FAA thoughts on CASA

[neville_nobody]

Safety fears came close to freezing air route (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/safety-fears-came-close-to-freezing-air-route-20110831-1jm4y.html)

Safety fears came close to freezing air route
Dylan Welch September 1, 2011

THE United States was so concerned about the state of Australia's air safety system in 2009 that it considered freezing flights from Australia to the US, a downgrade that normally only affects countries from the developing world.

The revelation, in a US State Department cable released this week by WikiLeaks, discussed a recent safety inspection by the US's Federal Aviation Authority, which audits countries whose carriers fly to the United States to ensure they meet appropriate safety standards.

In the cable, from December 2009, it is revealed the FAA told Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority that Australia could face a downgrade to ''Category 2'' due to a shortage of properly trained safety inspectors and too much delegation of CASA's regulatory function to carriers.
Advertisement: Story continues below

A Category 2 rating suggests the FAA believed the country's safety regime does not meet international standards. It is a category mainly used for countries in the developing world.

''A downgrade to Category 2 would be the worst-case scenario, which would entail measures such as freezing Australia-US flight operations to current levels and terminating code-sharing arrangements, such as the one between Qantas and American Airlines,'' the cable stated.

''CASA officials are not taking this possibility lightly and seem committed to resolve the shortcomings in order to avoid a downgrade.''

The findings resulted from a five-day safety audit by the FAA in late 2009, which found ''significant shortcomings'' in CASA's maintenance of the Australian aviation regulatory system.

CASA has been criticised for delegating too much of its regulatory obligations to the flight carriers in the past and the FAA audit may have been the last straw.

In the 2010 budget, the government announced a large funding increase for CASA.

The FAA audit may also help explain why CASA was so severe when cracking down on Tiger earlier this year.

Read more: Safety fears came close to freezing air route (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/safety-fears-came-close-to-freezing-air-route-20110831-1jm4y.html#ixzz1WegHuDaD)


So much for 'world's best practice':hmm:

[adsyj]

I hope that this issue is (or has been) given due regard by the Government. I have not been involved in GA for quite sometime and notice from reading various posts on this forum relating to CASA and GA nobody seems happy on either side.

As an airline pilot I must trust in my management that they are doing the right thing. Given my airlines management I feel uncomfortable about the amount of delegation given by CASA to the airline. I don't profess to understand the nuances of CASA and its regulation of Australian Airlines, nor do I understand FAA.

What I would like is for the Government to ensure that one of its own departments is doing its job properly and without hinderance or outside influence. Increase the budget, hire qualified and professional persons and ensure that Australian Aviation is safe at all levels. It is better to be proactive than reactive.

[gobbledock]

So much for 'world's best practice'http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif 'World's best practise' is a simple term itself. It is broad and generic, hence when the Regulator uses the term you can't actually pin them down to a specific practise or process. It's an easy play on words and another example of bureaucratic malaise and an accountabilty evading tactic.
Surely there is enough evidence becoming aparent to warrant a thorough disection by Senator Xenaphon?
Paul Phelan always has some great 'nuggets of truth' about this mob, might be time for some 'robust' mainline media attention?

adsyj, The issue with what you say is this - The government is part of the problem. They and the Regulator are intertwined and both feed of each other in the same truth covering fashion. CASA is the offspring of the government which is it's host. The only way to crack open this nut is to use an independant resource that cannot and will not be swayed, manipulated or corrupted in any way fathomable. Under the current system asking the government to intervene is like asking a murderer to investigate his own murder,the outcome is inevitable, predictable and known before the onset of the investigation begins.

[Metro man]

What are other regulatory authorities opinions on the FAA ? The Americans have their fair share of accidents and incidents as well. Should they be Category 1 themselves ?

[Night Flight]

What a load of cr&p!
Our standards in Australia are way ahead of the standards in the US! I do training there regularly and I'm glad because it is so much easier than it is here! In-fact we have some of the strictest rules of any country in the world here. Someone at the FAA delegation must have a small man syndrome!

[gobbledock]

What are other regulatory authorities opinions on the FAA ? The Americans have their fair share of accidents and incidents as well. Should they be Category 1 themselves ?
The FAA are like anything American - they think they are the best of the best. In their case that is 'highly debatable'. However, as a regulator they have at times taken a wrap on the knuckles, restructured departments after acts of malfeasance have arisen and so forth. A little honesty is better than none.
Some lite reading as follows:

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub47.pdf (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub47.pdf)
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s305446.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s305446.htm)
http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2009/10/who%E2%80%99s-investigating-whom/ (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2009/10/who%E2%80%99s-investigating-whom/)
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub10.pdf (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/submissions/sub10.pdf)
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/329724-senate-inquiry-into-casa-13.html (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/329724-senate-inquiry-into-casa-13.html)

Just a taste and the tip of the iceberg.

[neville_nobody]

Do they have delegates in the USA? I was of the understanding that over there license renewals/flight checks/sims etc are done with FAA people not delegates which might be what the FAA's issue with CASA is.

[Jack Ranga]

I hope that this issue is (or has been) given due regard by the Government.

Yep, Like the due regard they gave the Malaysian refugee solution.

Like the due regard they gave the mining super tax.

Like the due regard they gave the re-building schools 'scheme.'

Like the arrogance & dis-respect Albanesse gave the Australians that recently protested at Parliament House.

Wouldn't know his arse was on fire til he got his finger burnt :ok:

[airsupport]

I spent some time working in the USA with an Australian registered aircraft, and while CASA may not be perfect they are miles ahead of the FAA. :ok:

On a ramp check one day the FAA inspector snagged our emergency exit path lights as being the wrong colour. :eek:

I said to him they are red, what colour do you want? :confused:

He said (honestly) but they are a different red to what we use in the USA. :rolleyes:

[adsyj]

Cracking point Jack Ranga:ok:

I agree with the other posters as well, I am not saying the FAA system is any better or worse. However it seems to me that the report does raise some very valid concerns.

I have very little faith in airline management and thus feel uncomfortable with the amount of delegation.

[Mainframe]

This seems to coincide with the scathing audit by ICAO in 2008, they (ICAO), left them a big list of things to fix to bring into compliance.

Surely everyone hasn't forgotten the ICAO audit on CASA Australia ?

http://www.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/Australia_USOAP_Final_Report_en.pdf (http://www.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/Australia_USOAP_Final_Report_en.pdf)

[SIUYA]

Mainframe...

No, a lot of us have neither forgotten that audit, nor the non-compliances with the ICAO SARPs that it identified...and which in a lot of cases STILL haven't been remedied.

Jack Ranga has really hit the nail on the head with his apt description of burnt arses and fingers! :}

But Jack, don't leave Albanese holding the can on this one - the idiot CASA Director of Aviation Safety has accountability too. :ugh:

Unfortunatley though, while that 'brace of idiots' remains in control of civil aviation here in Australia, there seems to be no prospect whatsoever for any meaningful aviation reform. :{

[RATpin]

Jack,could not agree more.

[Centaurus]

hire qualified and professional persons

CASA do hire qualified and experienced professional persons but the buggers keep on resigning ...:rolleyes:

[FlexibleResponse]

Perhaps if Australia adopted FAA or JAR Regulations (which are continually updated and amended by aviation experts) instead of trying to maintain unique and grossly antiquated "World's Best Practice" ANO's which CASA has spent over 10 years on trying to update and still can't agree on wording changes in endless meetings...

