CASA – Words fail.

[Kharon]

Well Boys and Girls, the tip of the great southern ice berg has arrived at a bank account near you. Roll up, roll up. Pay your money and get a servicing – a good one.

Bye bye YSBK. (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/08/bye-bye-bankstown/)


Hello maintenance bill. (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/07/maintenance-mayhem-for-general-aviation/)


Enough?, but wait, there's more; much more. :ugh:http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

[weloveseaplanes]

Have just read the "hello maintenance bill" and a key question was raised in it

"can GA survive in an airline-oriented system?

Why do these regulatory muppets ignore the working engineers and pilots and seek to implement these kinds of wanton industry destruction?

[T28D]

Because they can

[jas24zzk]

Is this law yet? or only in draft form?

[Volumex]

It's law: Subpart 21.M Legislation (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012C00363/Html/Volume_1#_Toc327521565)

[Clare Prop]

When CASA closed their Jandakot office we had to pay for FOIs' time to drive from Perth. Now all the useful licensing stuff is done in Canberra and it's even worse, don't get me started on what a great "efficiency drive" that was.

So ask your MPs where Julia's fuel excise is going, including the new 5c a litre that we got on 1 July but of course aren't allowed to call Carbon Tax, the excise that was supposed to be gone when we got Location Specific Charges but is now higher than ever, is it going towards the regulator or just into the big black hole?.

[Kharon]

bilbert - Exactly. The last consultation was never acknowledged. No summary of responses. This last consultation will be ignored as well.

AMROBA, Ken K and a few others tried very hard, very hard indeed to prevent the current stew of maintenance regulations becoming law. Probably could have if the 'industry apathy' syndrome could have been disabled.

There is a raft of this type of law coming your way, right now. It is a user pays system.

We have paid in blood and money for a remodelled, reformed regulation suite.

We will pay further in terms of reduced profit against operating costs because of the revised regulations.

We will pay again through increased administrative cost to support the money making end of the operation.

We will pay again for legal opinion to ensure notional compliance, where possible, with the regulation.

We will pay again through the Tribunal and Courts to defend against varying legal opinion.

This Financially irresponsible, legally incompetent and morally bankrupt system cannot, any longer be allowed to dictate or manage the industry it is paid to serve.

The longer you leave it, the more it smells. Do something Now !!

Selah.

[hiwaytohell]

Kharon

Ken K is not the saviour you make out. In the late 90s he was the project lead in CASA for what we have today. Although not totally responsible his fingerprints are all over what came down the pipe.

He spat the dummy and had a 180 degree change and decided the outdated FAA regs were the way to go (the same regs the yanks are trying to reform themselves). He and a very small group of cronies that then formed AMROBA fought hard against the CASA reforms being led for a while by Joe Tully and later by Hondo Gratton (who both did a good job within the bounds of their responsibility).

Unfortunately the squeaky wheel got the grease (Ken's endless letters to Ministers and politicians) and CASA once it got the airline structure sorted lost interest in pursuing what was being referred to as the B3 licencing system, as well as other reforms, before they had been fully worked through.

As a result GA missed out on some pretty good ideas because it all got to hard for CASA. Hence we have a half arsed reform that GA needs to deal with today.... a lot of the blame sits with Ken K!

[dartman2]

Apart from the cost element of this, how would an already under resourced regulator cope with this huge increase in work load.

Your C210 needs a stop hole drilled which would take 5 minutes but the EO to support it is in the pile with the other 140,000 others that need to be processed. How long will that take?

We all know what will happen. There will be a massive increase in "illegal" maintenance.

[blackhand]

Your C210 needs a stop hole drilled which would take 5 minutes but the EO to support it is in the pile with the other 140,000 others that need to be processed. How long will that take?

This is not considered a mod or major repair, so is not covered by Part M

[dartman2]

According to the author of the article linked in the first post on this thread (depending on the particular aircraft) it may well be???

Refer to his "scenario 2".

[blackhand]

According to the author of the article linked in the first post on this thread (depending on the particular aircraft) it may well be???
Just spoken to two AWI's, have said this isn't the case .AC 43 13 1B is still appropriate
AC 43.13-1B - Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices - Aircraft Inspection and Repair [Large AC. This includes Change 1.] - Document Information (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/99861)

[dartman2]

Thanks Blackhand.

Did the AWI cite a reference in Australian regs that effectively allows the FAA AC to be used as an approved source?

[Creampuff]

If I had a buck for every time GA was doomed….

I’d suggest everyone read Reg 21.470 and the definition of ‘recognised country’, twice.

Then read them again.

[blackhand]

What creampuff said, reg 21.470 is our guide

[Mach E Avelli]

Make any laws or regulations too onerous and some will be even more disposed to finding ways to circumvent them, or will just plain ignore them.
I have long weighed up the cost of compliance (in non-aviation matters I hasten to add) against the likely fine if I get caught. 99.9% of the time it has worked, and on the .1% of other occasions I have quite cheerfully paid the fine, knowing that I am ahead. Every one who exceeds the speed limit is doing exactly this.
Example: A tree is a nuisance, maybe a fire hazard. But if you apply to have it cut down, the authority says it is protected. Better not to ask, because if you now go ahead and cut it down, a nasty judge could send you to jail (stupidity being a jailable offence). However, if you don't ask, and do cut it down there's a good chance no-one will give a rat's. Worse case, some greeny dobs you in. So - even with a fine - problem solved, the tree is next winter's firewood now. You win all round.
Go go ahead - stop drill that crack, fit that non-OEM part, splice that wire. Just don't ask if it's OK and don't mention it anywhere. In keeping your aeroplane airworthy you may be committing an offence, but what are the chances of CASA actually determining when or how the work was done if the defect has clearly been attended to?
The 'S' in CASA does not mean 'safety' but 'short-sighted'. Or maybe good old 'stupid'?

