is not telling anyone what flavour of Class D it will be! Because they haven't worked it out yet, only thing we know for sure is it won't be vanilla ICAO. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking .....

Maybe the MS 09/22 Project Team can be put to work on it - I'm sure (given a simple number change seems to take forever) they should be able to come up with an answer in a year or two - it would give them a bit of a challenge!

So while all this stuff is happening, the rest of us (AsA, operators, owners, pilots, etc) are being kept in the dark and left wondering as to just what will happen and when. And the clock continues to tick ...

The incompetence of this lot just amazes me.

[Frank Arouet]

Wonder how the new decisive management team feels about that?

They've set up a special project to see how they feel about it, with a Project Leader, a Project Stakeholder and complete with a Standards Development Contact!

And, they've added this project to the "Regulatory Reform" Project and given themselves until that project is complete to then assess how they may feel could impact upon the outcome of that project.:(