...then they might actually have some staff time left to actually conduct the job they should be doing...regulating Australian aviation safety to standards that would be able to achieve and satisfy FAA and ICAO minimum audit standards.

Sorry, it's an Australian Government Public Service department isn't it? Yes, Minister! Silly old me for broaching the subject..!

World's best practice indeed...what an embarrassment for Australian aviation...

[tail wheel]

Our standards in Australia are way ahead of the standards in the US! I do training there regularly and I'm glad because it is so much easier than it is here! In-fact we have some of the strictest rules of any country in the world here. Someone at the FAA delegation must have a small man syndrome!

That is not what the FAA Report refers to! :ugh:

The FAA report was critical of the degree of self regulation CASA has delegated to the airlines and I suspect the report may be correct in respect to Qantas.

Why do you "train there regularly and I'm glad because it is so much easier than it is here" if you believe the US standards of pilot training are sub standard vis-a-vis the Australian regulations?

ANO's which CASA has spent over 10 years on trying to update and still can't agree on wording changes in endless meetings...

That is fast for CASA, compared to the twenty three years it has been trying to re-write the Civil Aviation Regulations!

[Artificial Horizon]

Sorry guys, but CASA are appalling in just about every way. Would be a much better idea to scrap all these bizarre Australian rules and practices and choose to either adopt FAA or JAA regs as the basis for a new framework. The only people who think that the way Oz does things is the 'best' way are people who have only ever flown in Australia. :ugh:

[tail wheel]

I suspect AH is on the money! :ok:

[600ft-lb]

I thought the reason why it took forever to do anything regarding the new regulations was because CASA had to get their lawyers in to adapt penalty points for any transgressions from the new regulations ??

If it's true, I hope we're not all wondering why all of a sudden prices for basic things increased 600% overnight. Legal eagles don't come cheap.

[Kenny]

Having just returned to RPT flying in Oz, after the better part of 10 years flying RPT in America, I've come to the conclusion that;

A) We have this baffling need to make things far more difficult than they need to be, just to satisfy the Australian need to prove we're better than everyone else.

B) Not only are we no better but we're certainly no safer. Our airspace system is disaster, ATC could do with a few lessons in how jet aircraft actually work and how to sequence them efficiently and some of our regulations are simply idiotic.

We may pat ourselves on the back because we don't have as many accidents but unless you've operated in and out of places like Chicago, Atlanta, New York or Lax, it's almost impossible to appreciate how many aircraft they move around in every 24 hour period. When you have the 1000's of flights that they do every day, it doesn't take long before the law of averages kicks in.

[600ft-lb]

UNCLAS CANBERRA 001040 SENSITIVE SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR EAP/ANP, EEB/TRA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FOR ELIE NASR (INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL SUPPORT BRANCH/FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE) E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAIR (http://cablegate.mjcie.eu/tag/EAIR_0.html) AS (http://cablegate.mjcie.eu/tag/AS_0.html) SUBJECT: FAA'S UPCOMING ASSESSMENT OF AUSTRALIAN CIVIL AVIATION REF: STATE 119313 ¶ (http://cablegate.mjcie.eu/cable/2009/11/09CANBERRA1040.html#par1)1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Australian aviation authorities will release a statement on the FAA's upcoming assessment of Australia's civil aviation, which is scheduled for November 30 - December 4 (reftel). The government release will be out in the next day and could be in the press as early as Friday, November 27. Post would appreciate press guidance in case this becomes an issue. End Summary. ¶ (http://cablegate.mjcie.eu/cable/2009/11/09CANBERRA1040.html#par2)2. (SBU) Terry Farquharson, head of the host delegation from the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), alerted Econoff November 25 that the office of Minister Albanese (Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, which oversees CASA) had decided, against CASA's recommendation, to carry out a press release regarding the upcoming FAA assessment. In the coming day, CASA will post the statement (a draft of which Farquharson read to Econoff) on its website and will conduct an interview with a reporter, with a strong possibility that an article may appear in the aviation section of "The Australian" newspaper's Friday edition. It should be noted that the draft release did not contain anything controversial and points out that the assessment visit is being conducted at the request of CASA. ¶ (http://cablegate.mjcie.eu/cable/2009/11/09CANBERRA1040.html#par3)3. (SBU) CASA's view is that the press exposure may unnecessarily complicate the conduct of the assessment, given that at its core, the assessment is an attempt to clear the record from a previous audit in which several shortcoming were identified (see reftel). The Ministry's office preferred to carry out the release for the sake of transparency and in order to preempt after-the-fact questioning of what the Minister knew or did not know prior to the FAA teams arrival. ¶ (http://cablegate.mjcie.eu/cable/2009/11/09CANBERRA1040.html#par4)4. (SBU) Comment: We are in close contact with both FAA and CASA and are facilitating final coordination of the visit. We do not anticipate this media release will become a problem, but do expect questions from the press. We would appreciate press guidance from the Department and/or FAA. BLEICH

more wikileaks

[27/09]

Would be a much better idea to scrap all these bizarre Australian rules and practices and choose to either adopt FAA or JAA regs as the basis for a new framework.

Or perhaps in the true sense of ANZAC co-operation and TTMRA and all that jazz adopt the NZ rules which I understand have been the basis of several other foreign Civil Aviation Regulations. :hmm:

[Artificial Horizon]

Totally agree, the NZ regs work in quite well with the FAA structure as well.

[PA39]

The FAA are hypocrites and should clean up there own backyard first. :*

[gobbledock]

600ft-lb,
Nice post. Good to see the spin doctors hard at work?

[grip-pipe]

Yep its all good!:mad:

[aroa]

What ...! adopt their regs.??? :ok:

Have you no consideration for the thousands of breadwinners of ozzie battling families that have been on a gravy train for the last 2 decades, working their backsides off to produce thousand of regs in the re-write of the rewrite of the complex, confusing and convoluted CARs CAOs etc, that protect us all from falling aeroplanes.?
Oh yr inhumanity ! Oh the safety of it all.!

And of course we would get the truth, and nothing but the truth re the FAA audit from him of the " (no) ethics & (mis) conduct committee", one T Farkwhison..! :mad:

Sorry,...I must be wrong.... a pig just flew past the window.

[fdr]

What are other regulatory authorities opinions on the FAA ? The Americans have their fair share of accidents and incidents as well. Should they be Category 1 themselves ?

Hmmm...

remember Alaskan 261? the one where the engineer blew the whistle to the FAA before the accident, and was sacked by Alaskan, and disregarded by the FAA? 88 Dead. Slap on wrist for Alaskan, and the engineer is still out of a job for showing the FAA the falsification of records.

There is a fine line for the "correct" level of delegation... one side is the bean counter, the other is inadequate oversight, for which the FAA is hardly in a position to be throwing stones at others... "Colgan" anyone? The industry is being dismantled by the current Dereg ver3.0, and the outcome is not pretty. Bitching about other parties standards hardly raises the USA's own bar.

[grip-pipe]

The wikileaks cable, if correct, record that the Deputy Director of CASA Farquharson was opining (complaining) to the US Econoff of the Embassy re the FAA visit that the Minister wanted a press release and they did not.