[Arnold E]

What percentage of faults are "written up" on GA aircraft anyway? would someone care to hazard a guess?

[LeadSled]

Blackhand,

See Instrument 515, and please all note there is no differentiation between "minor" and "major" repairs.

Instrument 515 is far more restrictive than it predecessors.

The article by Phelan is correct, those of you who seem to believe otherwise fall into two categories:

(1) Wishful thinkers, or
(2) You haven't read what Instrument 515 and Part 21M actually say, as opposed to what you think they say.

As for trying to blame Cannane and an industry association for what the present management has done to maintenance regulations is a bit rich, the "EASA rule" never had a GA set of rules, it's CASA that has discontinued the rules development for small aircraft, in favour, once again, of "one size fits all" -----

We are already seeing some horrendous costs, compared to the old system ---- in the order of ten times +, for a simple EO and Special Flight Permit (ferry permit) to move an aircraft for a minor repair.

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

If any of this is true, and not simple scare mongering, then I'm afraid that the only answer is to strike and/or demonstrate.

Politicians seem to love chartering aircraft, what if they couldn't?

A "fly in" to Canberra would also be nice, especially on a Monday morning or a Friday afternoon when Parliament is in session.

[Mach E Avelli]

I love the suggestion made elsewhere here to invoke the trans Tasman agreement. Re-register every GA commercial aircraft in NZ, get NZ pilot ticket , NZ AOC, NZ maintenance approval etc and render CASA completely irrelevant.
A bit of legwork to set it up, but ultimately not a bad idea.
Another tack( which I once used) if you are sourcing an aircraft from the USA: Have a Yank citizen remain the nominal owner and you can fly it here for as long as you like. Maybe only good for private operation, but that could be a sizable proportion of the GA fleet taken out of CASA control.
The nominal ownership thing can be done with some binding clause that allows you to purchase it at any time for a dollar.

[blackhand]

@Leadsled
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100060/casa515.pdf
I suggest you read it again,
Para 3 Approval

Cheers

[Sunfish]

The instrument is valid for a year and is an exemption.

This is simply a rotten and corrupt way to regulate anything.

Coupled with the CASA /ATSB MOU this implies that the full spectrum of aviation activity by anyone can be criminalised at any time by the application of the regs as interpreted by the CASA member at the time.

The ONLY logical outcome from the perspective of a private pilot is to avoid any and all contact, with any official from CASA, ASA and ATSB.

That means: Minimal radio calls, turning off transponders, non attendence at any aviation event that attracts CASA, for example, the Birdsville races and non reporting of any maintenance or flight related safety issue, let alone any incident reports, since under the MOU, ATSB can cause CASA to initiate an investigation.

....And as we have seen, CASA can always find an excuse to cancel a licence.


To put that another way, I have been "involved" in Three of what I would call "Incidents" by my personal standards. If CASA wanted my scalp for some reason, each of them is an offence under one or other of the catch all provisions - with strict liability.

[blackhand]

The instrument is valid for a year and is an exemption.
Jan 2012 til 31 December 2013, makes two years.
No wonder there is so much angst when there is so little comprehension of plain english

[Sunfish]

It matters not Blackie, it is an exemption, NOT A PERMISSION.

This is the simple problem with the entire cluster**** that is aviation regulation in Australia - everything is prohibited but certain acts may be exempt from this blanket prohibition.

Look no further than CASA's use of the definition of "Regular public transport" over the years to shut down a variety of charter operations...at the same time as turning a blind eye to the "Yield management" practices - cancelling scheduled flights, of Qantas and Jetstar (and perhaps Virgin too for all I know).

That is simple corruption Blackie.

[Creampuff]

It’s actually an approval, not an exemption.

You have to be able to “read”, and "read" it, to know what it is.

[Sunfish]

Creamy it says it is an "approval" - but it has conditions attached to it - its a conditional approval.

Exemption: implies freedom from a penalty or from some liability, especially one that is disagreeable or threatening.

Given CASA behaviour, that means that the onus is on the maintainer to prove that they complied with all the conditions of the approval - a neat reversal of the onus of proof and yet more money for the lawyers.

I'm skinning the ailerons today IAW the Sunfish system, some plans, some DVD Video, and not much else.

[blackhand]

Given CASA behaviour, that means that the onus is on the maintainer to prove that they complied with all the conditions of the approval - a neat reversal of the onus of proof and yet more money for the lawyers.

Not a problem for LAMEs, we can read and comprehend.

Cheers

[LeadSled]

Blackhand,
Please read both documents in their entirety, and then ask CASA (what used to be Bankstown) what they think it means, if you are an industry LAME you might be in for a bit of a shock ---- including sticker shock from CASA's swinging new charges.

I have seen it in action, have you??

Mach. E, Avelli,
Great idea re. NZ, but guess what, CASA has almost completely emasculated the original intentions of the TTMRA, as far as Australian aviation is concerned.

[blackhand]

@Leadsled
Yea mate, beats me, I have talked to two offices(not in Bankstown) and have been told keep doing the maintenance the way I have always been.
I'll ring the Bankstown office on monday and check

Cheers

[Arnold E]

What all of this says, is that nobody has a clue, so carry on as before and you cant go wrong.:hmm:

Actually if you have a look at it, (as a comparison) there are no known rules, as there is no known borders to Australia:eek:

[jas24zzk]

Very sad when the people with such a huge responsibility such as basic maintenance cannot work out the rules :ugh:


Someone said earlier, in another thread, that we are not going to win, even with inundating the politcians with 'love letters'

I tend to agree. Letters can be 'filed' appropriately. :mad:

It seems to me, that no individual group misses out on being adversely affected by the 'regulator'

From Trainee pilots, to the major operators, we are all affected, even the ATC gods are feeling the pinch of over-regulation.