Great, so here we have an appointed official effectively running down the Minister's Office and his decision to foreign officials (read suck up) and how it would complicate CASA keeping things quiet.

Also fascinating is the lack of discretion of the officer concerned in reading out the proposed press release to the US Embassy.

Just wonderful, these people are really have no idea of what they are doing or of diplomatic niceties and appear now to publicly be an unaccountable law unto themselves, bet they were kissing the Ministers rear end when they had meetings with him.

[Long Bay Mauler]

It is also prudent to remember that FAA inspectors have far more flexibility and muscle in withdrawing & downgrading ratings and approvals to foreign operators and countries. In the USA, the FAA inspectors generally are not allowed to shut down airlines or maintenance organisations due to excessive interference from government officials and Senators who are lobbied hard from the said airlines and MRO's.

[LeadSled]

What are other regulatory authorities opinions on the FAA ? The Americans have their fair share of accidents and incidents as well. Should they be Category 1 themselves ? Metro,
Ever heard of statistics? Obviously not with a comment like that!. Statistically speaking, Australian airline aviation is so small as to be almost, but not quite, statistically irrelevant.

Indeed, so small that the loss of a single B737 would put us, statistically speaking, on the same footing as Africa as a region.

What a load of cr&p! Our standards in Australia are way ahead of the standards in the US! I do training there regularly and I'm glad because it is so much easier than it is here! In-fact we have some of the strictest rules of any country in the world here. Someone at the FAA delegation must have a small man syndrome!

The FAA are hypocrites and should clean up there own backyard first. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gifThere speaks the true voices of ignorance.

Night Flight, PA 39, et al,

Have you ever considered what "standards" mean ---- a target that is a means to an end ---- in this case, better air safety outcomes.

What do "strictest" rules actually mean, in terms of producing air safety outcomes ---- clearly not much, see below.

Night Flight, you confuse Australia's impenetrable regulations, and completely anal approach to regulations, a ratbag examination system and crazy unpredictable ever shifting sands compliance assessments ----- for their own sake, and not the resultant air safety outcomes.

Or perhaps you equate the volume ( or word count) of regulations as a measure of the "height" of a standard ----- all the Australian rules, piled on top of each other, will certainly be higher than the FAA rules, by a factor of about 5!!

Or, perhaps, that Australian rules are written to a Criminal Law standard, a "much higher standard", none of that mushy civil law stuff ---- as a previous CASA senior legal person one said --- with plenty of witnesses --- "Pilots and engineers are just criminal who haven't been caught yet".

Nobody would ever claim the FAA as even near perfect, but as an aviation regulator, they are way ahead of whoever is in second place ---- based on air safety outcomes ---- and isn't that the intent.

Or perhaps you think this is not the role of an air safety regulator --- I certainly know that the passengers with their bums in seats think this is the role of the air safety regulator.

Or maybe you think that present CASA campaigns, that are seeing increasing actions to eliminate the seats for bums to travel in ( apparently describes as enhanced compliance, whatever that means), as the way to go in improving air safety outcomes ---- no flying means no flying accidents.

Now to get to some facts, as oppose to the more common Australian rose tinted glasses approach to air safety outcomes.

About ten years ago, a major comparative study of Australia's long term safety record v. US and various European countries. This was a study independent of CASA, ATSB and the Department of (then) Transport and Regional Services. Those responsible for the report were acknowledged and highly qualified to do the job.

The then Minister, John Anderson, who received the report personally, had it verified as correct by the US NTSB. The NTSB verified the methodology, data (which was all public data) and the conclusions.

All definitions of accident and incident strictly followed ICAO definitions -- not something, of which Australia can be accused --- in the PR, anyway, where we very carefully selectively quote ---- delicately excluding all the fatal accidents from the "selected" statistics.

The only thing that has changed in Australia since that study, is a minor reduction in accident rates for private and business aviation, because of the major reduction in private and low end business hours, and the (relative) expansion of the top end of GA.

None of the above "improvements" in the intervening time have been the results of any positive programs from CASA, or the exponentially expanding volume of regulations.

Without going into detail, Australian GA accident rates were double US.

The Australian airline accident rate was over three (3) times the US accident rate.

Indeed, the US accident rate was far and away better than any other country or region.

For those of you who choose to question this, go do your own homework, the information is all there.

For those of you who will reject outright what I have said as fact (not opinion, fact), I would suggest, if you are a pilot or an engineer, that you are part of the problem.

For all it's faults, the FAA does seem to be able to look at the cause of accidents, and actually take action that has some reasonable prospect of a satisfactory outcome ----- in contrast to the "Australian Way", more regulations and another paperwork "crackdown".

Thirty years ago (and remember the FAA only came into being in 1957) FAA safety stats. and Australia were on a par. All these years later, the US improvements, in every sector, are there for all to see.

In the same time , Australia has made little statistically relevant progress ----- and as we examine every Australian accident (whether it has been investigated in detail or not) we see the same old same old, we are very slow learners.

The last ICAO audit found much the same as the 1999 ICAO audit, the last FAA audit actually found a deterioration over previous FAA audits of Australia.

So much for Australia having "way ahead" standards.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The one single area of air safety outcomes where Australia actually does very well, and better than US, is in Gliding ---- which, as we all know, is self administering to standards largely developed by GFA, and approved by CASA.

[gobbledock]

The wikileaks cable, if correct, record that the Deputy Director of CASA Farquharson was opining (complaining) to the US Econoff of the Embassy re the FAA visit that the Minister wanted a press release and they did not.
Great, so here we have an appointed official effectively running down the Minister's Office and his decision to foreign officials (read suck up) and how it would complicate CASA keeping things quiet.
Also fascinating is the lack of discretion of the officer concerned in reading out the proposed press release to the US Embassy.
Just wonderful, these people are really have no idea of what they are doing or of diplomatic niceties and appear now to publicly be an unaccountable law unto themselves Indeed very interesting. Shows up a couple of things really. Albanese is a nupty who only knows how to keep his snout buried in the trough, so he would be clueless as to what is going on in aviation around him. Second point is that it proves conclusively that CASA do as they please, weild unlimited power and certainly the individuals who have been there for decades have outlived many government ministers and know how the system works, very dangerous. I've been around long enough to have seen these very same 'individuals' pull the wool over the eyes of the likes of Smith, Anderson, Byron, Skull and Albanese.......sorry boys, you were duped many times and wore the brunt of some of your underlings craftiness! Ha.

[RATpin]

LeadSled,thank you for a most lucid overview.
gobbledock,spot on IMHO.

[ozaub]

LeadSled et al; speaking of facts the ICAO audit report on FAA is at http://www.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/USA_CSA_Final_Report.pdf.
Like the report on CASA at http://www.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/Australia_USOAP_Final_Report_en.pdf it provides at Appendix 2 a concise summary of "Lack of Effective Implementation" of ICAO SARPs. Yes USA beats Australia by a large margin but both are far, far better than the global average. Global average "Lack of Effective Implementation" is 42%, CASA is 16% and FAA is 9%.
So in most of the world be fearful! Though hopefully the situation has improved since the 2007/8 audits.
I hold no brief for CASA but before the US could rightfully downgrade Australia and impose onerous restrictions on our airlines, US would have to penalize many other States.

[LeadSled]

ozaub,

As you probably know, FAA mainly looks at how well an NAA oversights operators, particularly international operations. That's a simplification, but you get the drift.

In short, a rather practical assessment of the effectiveness of the NAA in doing its job. In the last audit FAA found gaps in CASA that surprised even me, and I am hard to surprise in these areas.

CASA, to its credit, has tried to plug some of these surveillance gaps, some first class people have been recruited ( as has always been the case), but the huge problem is retention of said good (ie: experienced and competent) people, who all too soon get sick and tired of butting heads with the long term "custodians of the CASA culture", usually ex-military people of little or no civil experience, or others unemployable outside of the CASA sheltered workshop.

The "mass" of CASA is a real dead weight, in every meaning of the phrase. As an aside, it is instructive to have a look in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library, at a study of all the inquiries into CASA and it's predecessors in the last twenty five of so years ---- and the volume of damning findings ----- and yet how little ever changes ---- that's what I mean by dead weight.

Ministers come and go, good and bad, Directors come and go, but the dead weights always remain.

An FAA audit is somewhat different to an ICAO audit, but particularly taken together, they tell you a lot about an NAA, and indirectly, about the "culture" prevailing in the local "industry".

In Australia's case, it largely shows culture of complacency ( We are the world leaders in air safety ---- when we are very clearly anything but!!) and a resistance to change ---- because we are so good, why do we need to change.

This is not just CASA, CASA is a reflection of the overall "culture" of the Australian aviation sector ---- including competence or otherwise

As a matter of interest, the previous FAA audit was triggered after a raft of draft regulations were publicly aired, the FAA reaction was that any organisation that produced draft regulation of that nature could not be a competent organisation.

A scoresheet of ICAO "compliance" doesn't tell you much, unless you look very carefully at how often "compliance" is achieved, by actually complying, or filing a difference with ICAO. Even so, for a so called developed nation, Australia's level of compliance was pretty shocking. Averages are like a bikini, what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital.

FAA actually have a set of ICAO compliant "model rules" for anybody country to pick up, an interesting comparison is the difference between the FAA model rules and the FARs ---- in part brought about by the fact that FAA has a somewhat different approach to ICAO --- graduated to the risk, not one size fits all, and in part from regulatory inertial, rules are not static, but the state of reform always lags the need for reform.

FAA seem to see little point in "nominal" ICAO compliance, hence the "nominal" 9%, but the US air safety outcomes speak louder than bureaucratic compliance. There is nothing much "outcome" based in the ICAO approach ---- but at least it is a bit more up to date than the Australian approach to an ever finer grain of regulation ---- with the fond but vain hope that "compliance" will equal "air safety".

It hasn't, won't and never will. Remember the German Colonel in "Those Wonderful Men and Their Flying Machines".

The FAA program to re-write FAR 23 will be "interesting", the "new" FAA Part 91 is already looking a bit in need of a spring clean ---- but FAA moves like lightening, compared to Australia, when it come to any reform - as in change for change's sake, let alone real reform.

As a matter of interest, Nigeria is now back to FAA Cat. 1, so Australian "maintaining" its rating, after much serious post audit negotiation and diplomatic representation, is hardly a big achievement. In Nigerian, it was and is a huge achievement, all credit to the ICAO team lead by Mike Smith, a former Assistant Director, Safety Promotion, at CASA.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I gather G.Habor, Esq. is no longer working for CASA --- discuss.

[aroa]

Again, ads in todays "Australian" looking for yet more !! CASA staff proclaim....

..."world leading organisation"....

CASA is a GBE...should it be refered to the ACCC for 'continuous and blatantly misleading' advertising.?

THEY might think there's an increase in brightness when they bend over....but in the shadows of GA, we know better.

The dead hand of CASA is no leading light, that is ICAO and FAA fact.!

[Sunfish]

Maybe there is a God?

[Kharon]

But only with smoke mirrors and a great deal of outside help. They managed to win an award for the 'crash comic' but, in the real world, everyone knows CASA need, and well deserve a downgrade.

PNG, streets ahead with IACO compliance, in the ability of their management, the integrity of their system, the expertise of the CASA PNG crew, not even a whiff of downgrade there, quite the reverse. They managed a transition to world class regulation and outcome based logic. Despitethe inherent difficulties.

NZ, God love it, same same; no hint of mendacity, lack of expertise, systemic corruption or spin required to justify their well founded pride in managing, within a limited budget and time frame to provide the industry they are obliged to foster and manage with a first class system. Go the All Blacks in the World cup.

The Philippines have some of the most highly accredited maintenance operations, Indonesia seems to manage, without too much fuss to hold their heads up. The list is almost endless

What has Australia got. You all know the answer guys. Shame, shame, shame. :ugh:


Selah.

[actus reus]

Oh yeah, NZ have got it hacked. Check the full AOG 2010 report on the CAA website.


"The environment in which the CAA operates has not changed significantly in the last five years, and our 2005 recommendations remain relevant. The CAA's weaknesses that we have previously identified remain. These weaknesses affect the rigour, consistency, and transparency of regulation. They include:

Decisions to certify some operators, despite their non-compliance with the Civil Aviation Rules, are not supported by enough evidence to verify the discretion exercised. For example, the CAA told an operator that it "did not meet the requirements for recertification, and to qualify for recertification a major overhaul of the company was needed". However, a week after the operator prepared a plan to address the CAA's main concerns, the CAA issued a six-and-a-half month certificate to the operator. My staff were not able to find evidence on file of the CAA's reasoning and judgement that the operator had the resources and capability to comply with the Civil Aviation Rules at the time that the certificate was issued. In my view, there had not been enough time for the operator to overhaul its organisation and it is doubtful that the operator met the requirements for certification.
The depth of work completed before certifying operators is not adequately documented.
Surveillance is not always targeted at higher-risk operators. My staff found that the General Aviation Group had increased the frequency of audits in response to the operator's higher risk profile for only half of the highest-risk operators that we reviewed. Some operators remained on an annual audit cycle despite their high risk profiles.
Instances of non-compliance found by CAA auditors are not consistently reported and followed up. For example, a general aviation operator had used the main rotor blade of a helicopter for more than 20 hours beyond its airworthiness limit. The CAA auditor did not issue a finding for this non-compliance with the Civil Aviation Rules. In addition, my staff were also concerned to note that only one of 13 critical findings identified during 2008/09 was addressed by the relevant operator and accepted as addressed by the CAA by the due date.
In my view, the CAA has failed to understand and effectively address the underlying causes of the weaknesses in its certification and surveillance work. I consider that the following factors have contributed to the CAA's inadequate response:

Governance of, and accountability for, the CAA's certification and surveillance functions are ineffective.
The strength of the CAA's regulatory focus is unclear, and there is insufficient guidance to ensure that regulatory responses are appropriately and consistently applied.
The CAA's management practices are not focused on improving staff performance, and it has not been receptive to change.
The CAA's management oversight of implementing and using the new certification and surveillance processes is inadequate.
The CAA has not given enough attention to improving its organisational proficiency in auditing.
Our latest recommendations flow from these observations and should enable the CAA to make the necessary improvements to strengthen its certification and surveillance work.

I am pleased that the Chairman of the CAA's Board has accepted the recommendations in this report, and is committed to ensuring that the CAA addresses them. The CAA has also provided us with a description of the actions that it is taking in response to our recommendations (see Appendix 7) and a project overview that sets out the time frame for carrying out those actions (see Appendix 8). The Chairman has arranged monitoring of, and reporting on, the CAA's implementation of our recommendations and those resulting from recent internal reviews conducted by the CAA (see Appendix 9).