The only way you are going to have the needed effect, is to shut down air operations in the whole country for a week.

Pilots,
Air Operators
ATC
Maintainers.......

The whole shebang. nobody works for a week. Country virtually grinds to a halt...MAYBE then the press will start reporting it as a matter of public interest, but then the risk exists the press will initially side with the guvmint.


You wouldn't even need to apply to FWA for protected industrial action if the AOC holders agreed to shut down.

You might even get some of the banks on side, as some of this crap being passed as legislation appears to threaten some of the banks investments in the industry...and we all know how lumpy banks can get.

[LeadSled]

Blackhand,
So you are happy with the reverse onus of proof, are you.
Because you believe you can read??
But can you comprehend??
And yet you haven't really read and comprehended.
Anybody contemplating "doing what they always did" will last to the first CASA audit, or the first incident of an insurance company refusing to pay, claiming maintenance and repairs not carried out in accord with the regulations.
How much industry experience do you really have???
Tootle pip!!

[Progressive]

It appears Ken Cannane has forgotten some earlier CASA rulings and misinterpereted the intent of CASR 21 himself.

Approval of replacement parts is covered under a separate CASR and will continue as normal.

STC's will continue to be accepted form the Type certifying country as they always have under AWB 00-16 and CASR 21.114:

"CASR 21.114 Foreign STCs states: A certificate (however described) for an aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller that is issued by or for the NAA of a recognised country and is equivalent to a STC that could have been issued by CASA (a foreign STC) is taken to have been issued by CASA for these regulations."

The vast majority of GA aircraft which do not include a specific structural repair manual include a statement "structural repairs may be completed in accordance with AC43.13 ..." A similar statement allowing standard wiring repairs is also generally incuded in the appropriate manual chapter.

In addition to this CASA do have an approved list of standard practices manuals (including AC43) which are considered acceptable data. (I will try to find this and include it next edit). Corrosion repair is likewise covered by the FAA corrosion control manual.

So of the examples given in this article NONE will require an additional EO under part M.

Before I am villified on this site as a CASA and CASR loving individual I should add that I am not: I am however an aircraft owner, LAME, and spend a good portion of time teaching our new generation of LAME's the maintenance regulations for a Part 147 MTO.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

CASA are not an easy regulator to deal with. Situation normal it seems, lots of opinions being generated by the new regs. I find EASA clear and if you do have to ask then you get a clear answer. Glad to be away from CASA's interference.

Oh, and a legal entity change or change of ownership is not charged as a NEW approval as some regulators try to do. Made much more sense to set up a business in Europe. I just felt casa were a drain, although individuals in there often do their best. But the system lets them down.

[weloveseaplanes]

The vast majority of GA aircraft which do not include a specific structural repair manual include a statement "structural repairs may be completed in accordance with AC43.13 ..." A similar statement allowing standard wiring repairs is also generally incuded in the appropriate manual chapter.

In addition to this CASA do have an approved list of standard practices manuals (including AC43) which are considered acceptable data. (I will try to find this and include it next edit). Corrosion repair is likewise covered by the FAA corrosion control manual.

Progressive if you have any more information regarding . . .
the FAA corrosion control manual
the approved list of standard practice manuals
using AC 43.13 in lieu of a Structural Repair Manual
. . . could you please post the appropriate links thank you.

Over here in the Pacific an inspector went nuts .i.e. was shouting and red in the face that our LAME was keeping the aircraft flying with common sense practices gathered from 30 plus years of hands on experience rather than by religiously following a non-existent SRM for our GA aircraft. He seemed unable to comprehend that the manuals for GA aircraft
and airline aircraft are so different. He kept saying you must show me in writing in a SRM specific for your aircraft how the LAME can treat that corrosion. We had no SRM and so could only reply that well as you provided him with the licence to work on the aircraft and he has many decades of experience we are relying on his experience and qualifications to maintain our aircraft rather than following an SRM which aren't produced for our aircraft.

This situation was never fully resolved and in the context of a number of strange dictates by the inspector which took months to comply and which after many tens of thousands of dollars of work, 40 plus missed flights, a complete ignoring of the world expert being flown in to inspect and certify the aircraft as not needing the bizarre list of work the inspector ordered, meetings missed by the inspector at the last moment, calls not returned etc and much pain and confusion he never even came in to check and see how the parts he wanted removed and replaced were still serviceable - just as three experienced engineers said they were before he grounded us and launched this huge attack on us for flying and maintaining without an aircraft specific SRM.

It left a very strange taste in ones mouth and an understanding that for inspectors SRMs have a place higher than the bible and bring out a religious fervor in bureaucrats . . . .

[Kharon]

Progress - I am however an aircraft owner, LAME, and spend a good portion of time teaching our new generation of LAME's the maintenance regulations for a Part 147 MTO.

Thanks for the post, I for one would value a couple more on the subject. It's a pleasant change to have a 'professional', cogent explanation. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif The sad thing is, that it was needed for any other reason other than 'educational'.

That's the bit gets my goat; the regs are just not (give or take) able to be 'properly' translated into a working (even modern) language.

The way the regs are presented and the language does not assist. There is always that lingering uncertainty, particularly about matters related maintenance. Be interesting to know how many calls the boys at CASA field asking for a 'translation' or clarification. The regs must put them in a strange position, especially if the 'opinion' offered was judged incorrect after an accident.

The regulations make it as difficult for CASA to 'help' or administer as they do for the industry to comply; it's potentially a hellish situation for everyone, except of course the legal profession.

A rule may be disliked or clumsy and opinions of the 'rule's' value may vary but; by and large, most folk should be able to read and 'properly' understand the thing, seems to me this would make compliance so much easier for both sides.