I note that, in the past, the CAA has given my predecessors similar commitments and that the necessary improvements have still not been carried out. I therefore consider that the responsibility for ensuring that the CAA takes the appropriate action will require closer monitoring and follow-up than my Office can provide.

I recommend that the Ministry of Transport, as part of its ongoing monitoring of the CAA, focus specifically on the CAA's progress in addressing the changes that we recommend. I am looking to the Board and the Ministry of Transport to provide assurance that real change has taken place."

And lets not forget that the NZ CAA charge operators for routine surveillance.

[flyingfiend]

I have watched this site for many years and I think I can stand some of this stuff for no longer.
Actus,
You are on the money. Lets not forget about the great kiwi bogus helicopter parts debacle from some years ago. Unfortunately, people got killed and it is little comfort that an operator got jail time.
The FAA have just announced a rewrite of FAR 23 with more to come. Where will our kiwi friends go now?

Much talk that the NZ regs are in desperate need of an update

Aroa,
If you bother to look at the oz government website you will see that CASA is not a government business enterprise (GBE) at all. It is an independent statutory authority. Airservices Australia is a GBE which will explain why their new charges are being reviewed by the ACCC. CASA's charges go through parliament which you can make an input to (as some have) rather than just rave on.

Unfortunately mate, your posts are always full of vitriol and little fact.

[thorn bird]

Flying Fiend??..hmm..guess the "handle" says it all.
Regardless of the semantics of exactly what CASA is, or isnt
one fact still remains, its a corrupt organisation, who's level
of competence, or should I say Incompetence raises eyebrows
around the world, bit of an embarressment actually.

[fencehopper]

Spot on Thorn Bird. world's laughing at us

[aroa]

Fiendish... I stand corrected then... but CASA used to be a GBE, when they started charging... And I'll have to get on to the Aust Public Service commission who advised me that CASA was as, and the CASA crims dont come under 'their' code of conduct... as one would think, with CASA persons claiming to be Fed (self) servants. But CASA has a joke "code" of its own.... any criminal provisions included??.. or is protection from the (No) Ethics and (Mis) Conduct Committee (sic- very sick) just a given. See the SS senate 'spray'

As a CASA victim, I will continue to pour scorn and vitriol on a truly corrupt and immoral organisation, that is grossly detrimental to the industry that it is supposed to "serve"... at a collossal cost to the taxpayer for so little gain.

And headed up by people who, in for the taxpayer-tit life style, couldnt and dont, give a flying fcuk for the progress and development of GA.

I will be most happy to modify my thinking when CASA shows moral fortitude, integrity, consistency and honesty in its dealings with its 'clients'.... and produces a practical, understandable set of proper SAFETY regulations with civil penalties, as per Govt requirements. And pigs might fly.

As for submissions.. I will be sending a set of horror stories to the next Senate hearing regarding acts by CASA persons that should have put them in jail.!

I will supply FACTS ..... not as CASA does... FALSE SWORN statements, purporting to be "facts" just because they think they can do someone over.... and get away with it. Drunk with " the power", some of these bastards.

And yes, there are many good people in CASA, it's just that they can't or don't get the opprtunity to give the place some credibility and integrity.

Until then, I will continue to speak up, as is my right,.. in this supposely democratic....sorry, bureaucratic country.

[Frank Arouet]

Unfortunately mate, your posts are always full of vitriol and little fact.

As just another victim of CASA I doubt anybody who has any idea of our identities would claim such perceived "moral high ground". You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the arse. And damn you unless you can donate $140,000 to my CASA induced losses?

Can't do it? Don't want to? No?..... Then you have no standing of equal credibility let alone make quotes in support of a corrupt and cavalier enterprise by whatever definition that is helping this Country become the laughing stock of the Planet.

And a pox on you too.

[gobbledock]

But CASA has a joke "code" of its own.... any criminal provisions included??.. or is protection from the (No) Ethics and (Mis) Conduct Committee (sic- very sick) just a given. Individual employee's at Fort Fumble are fully protected from external legal action no matter what they do. Why do you think they are so arrogant and cock sure of their actions even when those actions cross the boundaries of what is morally correct, ethical and legal? It's a win win situation for CASA employee's and the taxpayer will always pick up the tab for any litigation levelled against employee's, an endless supply of YOUR money being used.
Again, it comes down to CASA NOT having any accountablity, simple fact.

And that is always going to foster an environment where certain individuals do/act/say whatever they please becasue they are protected from any recourse. If Senator Xenaphon wants to put this beast back in it's cage then he may want to target CASA's reporting structure and accountablity (or lack of ) and introduce measures where they are monitored, scrutinized and held accountable for all of their actions, not just answering yearly to limp wristed senate estimates whom they have been fooling for decades.

[tail wheel]

PS: I gather G.Habor, Esq. is no longer working for CASA --- discuss.

Yeeeesssss! Nothing on CASA's web site but the name appears to have disappeared? :ok:

Perhaps there is hope..... :E

[Frank Arouet]

Gone but not forgotten obviously.

The CASA "mentoring" system guarantees clones.

Bring on the clones.:mad:

[gobbledock]

PS: I gather G.Habor, Esq. is no longer working for CASA --- discuss
Perhaps gone back to Toyota? 'oh no what a bad feeling' !! At the end of the day 'the toecutter' got his own toes clipped. What goes around comes around.

Yeeeesssss! Nothing on CASA's web site but the name appears to have disappeared? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif Just like 22 years of regulatory reform and tens of millions of dollars worth of 'projects' that have never been finished - disapeared into a black hole.

Perhaps there is hope..... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif Hope, yes. Likelihood of change? I severely doubt it. The trough is overflowing and those lining up for a feed from the trough form a line all the way to Parliament House.

The CASA "mentoring" system guarantees clones. It is the only system they have that works, mentoring underlings or hiring mates on juicy fat pay packets to learn from the Masters of trough dwelling.

[grip-pipe]

As an interesting exercise and a back of the envelope of the arithmetic of Reg change in OZ; lets see, 63 Parts to be implemented in total, 41 done so far, but of those about 10-15 under review so lets call it 26 done. At current progress that is about one and half a year. 22 still to come, that is about 14 years, so we can expect a full suite of new regulations to come into force and be completed in - YEP 2025. Aviation in OZ will be a distant memory for most of us by then, including the players.:*

[gobbledock]

Grip-pipe, I think you are being a little eager with your educated guess, the year 2025? I don't think the bumbling ninnies in management are capable of reaching a 'goal' or 'target', ever! Then again they certainly expect industry to have goals, targets, milestones blah blah blah. The longer it tales for them to reform anything means the longer that management get to keep their snouts in the trough, draw tasty exec salaries of between 250k and 380k, yearly bonuses, business class international travel, 5 star accommodation and other well padded treats.
Senator Xenaphon needs to bust open the beehive and scrape out all their honey. The best way to pull these bloated bureaucrats into line is chop off their bonuses and perks, slice back their remuneration packages, implement a specific and measurable timeline for projects, reform etc and hold them accountable implicitly because the reality is that there currently is no motivation, need, requirement or care in the world for how they manage and oversight Australian aviation because nobody and I mean nobody has any control over the beast, especially the Minister For Bad Teeth.