[blackhand]

@LeadSled
As I said, I will be talking with your Bankstown office on Monday. It would help if you can give me the name of the AWI advising you so I can talk to him direct. PM me if you prefer.

@Progressive
AFAIK major repairs and mods have to be approved under the new Part M, similar to CAR 35, AC43 can be used as a guide by the approving Engineer Organisation but not by the LAME.
As you said, all minor maintnance can be carried out in accordance with the AC43 series if the aircraft maintenance manual doesn't cover it.

@weloveseaplanes
Are you refering to Lake Buccaneer?

@ Kharon
There is no ambiguity, unless of course English is your second language.
Cheers

[Progressive]

weloveseaplanes
No problem, the approved list of repair documents has been removed from the CAR's and is now contained in a temporary instrument found here:

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100060/casa515.pdf

presumably this will soon be incorporated into the CASR's as is the current CASA process for developing new rules - remove old rules and the bulk of new ones using instruments (or CAAP) to fill any gaps until all can be incorporated into the new suite.

This take stime and can lead to comfusion with rules and regulations spread amongst CAR, CASR, CAAP and Instruments until it all gets consolidated.

The FAA corrosion repair AC can be found here:
AC 43-4A - [Large AC] Corrosion Control for Aircraft - Document Information (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22583)


As for using AC 43 in lieu of SRM it depends on what the aircraft manual say. Mine states:


Minor repairs such as patching the fabric, welding, wing rib repair, etc. may be made in accordance with regulations set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 43.13-1( ). No major structural repairs are recommended without consulting the manufacturer.



You will find a similar statement in the structures section of the Maintenance manual for most GA aircraft (Beech are the exception I can think of). And although my aircraft states fabric it is actually a 2002 build so this is not just for old aircraft!

[LeadSled]

----- and is now contained in a temporary instrument found here:

Progressive,
An interesting choice of non-de-plume, those of a "progressive" approach generally means advocating more regulation and higher taxes.

Back to the subject, if you are so up on regulatory matters ---- "is now contained etc" is hardly accurate is it.

Instrument 515/12 replaced Instrument 12/09, signed by Mark Sinclair, which was anther part of a string of Instruments going back quite a while, probably six or seven years, which, for the first time, generally allowed advisory publications, howsoever titled, from an NAA, to be used by anybody, without CASA specific approval of organisation and purpose.

Until 515/12, this string of instruments were all more or less the same, just re-issued, and it is instructive to put 12/09 and 515/15 side by side, and go through them, word for word.

Only by doing that, with an open mind, not per-conceived conclusions on what is being said, will you start to understand what a serious change this actually is!!

As this is now in place, along with Part 21 M, this has a serious impact on other sections of Part 21, and, indeed, attempts to negate and probably legally succeeds, in emasculating other provisions of Part 21, and the Australia-US Bi-Lateral Airworthiness Agreement.

In fact, it undermines the whole philosophy of Parts 21-35, takes us back to before 1998, and in some respects, takes us back before 1992.

Knowing the personalities involved in 515/12, I have absolutely no doubt that this is entirely the intention ---- to inject CASA back into "approval" areas that, post 1992 or 1998, deliberately, by legislative change, excluded CASA.

Truly "Progressive"

Read it carefully, sure STCs are accepted, by you now need an EO to carry out the modification that any STC entails.

Likewise use of PMA parts ---- using PMA parts, as opposed to OEM parts, is a "modification", therefor an EO is now required.

That some regional offices of CASA don't understand the ramifications of these changes comes as no surprise.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Those of you with any actual familiarity wit EASA Part 66, 145 etc., will know that the CASA "EASA like" engineering and maintenance suite is unrecognizable in EASA terms. Indeed, unrecognizable compared to any other major aviation country's continuing airworthiness regulations.

Once again, with quite a deal of international harmonization taking place, particularly on airworthiness and maintenance area, Australia is heading off into the sunset on its own little frolic, to the very great cost of jobs and business in Australian aviation, and what little is left of the MRO sector.

Indeed, little New Zealand, on latest figures, has a substantially greater MRO export income than Australia, as well as the foreign exchange saving of ANZ not having to go offshore with MRO requirements to remain internationally competitive.

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

It has been obvious for many years that Aviation regulation in Australia is simply perverse.

It is designed to further the interests of the staff of the regulator and their cronies - and no one else.

The regulatory reform program and the very regulations themselves are evidence of this.

The matter at the heart of this thread - the use of AC43-13B and similar could have been simply handled by a Plain English sentence inserted in the regulations themselves:

"In the absence of an aircraft specific SRM and the absence of a repair scheme for the specific repair approved by a national regulator, approved maintenance data, for example FAA AC43-13B, may be used to effect minor repairs."

A further rider is needed that if there is conflict in the approved data (ie not in the SRM or repair scheme) it is to be referred to CASA.

The definitions section does the rest.

I happen to know the former leader of the project to rewrite Victorias laws in plain English which was completed around 1997. He was formerly from PM and Cabinet, then Vic. Premiers department, then a commissioner for small claims and is now a magistrate.

If I run into him in the next few months, I will ask him to look at the regs and give his opinion - it will no doubt be both colorful and accurate. He could also suggest a fix as he was a master of bureaucratic infighting at one stage.

Absent that, it will take Three smoking holes in quick succession with great loss of life and a royal commission before any change is possible.

[djpil]

Nope Sunfish. AC43... was intended for major alterations in the USA.

When that minor/major terminology was introduced into the regs here they were adamant that the US interpretation would apply. I've been out of it for a few years but I understand that they, without changing the regs or the dictionary meaning of words, have moved to the different EASA definitions - perhaps some-one could expand on that point ... i.e. more significant mods could be classified as minor. So a minor mod could be quite substantial and so require some serious engineering hence an appropriate process needs to be followed. That would leave room for a lesser category of mod, perhaps call it trivial which CASA should take little interest in altogether.

In the USA, the FAA takes an interest in major mods. As for minors, the only control is to specify who can approve minor mods (and that would be a LAME type) and the usual system of audits.

So Sunfish, I disagree with what you believe to be the heart of the problem.

As for conflict in approved data - that's why we need the engineering types in industry to sort stuff out.

[Frank Arouet]

The Engineer's Hymn


(Sung to the tune of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic")


Chorus:
We are, we are, we are, we are the Engineers,
We can, we can, we can, we can demolish forty beers.
Drink rum, drink rum, drink rum, drink rum and come along with us,
for we don't give a damn for any damn one who don't give a damn for us.

Godiva was a lady who through the Coventry did ride,
to show all the villagers her pretty bare white hide.
The most observant man, an Engineer, of course,
was the only one to notice that Godiva rode a horse.

Chorus

An artsie and an Engineer once found a gallon can.
Said the artsie, match me drink for drink and prove that you're a man.
They drank three drinks, the artsie died, his face was turning green,
But the Engineer drank on and said, "It's only gasoline."

Chorus

Now Venus is a statue made entirely of stone,
There's not a fig leaf on her, she's as naked as a bone.
On noticing her arms were broke, an Engineer discoursed,
"Of course, the damn thing's broken, it should be reinforced."

Chorus

Elvis was a legend, he's the King of Rock 'n' Roll,
But the life he was leading - well, it finally took it's toll.
He realized too late, he'd chosen the wrong career.
So he faked his death and came to school, now he's an Engineer!

Chorus

The modern Engineer must be politically correct.
No more motors lubricating, no more buildings rise erect.
No electrical capacitors whose plates are high and fair.
Instead of problem solving, let's just sit around and care.

Chorus

She said, "I've come a long, long way and I will go as far,
With the man who takes me off this horse and leads me to a bar."
The men who took her off her steed and stood her to a beer,
were a blurry-eyed surveyor and a drunken Engineer.

Chorus

A maiden and an Engineer were sitting in a park.
The Engineer was busy doing research after dark.
His scientific method was a marvel to observe.
While his right hand wrote the figures down, his left hand traced the curves.

Chorus

When it comes to math and science, Engineers-- we kick ass.
There isn't a course or subject Engineers cannot pass.
If presented with a problem we can solve it with great ease.
All we do is reach into our bag and pull out our HP's

Chorus

The Army and the Navy were out to have some fun.
Looking for a tavern where the fiery liquids run.
But all they found were empties, for the Engineers had come,
And traded all their instruments for gallon jugs of rum.

Chorus

My mother peddles opium, my father's on the dole.
My sister used to walk the streets, but now she's on parole.
My brother runs a restaurant with bedrooms in the rear,
But they won't even speak to me 'cause I'm an Engineer!

Chorus

Now you've heard our story and you know we're Engineers,
and like all jolly people we can down our whiskey clear.
We drink to every other sport who comes from far and near,
Cause we know damn sure that we are all a hell of an Engineer!

[blackhand]

@leadsled
Bankstown office feels you are confusing requirements for Class A aircraft maintenance with requirements for Class B aircraft maintenance.
Chalk and cheese

CAR 30 organisations continue maintenance as before, new Part 145 maintenance orgs operate as you describe.

@Frank
That is the Army Engineers song(RAE) , not aircraft engineers(RAEME). Besides we would be drinking 40 rums, to get over dealing with pilots:p
Cheers

[Frank Arouet]

Thing is RAE build things and blow them up as it suits their purpose. (Dave knows what I'm talking about),. I know. I was awarded a medal upon return from hospital at Singleton with achievements written on dunny paper with an RAE badge after suffering the indignity of a "confidence charge".

[thorn bird]

Blacky a question for you?. What exactly is the difference, other than the warehouse full of paperwork, between class A and class B maintenance?
Is Class A any safer? if so why?

[Horatio Leafblower]

Bankstown office feels you are confusing requirements for Class A aircraft maintenance with requirements for Class B aircraft maintenance.
Chalk and cheese

CAR 30 organisations continue maintenance as before, new Part 145 maintenance orgs operate as you describe.

So, Blackhand, as a charter operator I will be required to maintain aircraft as Class A or B in this brave new world?

Isn't the objective to remove the distinction between RPT and CHTR?

...so all CHTR aircraft will be "Air Transport" category? :hmm:

[Sunfish]

Frank:

Thing is RAE build things and blow them up as it suits their purpose. (Dave knows what I'm talking about),. I know. I was awarded a medal upon return from hospital at Singleton with achievements written on dunny paper with an RAE badge after suffering the indignity of a "confidence charge".

"Confidence charge"? One pound block? Time a boot length of fuse? etc.

[blackhand]

@ Thorn Bird and Horatio
These questions are best directed to your CASA AWI.
I can advise you on your maintenance requirements but will come at a cost to you.

Cheers

[Sunfish]

So you make your money by being an expert in navigating through an almost impenetrable thicket of regulations?

No wonder you are a fan.

[Up-into-the-air]

Well Blackie

These questions are best directed to your CASA AWI.
I can advise you on your maintenance requirements but will come at a cost to you.

Cheers I agree with sunny - The complexity not only helps casa, but helps you as well Blackie.

Come on - Easy and clear regs is the answer, no need for clarifying instruments either and allowing the car 35 engineer to get on with the important parts.

Your turn Blackie:

How about you put forward some real information where we all can say:

Well done Blackhand!!

[blackhand]

There is another thread on here about working for free.
Applies to us dumbass mechanics as well.

Cheers

[Up-into-the-air]

Still no reply here either!!