[aroa]

gobbledock.... well said. I second that.!

[Captain Sand Dune]

Would help if we had a Minister of actually gave a fcuk about aviation. Then perhaps that Minister would impose a HARD deadline on CASA, with penalties on their remuneration if they didn't deliver on time.
Yeah, yeah....I'm dreamin'!

[flyingfiend]

Frank,
Interesting reply. I would have responded a bit quicker but I am in a country that really does need reliable broadband.
So,
You lost $140,000? Well, if you are a real business man, you would have gone to the AAT or the Federal Court. Don't say ' I could not afford to go to...'. The AAT costs someone who goes there about $1000.

Costs of course are recoverable from the Court system. $1000 is not a lot of money compared to $140,000, is it? The only conclusion I can come to is that you either didn't try either of your legal options, or that you DID and you lost. Which is it?

Or maybe you just like venting your spleen to anyone, like me, who will listen.

But what happened to the 'Large Scale Multi-party Class Action' against CASA? Oh, I know, you weren't involved. It was a 'sticky' on Prune for some time but now it is gone. I wonder why.

Or another one, the total destruction of CASA and Far.......n; in Western Australia remember? We, and I will admit the 'we' includes me as I have no part in any side here, were eagerly awaiting the outcome.

Well it has NOT been reported on Prune but there is a full bench Federal Court decision on the court website (I won't give you the link; it will be more fun for you to find it and read it yourself) where the court tears Mr Repac...i and his barrister a 'new one'. Totally thrown out after, as the court says 11 or 13 times R has tried to get it up.

I will only mention one very funny statement from the court to the brief who represented R; something very close to;
'the only reason this action has been going so long is because your client has deep pockets and is prepared to waste public money'. As I said, that is not a direct quote but you will read it yourself as the court lamblasts Mr R's barrister and him.

End result? There will be no destruction of CASA or Far.....n. The court just wanted evidence and they said there was none and there never had been any. As an aside, I do not think any barrister will take this on again as the judgment to dismiss is so emphatic that if this was to come to court again, the costs could be awarded against the brief, not as in this decision where, of course, the costs were awarded to CASA against Repa...

Of course, we haven't heard from the person who is 'tired' of CASA for some time. You know, the guy/ girl with the long diatribes?

Only two points:
1. I wonder if he/ she has heard the rumour that the Australian Federal Police are looking at the postings? Just a rumour but as many people have found out to their detriment, most people are traceable regardless of how well they try to hide, and

2. what happened to the 'no confidence' motion the staff at CASA were supposed to be preparing against the boss of CASA?

This is a bit unfair to ask you as you did not post any of it but the 5 or 6 of you guys who always see the glass 'half empty' generally seem to fire each other up so I was wondering if you had heard?

Any way, I will stand by for incoming.

By the way, thank you for the medieval curse. You crack me up.

Damn, I nearly forgot, the good Sen X's report recommends two things that CASA should do:

1. CASA should have more funding, and
2. CASA should expedite the introduction of Parts 141 and 142.

Given the current make up of the Senate, it will be interesting to see how much relevance any independant senator has now. Just a thought.

[Cactusjack]

Frank,
Interesting reply. I would have responded a bit quicker but I am in a country that really does need reliable broadband.

Frank/flyingfiend, you boys been flying around Thailand ? Its just that you mention unreliable broadband and pox in almost the same sentence.

[Sunfish]

Flyingfiend, I think you will find that where there is smoke there is fire.

It appears that there have been rather serious amounts of smoke around the regulator for some considerable time.

To put that another way; there has been a consistent string of allegations made about the behaviour of CASA by a wide variety of people over many years and the allegations they make are serious.

Then there is the record of the behaviour of CASA as a litigator which generated enough cause for concern that CASA had to pledge to become a "model litigator" in future.

While my own, infrequent, interactions with CASA have been perfectly pleasant and ordinary, it appears that a case can be made that all is not right there.

To put it another way, I don't think you can dismiss criticism of CASA as the mere rambling of the bitter and twisted......

P.S. I liked your implied threat of Federal Police Action.

[aroa]

CASA well may have pledged to be a model litigant, but that doesnt mean they will honour the obligation.
Inter-department bs speak with the side- lip twist, nudge and nod, more like.!

Case : $8K out of pocket because AWIs LIED. Ask CASA to reimburse. Told twice to nick off, we deny liability. April 2011.. Request AGs office to require CASA to fulfill their model litigant obligations. One would think that would be a very simple request... but no.? que ? NIL result yet as of this date.
Is the AG 'action man' or just a mouth?

AAT. From what Ive read their hearings dont apportion costs, you have the expense of a court case for that.

As for the AFP, I am sure they do some very good things amongst the debacles of "terrorist" sim cards ( with a bit of political jiggery-pokery thrown in) 18 Mill $ was it??... yet they dont have the staff and resources to deal with the recommendations of TWO investigation into CASA persons buggery.
Blew that on bike repairs, and a jolly in Israel, did they?
Or the gross offences against just one citizen doesnt cut the mustard.?

" The prompt resolution of offences,..is one of the core functions of Government.
Failure to do so, undermines the capacity of Government to maintain a stable, peaceful and equitable society
Adverse treatment by public official and NO natural justice undermines the states capability of looking after its citizens."
"...as for ...Public officials who violate national criminal laws... the victims should receive restitution from the state, who's officials were responsible for the harm."

And that state is the CASA Soviet. :mad:

After 4 years of jumping thru the hoops, and feeling a much less stable, peaceful and equitable citizen, it has to be " hi ho, hi ho.. off to court we go.!"

We'll see if the individuals concerned like it when it comes out of THEIR pockets! :eek:

[Frank Arouet]

You lost $140,000? Well, if you are a real business man

Who said I was a business man? Seems you don't appreciate the concept of "soft target" and why CASA attack people who don't have the means to spend the last cent in the Taxpayers purse to pursue action against them as they do.

As for the AAT, (which I have difficulty spelling), I believe that is just another hoop to jump through and has a predictable outcome. (No, I'm not a fortune teller as you are).

The large scale multi action was disbanded as "YOU" well know and if you PM me I'll give you my opinions about organisations that suck the guts out of all the potential Litagents then, disclose their fees after diseminating all the contents to their left wing mates who may have an interest in protecting political interests.

I note you don't have the guts to name one person except by a Mr Repac...i

However you do temper that with a similar and Far.......n

If it's in the public domain, I challenge you to use the full names so we can judge who is more credible by way of previous history. If you don't I may. (Bloody ambulance chasers).

BTW: Can you notice any warts growing yet? :hmm: I like to keep abreast of my curses.:)

[flyingfiend]

Frank,
No warts yet but thank you for asking.

Cactus,
I am not in BKK but I wish I was! ( Avoiding the 'curse' of course)

Aroa,
I must apologize but your posting is encased in too much 'code' for me. Are you saying that CASA twice dismissed your complaints of some sort of misfeasance by CASA officers?

If so, please see above reference the AAT or the Federal Court.
However, as I have little idea of what your real issues are, it seems to me that the AFP is the first place to go.

Have you done that? Hmmm, I bet you have and THEY told you to go away. Is that right?