[blackhand]

@ up into the air
The reality is that some posters are not here to learn about the issue, but more to cause angst amongst the unknowing.
The regulations about Class A maintenance and Class B maintenance and their respective requirements are readily available, granted one has to sit quietly and digest the various references.
Most operators and maintainers that I know are concerned about the implications of charter operations under the new CASRs, but it is out of our hands. My philosophy is to just get on with it and help my clients to be compliant - at minimum cost and heartburn.
I have had some interesting "discussions" with CASA AWI's about their RCAs and/or requests under CAR38 about SOMs - so am not an naive innocent on this subject.

My payment for advise comment was not serious, though I can see now that it was perhaps uncalled for.

Cheers

[weloveseaplanes]

Horatio Leafblower's questions were very interesting . . .

as a charter operator I will be required to maintain aircraft as Class A or B in this brave new world?

Isn't the objective to remove the distinction between RPT and CHTR?

...so all CHTR aircraft will be "Air Transport" category?

For us beers of small brain can someone please supply three yes/no answers thank you.

1) will charter operators have to maintain aircraft as Class A? yes/no
2) is the objective to remove RPT and CHTR distinction? yes/no
3) will all CHTR aircraft be "Air Transport" category? yes/no

[Sarcs]

1) will charter operators have to maintain aircraft as Class A? yes/no
2) is the objective to remove RPT and CHTR distinction? yes/no
3) will all CHTR aircraft be "Air Transport" category? yes/no

Err let's see now 1) "No comment", 2) "Maybe or none of the above!" and 3) "That is open to interpretation!":rolleyes::E

[blackhand]

As I suspected Horatio you are just and ignorant koont looking for a fcking head kicking

Don't bother whinging like fking little school girls and asking for a ban.
Mi les pinis

[Horatio Leafblower]

WELL DONE BLACKIE.

...as promised. :8

Now, above you have told us:
These questions are best directed to your CASA AWI.

...and he says, according to you...

Bankstown office feels you are confusing requirements for Class A aircraft maintenance with requirements for Class B aircraft maintenance.
Chalk and cheese

..and yet you yourself now agree

Reading through CASR 135, appears charter operations are include (sic).

Looking forward to a public recanting on all the smart-arse comments you have made about the confusion and people's apparent failure to comprehend.

Perhaps if such esteemed experts and interpreters of the English language such as yourself and the Bankstown office of CASA can have differing opinions, lowly illiterate pilots such as myself can be forgiven for strugglling? :=

[Sunfish]

So now we know. Blackhand appears to have a vested interest in maintaining as complex a series of regulations as possible.

[Kharon]

One or two good points raised in the maintenance article, seems there is at least a semblance of hope, this provides a 'reasonable' explanation of what's going on:-

Progress - presumably this will soon be incorporated into the CASR 's as is the current CASA process for developing new rules - remove old rules and the bulk of new ones using instruments (or CAAP) to fill any gaps until all can be incorporated into the new suite. This takes time and can lead to confusion with rules and regulations spread amongst CAR, CASR, CAAP and Instruments until it all gets consolidated. Then again –

LS - Those of you with any actual familiarity wit EASA Part 66, 145 etc., will know that the CASA "EASA like" engineering and maintenance suite is unrecognizable in EASA terms. Indeed, unrecognizable compared to any other major aviation country's continuing airworthiness regulations. If two respectable, sensible experts can't agree 'fundamentals' perhaps it's understandable that we 'Plebs' in matters maintenance are scratching our heads.

One thing is certain though, it's a first class revenue generator; heard a yarn recently about a 'minor' unserviceability at an outfield location which normally would have cost 1 hour of local engineer time which, by the time the aircraft returned to service, cost almost $6000 in CASA administrative fees. Could this end up the real issue, hide the fault and have it fixed at home or, trade honestly and go broke trying?

[nomorecatering]

Its seems the FAA has also gone mad.

Aero-TV: AEA's Ric Peri -- Discussing Concerns Over The Future Of Part 145 | Aero-News Network (http://www.aero-news.net/emailarticle.cfm?do=video.playVideo&videoid=8dd3738f-a28f-4339-9232-02aa4700058b)

[Kharon]

NMC - Its seems the FAA has also gone mad.

Interesting interview, I did note that there had been a couple of failed attempts to get the reg passed and enough 'horsepower' in the industry to at least kick up some dust. Ah, democracy at work (well nearly). http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Kharon]

– Congratulations Ken and AMROBA. Brava. :Dhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
- Congratulations CASA and thank you. Well done, finally.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Best news article this year. (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/08/casa-backflips-on-subpart-m/)


Industry consultation can and does work very well, what's the old thing about puddings and proof.

[Fantome]

"Best news article this year."

That's as may be, but at least old 'Feelin' Groovy' does end by saying -



“It’s a pity that CASA doesn’t confer with Industry when they intend to raise such a general Instrument, but at least they’ve admitted that there was a conflict. It takes a lot of noise to get CASA to correct issues they create.”

[Sarcs]

Finally a patch of sanity in the lunatic asylum!:E Although Phearless Phelan, I phear, does highlight the regulator's true philosophy at Albo's bigtop:

Three separate industry identities who have discussed this with us report that one official who is directly involved has openly stated his belief that aviation in Australia should be limited to airline and defence operations.


Too little, too late perhaps!:{

[Kharon]

“I believe some acknowledgement is also owed to a CASA lawyer who has publicly said that he doesn’t believe Australia’s aviation industry is ‘mature enough’ for the introduction of outcome-based regulation.”

Funny ain't it; the rest of the world disagrees, but we are still stuck with the same old prescriptive, Mummy smack rubbish. The hoodoo of Voodoo we all now so well.


Who'll chip in for a couple of rooms at a remote PNG aged care nursing home?