For those who want to read the full Federal Court decision re Repacholi and CASA, the link is now posted on the other D&G site.
FF

[grip-pipe]

FlyingFiend makes some interesting points, your not by the way a CASA officer using a pseudonym whilst on an overseas jaunt so you can't be pinged are you my friend? irregardless lets deal with the facts.

1. The regulatory reform program is a public disgrace in terms of the expenditure of resources and failure to achieve outcomes. The politicians namely the Minister(s) (take your pick they all have paid no heed to outcomes) are responsible but have never taken any responsibility. There in lies problem number one, no political leadership, interest or close attention.

2. The organisation itself is the outcome of two decades of misdirected and failed organisational change programs. The organisation has had numerous CEO's, various corporate governance changes and endless management and staff changes. This clearly shows that nobody actually knew what they were doing and why and those that did or wanted to do something or cared have gone, who cares about the reasons why but they are obvious to any reasonable person. From the Minister down they were and are clueless bar a few standout exceptions. The remnant staff are economic conscripts with no where else to go or like all the other recruited staff over time recognised that they seem to have not been thinking clearly before they signed up.

3. Without a clear set of workable rules the organisation is bound to fail and working with what they have, a cobbled together mish mash of historical rules, regulatory processes and concessions to various aviation interest groups, means they cannot achieve what they want to or need to. The provision of organisational fiat via rulings and orders continually negates the observance of regulatory outcomes and the fall back response is always the same, in the interests of safety. What is safety is not defined as the various discussions on this forum show clearly, what is or is not safe as far as aviation is not generally agreed upon except perhaps the protection of life and property from risk in very general terms. So those involved in regulating aviation and the pollies revert to cliched motherhodd statements couched in managerial weaselwords and gobbledigook. So they, the regulators, are allowed to make it up as per their perceptions or experience of what is risk and what is safe and so it goes on. Everyone it seems has an opinion on what is safety including those who investigate bad outcomes who are not part of the organisation.

4. The organisation is not answerable to or responsive to stakeholders - industry members and consumers. the organisation engages in no meaningful dialogue or conversatin with the community. Isolated and estranged it shrinks in upon itself with predictable outcomes. The CASA bashing that goes on and which represents the frustration of industry participants is understable and reasonable, where else do you go when all else seems to have failed.

5. Like all bureaucracies it has to provide for some redress via a gamut of other legislation - courts and tribunals and has accordingly written and writes rules to comply with our legal structures and precedents. That redress or attempts at obtaining redress fails does not mean the various matters or people involved had no merit or the case was not just it simply means that legal precedent and process rules first and the law and justice are not necessarily the same thing.

6. Claims against the Commonwealth for damages for negligence are notoriously far and few between and generally settled by the Commonwealth to prevent a case or legal precedent being set and opening a floodgate of lawsuits from far and wide. The actions by former members of the armed services (navy and airforce) serve as a reminder to all of the lengths the Commonwealth legal bureaucracy will go to avoid having such a legal precedent case established. All legal litigatant practitioners await a suitable case to arise to set such a precedent. There is little doubt to the outside observer that CASA has done and does engage in strategic litigation which is a legal no no but all Commonwealth and State Bureaucracies avoid being hammered for this by reason of the fact they are required by legislation to enforce the law or the rules as they stand. Lip service only is paid to the Commowealth model litigant rules or the standards of the CDPP. For reasons I have stated above CASA has no idea of what the public interest is because it engages in no meaningful communication or dialogue with the public or wider community and is incapable of doing so.

7. Issues of malfeasance or corruption in CASA will never be dealt with appropriately and you cannot have an organisation investigate itself like it presently is allowed to. There is not and probably never will be a Commonwealth organisation that can do or have the powers to investigate corruption or wrong doing at a Commonwealth level like the CJC in Queensland or the other anti-corruption bodies do in other states. The shenanigans in the Department of Defence over the years would consume such an organisation for time immemorial. The AFP has no ability and no interest in such matters unless it is dragged kicking and screaming to do it, they don't have the money, time or ability either. The Ombudsman is only able to deal with issues of administrative fairness.

8. Despite decades of promises about open government, FOI acts etc there is still no meaningful access to the public or stakeholders of information about Commonwealth administrative actions or decisions, just ask any of the media organisations who have challenged over and over again FOI decisions etc. Secrecy is the mantra of Commonwealth Administration and CASA is no different.

9. I personally don't give a fig about CASA and its shenanigans any more because like the nonsense that sprouts from Corporations and Pollies alike it is all bollocks from people who don't know what they are doing or why.

10. Otherwise it's all good.

[thorn bird]

Well said Gripe, never a truer word spoken, thank you, and to the mod's,
my apologies, its very hard to keep your anger and frustration in check,
when corruption seems so obvious to me, and it seems many others, it becomes very hard to contain your anger.

[gobbledock]

Grip-pipe, you receive 10/10 for that accurate commentary. Well done.
You and several others on here have totally outclassed that imbicile flyingfiend, he appears to be a bored naughty FOI. His comments reflect a shallow knowledge of the Regulator and also proves that he should pop out from under executive management's desks to take a look around at what is happenning in the real world, it has obviously been a long time for him since he did that.

Actually flyingfiend doen't do the Regulator any favors as his postings simply reveal that he is oblivious to his employers moral obligations and required ethical fairness, so in essence he is simply showing himself up as yet an ongoing reason as to why the Regulator needs to be overhauled, sliced apart and have its deep seated roots of incompetence and rumoured malfeasance gouged away like the cancerous tumour it is.

[flyingfiend]

Gobbledock,
I am sorry that I have been too busy to reply.

I am not supporting CASA, all I am saying is that most of the industry that reads this website is most probably amazed ( I stand to be corrected on this) at the stuff you go on with. Hell, if this is all true you should not having been sitting on your hands and moaning on and on...

And if we read the last few posts we are now supposed to believe that the FULL BENCH of the FEDERAL COURT is also part of this conspiracy to protect CASA!!

I am sorry (again!) what you guys don't see is that the industry is not laughing at CASA; it is laughing at YOU!

CASA is not perfect. But you are not helping your point of view. Most of us are only interested in getting on with our lives and our passion which is aviation. You should really solve your head one way or the other. Please do not go on with paragraphed rubbish like someone else just posted.

I am interested in flying and whatever can be done to improve aviation I am all for. YES! If there is actually something that we need to know, tell us we want to hear it.

Put up or shut up.

FF

[gobbledock]

And if we read the last few posts we are now supposed to believe that the FULL BENCH of the FEDERAL COURT is also part of this conspiracy to protect CASA!! Governments have tenticles that you could not fathom flyingfool so spare us the conspiracy theorist rhetoric. If you have ever studied politics, the Westminster system or any avenue of government controlling techniques you would realize that when a government wants to protect a minsiter, it's reputation, a department or its revenue stream it can and will do whatever it takes. And that includes Australian government.
Most of us are only interested in getting on with our lives and our passion which is aviation. You should really solve your head one way or the other. Please do not go on with paragraphed rubbish like someone else just posted. It is the right of a democracy for an individual to speak his/her thoughts so if you don't like my commentary then fukc off, most posters on here that have been burned by CASA won't particularly like your bottom dwelling comments either.
Most of us are only interested in getting on with our lives and our passion which is aviation.
The difference between you and I is that I care not for myself but for the entire aviation industry that has become an unsafe mess of an environment. If I am so wronf then why is Xenaphon on the band wagon ? Is he also just a whinger with his head up his a#s ?? I don't think so, he also see's something you don't see, nimrod.