[gobbledock]

“I believe some acknowledgement is also owed to a CASA lawyer who has publicly said that he doesn’t believe Australia’s aviation industry is ‘mature enough’ for the introduction of outcome-based regulation.”
So he doesn't agree with the very system he supported and agreed should be introduced? Has he been smoking too much jungle weed? Perhaps his brain cells are deteriorating from overdosing on to much intellectual word wankery? Or has he spent to much time locked in a cigar smoke filled lounge with fellow slipper and gown wearing wordsmith's pondering and musing over life's more sophisticated and conceptual ideas?

Who'll chip in for a couple of rooms at a remote PNG aged care nursing home?
I will. And I will also supply some writng pads and pens where he can write endless amounts of jibberish pony pooh about voodoo, safety concepts, general bollocks and his beloved ICAO. Hell, all he has to do is contribute a couple of bucks and some intellectual wankery up there and he will earn a knighthood like many others!

Nimrods.

[Stan van de Wiel]

[QUOTE][
“I believe some acknowledgement is also owed to a CASA lawyer who has publicly said that he doesn’t believe Australia’s aviation industry is ‘mature enough’ for the introduction of outcome-based regulation.”
/QUOTE]

Without knowing who is responsible for the above quote I can only observe that if this is the case where has the "maturity" gone which allegedly has Australia at the forefront of Aviation. Did the immaturity set in when CASA and it's most recent forerunners decided to take on "micromanagement" of GA. ControlFreaks make poor managers, look at the fiasco of the rewrite of the Regs. Or is this a deliberate safety move which my own immaturity won't let me identify with?

Maybe we could start by identifying the "maturity" within CASA. The CFIT of GA is remote controlled from CB and certainly shows a maturity of manipulating control. To think I and many others have been training an immature australian public to an outcome based standard (without knowing it) and through luck achieved the best standard. 46 years of luck!!! No wonder CASA grounded me for my own good.

[Fantome]

“I believe some acknowledgement is also owed to a CASA lawyer who has publicly said that he doesn’t believe Australia’s aviation industry is ‘mature enough’ for the introduction of outcome-based regulation.”

What is he saying? (Use perplexed Milligan accent. He may as well say 'introduction of appliances')

If he said there's going to be be more and more 'income-based regulation'
bleeding all you mug air operators dry, then many sage heads would nod, knowingly.

[Frank Arouet]

Who'll chip in for a couple of rooms at a remote PNG aged care nursing home?

It was either Cattle Dogs or Chimbu's that invented "payback". I'll chuck in two pigs.

[Kharon]

What a week and it's only Tuesday.

Worst news article this year
(http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/08/casa-cites-polar-judgement-in-repacholi-case/)

In effect, CASA’s lawyer is claiming that its officers can do what they like to whomever they like, using the cloak of respectability of “safety” under s9A (1) of the Civil Aviation Act, with impunity and at the discretion and subjective opinions of the officials concerned, with a total disregard to any person’s personal or business rights, no matter how trivial (or negligently false) the alleged “safety” issue might be, and no matter how devastating the effect any such heavy handed action might have on an individual or business. -

Thinks I'll go fishing. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif :ugh: http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

[owen meaney]

“There can be no duty of care imposed on CASA to have regard to the economic interests of the Applicants…” What does this actually mean?

[Kharon]

In concept, it means that when a regulator identifies a 'safety' issue, the economic or any other associated impact should not influence a decision taken to promote a safe outcome. It's a fine principal and; in theory, a very correct one. However. Safety, like veritas has a chameleon like quality under the current administration.

Sunfish - To put that another way, CASA is using a self referential loop to justify itself. Furthermore, just like in Alice in Wonderland, the penalty often comes before the verdict, in the form of shutting down operations so that the subject bleeds to death financially before they can defend themselves.
CASA can do anything whenever and wherever to whoever in the interests of SAFETY. However SAFETY IS WHAT CASA SAYS IT IS.
Apologies to the purists and pedants.

[owen meaney]

Kharon - it means that when a regulator identifies a 'safety' issue, the economic or any other associated impact should not influence a decision taken to promote a safe outcome.Polar Air case was a safety issue, wasn't it?

[601]

“There can be no duty of care imposed on CASA to have regard to the economic interests of the Applicants…”

They do not have to consider the fact that their decisions will send you broke.

[thorn bird]

Well imagine their effort with "Tiger"
" Lets use our unaccountable power and shut down an airline to take some heat of the Minister"
They did...because the could!!
What amazed me was that "Singapore Inc" didnt turn up with a team of lawyers on an ass reaming exercise, they really do not like getting screwed..especially when money is involved...
Then on quiet reflection, why would they bother, easier to get it back by reaming jetstar or Qantas..what goes around comes around and Asians have very long memories.
What are our regulators in the Scheme of things other than a joke...bunch of dipsticks pissing about..occasionally costing us money but we can get it back in other ways.

[Kharon]

OM - Polar Air case was a safety issue, wasn't it? Ain't they all? But; and I've only plucked this 'off the wind', I hear it all began as a routine dust up between a CP who probably knows what he's about and yet another FOI who probably thought he knew better; and, Mummy smacked.

TB - Well imagine their effort with "Tiger". The tigers tale is almost unbelievable, it should be published as a novel; pure fiction, it would rival some of the most intriguing, imaginative best sellers ever offered. Hell, they'd make it into a movie if only it had a happy ending.

I have sometimes been haunted with the idea that it was an imperative duty, knowing what I know, and having seen what I have seen, to do all that lies in my power to show the dangers and the evils of this frightful institution. Fanny Kemble It's fair to say that both these episodes have great potential to haunt the future, much as Hamlet's beloved ghost. There have been too many gross errors made in the past, not all of these can be hidden by smoke. Elephants in the room, mills of the Gods and all like that.