[josephfeatherweight]

The difference between you and I is that I care not for myself but for the entire aviation industry...
Just vomited in my mouth a little at that one... A bit silly not to care for one's self - got any family to be worried about, perhaps like those who are worried for themselves? A tad over the top, eh?

[aroa]

I'm with Goobledock on this one : we, the shaftees of CASA can get beyond our troubles ( eventually, with difficulty, I know).. and as long term aviators, we GRIEVE FOR/ ARE ANGRY ABOUT/ VERY SEVERELY PISSED OFF AT the state of (our) GA Industry...which has been WHOLLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY bought about by a TOTAL flustercluck of "regulations", written by people without regard for the effects these "regs" have on individuals' rights, practical operations and the financial well being of small business... or just common sense.

All this is overseen by the bastard child of decades of neglect.. a
"bureaucracy" / statutory authority CASA, that itself, gives bureaucracy a bad name.

And all bought about by UNelected bureaurats, NOT/NEVER pulled into line by those who ARE elected, who as stated by some one elsewhere, in dealing with aviations problems are..."worth their weight in cigarette butts".

And dont even mention the oversighting ??? DOTR... or the passing parade of
"ministers*" and ceos*... none of which show any LEADERSHIP or NOUSE in having a vital and vibrant GA industry in this country.

FF asks if we say anything...? Hullo where have YOU been?

Paul Phelan and others have been publicising the wrongs for decades, others have been banging away at pollies ( not worth a cracker), and I even had the temerity to write to the incoming Allbeeneasy, pleading that his Aviation section have a GA industry-Non CASA seminar, so they/he could hear it from the industry as it REALLY is ... not some BS spin from some departmental "advisor".

I've also sent lists of practical suggestions to politicians, for ideas for change, to get things moving, but their ignorance of aviation issues and disinterest knows no bounds.

We need more democracy in this bureaucracy... regs for the people, by the people.

Governments of all persuasions keep banging on about how they believe in freedom s and our right to pursue our chosen paths etc etc, BLAH blah, bull**** blah...and dont give a fcuk if it doesnt happen.

If it keeps going as it is... there will be tears. And not just gd's for the industry.

Ahh that feels better....

[gobbledock]

Just vomited in my mouth a little at that one... A bit silly not to care for one's self - got any family to be worried about, perhaps like those who are worried for themselves? A tad over the top, eh?
I should re-phrase my comment for those more concerned with the phrasing of my words and unable to read between the lines:
Yes, I do give a **** about myself and my family and friends, and also colleagues who have believe it or not, died in aviation. I am however genuinely concerned about the industry in it's entireity - safety, sustainablity, reputation, longevity, effectivenss and quality. I rue the day we copy other thirld world flying environments and end up with a smoking hole or two on our books. So if I am a tad over the top then so be it, perhaps it is misguided concern and passion for this industry that drives me. For those whom I offend I apologise. There is nothing more gut wrenching than to have to say 'I told you so'.
Stay safe..

[josephfeatherweight]

Yep, that sounds a lot better - apologies for denigrating your intent. I agree with your sentiments and share your concerns.

Joe.

[600ft-lb]

I should re-phrase my comment for those more concerned with the phrasing of my words and unable to read between the lines:

You are probably replying to a lawyer within a government bureaucracy who needs every i dotted and t crossed for it for them to be happy. Don't waste your time replying to the leeches on society who contribute only to themselves and their mates (akin to the corporate world, funny most of them are lawyers or have legal backgrounds), the rest of us understand the situation they have had a great hand in creating is fukced.

[Up-into-the-air]

Here is the latest on an ICAO audit, this time in India.

Worth the read:

ICAO says #India (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23India&src=hash) fails at safety; #FAA (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23FAA&src=hash) should strip India’s Category 1 rating http://bit.ly/150qvLK (http://t.co/wPZrCzg6xU)Safety audit stalls global expansion of Indian airlines - Livemint (http://www.livemint.com/Politics/pBtvNF16yMqFjEzfIyTT3N/Safety-audit-stalls-global-expansion-of-Indian-airlines.html#comments_box)

Sound familiar??? (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=1901)

[T28D]

I have found a personal solution, GONE SAILING , the significant $'s I spent keeping 4 aircraft are now invested in the really pleasant offshore sailing scene, you get a lot of modern carbon fibre for the $'s I used to spend.

And low non interventionalist regulation, all covered by the International Sailing Federation ( ISAF ) and laid out in the "Blue" book $30 at you friendly Chandlery. Imagine that world wide agreed rules !!!!!!!!

General Aviation in Australia is a joke that is being mocked world wide now as the simpletons in the small country getting themselves into a world of self induced pain through senseless regulation and unchecked enforcement action.

[004wercras]

Interesting reading back over the pages of this thread. I see references to Gobbledock posts yet they are invisible? Pity. Is he really that bad? Is what he says really that concerning to the Government that his posts be pulled?

And Flyingfiend, that naughty naughty boy. His posts are preposterous. Saying he is passionate about aviation and folly of that nature. If that is truly the case, why has he gone to ground and left all the other kids out in the sandbox? Too scared after being outed?

UITA, I agree with your post. India has a much more proactive, qualified and skilled Regulator than Australia, so it begs the question as to why ICAO have pineappled them and not Australia. Doesn't matter though, CAsA will allow them to keep flying to Australia still. After all, that is where Australia's LCC's are looking to hire 'no time Cadets' from! Add into the mix a weak Australian government and a Regulator that has no testicles, no spine, no backbone and no moral compass and you have the situation we are in today.

That big hull loss has got to be just around the corner by now...

[Ngineer]

Interesting reading back over the pages of this thread.

It is. And it is good that it has been resurrected.

Although I sometimes silently disagree with the thoughts or actions of thread moderators, I think Tailwheel hits the nail on the head with a couple of his earlier posts.

For a regulator to pass the buck of monitoring safety back to a company is like trusting a child with a bag of lollies. And I am sure we all can give numerous accounts from personal experience of how it is failing. But on second thoughts, I don't know who I would trust with this vital task.

[K9P]

"Self Regulation" is an Oxymoron

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Flyingfiend post page 3
Damn, I nearly forgot, the good Sen X's report recommends two things that CASA should do:

1. CASA should have more funding, and
2. CASA should expedite the introduction of Parts 141 and 142.

Given the current make up of the Senate, it will be interesting to see how much relevance any independant senator has now. Just a thought.

Pel Air senate report and 26 recommendations? I don't think that senate team is finished yet.

Btw, has the inquiry been mentioned in the CASA Briefing?

Casaweary is also back.

[LeadSled]

"Self Regulation" is an Oxymoron

Folks,
There is only one air safety regulator, and that is CASA.

Self-Administration is something completely different, and is common in the sports and recreational aviation activities, as many of you know.

Airlines do not "self regulate" but they do have many CASA delegates amongst the employees, to carry out routine testing, it has always been thus.

The big beef for FAA was that CASA did not have enough suitable qualified FOIs to check the company Check Pilots. In the case of one type, at the time of the FAA visit, the CASA compliment of qualified FOIs was zero. Ergo, no CASA surveillance at all, that did not impress FAA one little bit.

Tootle pip!!