[Creampuff]

It's fair to say that both these episodes have great potential to haunt the future …Indeed.

Mr Butson/Polar did CASA an enormous favour by pursuing Federal Court claims and appeals. We now have a neat compendium of the duties that CASA and its officers don’t have.

Polar and Mr Butson claimed that CASA owed them a common law duty to take reasonable care in the exercise of CASA’s statutory powers. Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that CASA owed them a common law duty not to act beyond power, intending to cause harm to either Polar or Mr Butson, or knowing that their acts were beyond power and that harm to Polar or Mr Butson was foreseeable, or recklessly indifferent (a) to whether their acts were beyond power and (b) to the likelihood of harm to Polar and Mr Butson.

The Federal Court held that the duty as pleaded did not exist.In all the circumstances, it cannot be said to be open to the applicants upon the [statement of claim] to prove the facts at trial which would constitute a reasonable cause of action in negligence against the respondents. In so far as the [statement of claim] endeavours to plead negligence against the respondents, this pleading should be struck out.Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that CASA owed them a statutory duty to exercise CASA’s statutory powers lawfully, reasonably and in “good faith” for the purposes for which those powers were given.

The Federal Court held that:[T]here is no statutory or common law duty of the kind alleged in the statement of claim, to the extent that these paragraphs plead breach of statutory duty. Furthermore, there is no basis for a claim that [Terrence Farquharson, Garry Presneill, Robert Collins, Jim Marcolin, Peter John and Allan Cook] were under any personal duty under the Act that would support a cause of action of this kind against them. The pleading of breach of statutory duty should be struck out in accordance with these reasons.… Further, it is plain enough that there is no tenable basis on which Polar and Mr Butson could bring an action in tort against CASA and the other respondents for breach of a general duty to act in good faith.Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that CASA owed a common law duty generally to the same effect as one of the above claims, but also involving a common law duty not to exercise CASA’s statutory powers “in such a way as unlawfully and intentionally to interfere with the trade or business” of Polar or Mr Butson.

The Federal Court held that:[T]he cause of action described as wrongful interference with trade or business interests should be struck out.Polar and Mr Butson also claimed that Terrence Farquharson, Garry Presneill, Robert Collins, Jim Marcolin, Peter John and Allan Cook were guilty of “misfeasance in public office” because:
(1) their knowledge of the limits of their powers was to be inferred from their position and experience;
(2) their knowledge of the likely consequences of their conduct was similarly to be inferred from their position and experience;
(3) their intention to bring about those consequences was in turn to be inferred from that knowledge, the actions themselves and the “pattern of conduct” described in the claim;
(4) their reckless indifference was to be inferred “from the conduct of CASA and the officers of CASA taken as a whole” as set out in the claim and from the “pattern of conduct” set out in the claim.

The Federal Court held that:There is nothing that supports the hypothesis that the respondents had the intention or acted with reckless indifference as claimed, and this must be established if the cause of action is to be made out. … The pleadings reveal no more than that CASA and its officers differed with Polar and Mr Butson as to the correct exercise of CASA’s statutory powers and that, by accepting an enforceable voluntary undertaking under the CAA, the matter might be resolved in conformity with CASA’s understanding of its obligations.

Further, the pleadings, as particularised, fall well short of supporting any claim against the individual respondents of misfeasance in public office… The pleading as against the individual respondents is thus fundamentally deficient. Even if Polar and Mr Butson were to establish legal error in the relevant exercises of statutory power, this would do no more than support a finding of deficient administration. …

Accordingly, the applicants’ pleading of misfeasance in public office is embarrassing within the meaning of the Federal Court Rules and should also be struck out.[All bolding added]

I assume it will be suggested that this outcome occurred because CASA failed to discharge its model litigant obligation and the Federal Court was too stupid, lazy, indifferent or corrupt to notice. :rolleyes:

[gobbledock]

Poor old Clark! He gets taken to the cleaner, and his nemesis, Lord Farquarhson gets promoted! Strange days indeed. Bad CASA.

I am having a thought however, and it is a little bit of a drift, but has anyone thought of say taking the CASA dinosaur heirachy, the Minister, maybe the silly CASA board and perhaps a couple of CASA's legal team (yes that means you Flyingfiend) out to an airport, maybe a flight deck, engineering facility or anywhere really that is aviation oriented that excludes the QF Club and Montreal, and try to show them what happens in the real world? You know, the place where noisy planes co-habit with lots of aviation people, even with the odd FOI when they aren't writing parking tickets for an operator having his shoelace untied??

Nah, I thought as much. It's an impossible task. To start with CASA's management would have to get a leave pass from the nursing home. Then
they would have to expend more energy than raising a ballpoint pen. The walk from the terminal carpark isn't any good for them as no FF points are earned from doing that, plus the time taken to undertake this entire task steals time away from their 'core duties' such as watching Poohtube at work, working on the reg deformed program, booking tickets to an international 'aviation and voodoo' conference somewhere in the Bahamas!

Twas worth a thought. I guess at the end of the day it is all:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqiO8zAFXEEeB67Q1TtvG1pLfRn6A-ml34nE9S6uaLkCnYEF24c8_xA27H

[Kharon]

Many times, manfully and diligently have I struggled to resist posting this clip; alas, 'twas for naught.

My lord

[Stan van de Wiel]

Does any of this have anything to do with Aviation specifically SAFETY. It all appears to have been acted out in courtrooms. It gives new meaning to the subject "airlaw" the number one requisite for safe flight. Forget "principles of flight" or " navigation"

In the Court proceedings was there ever a mention or a hint that this had anything to do with,... forgotten the topic! Ah yes Aviation!

More of a lawyers picnic? THank God for the "adversarial" legal system, we wouldn't know what to do with the truth anyhow.
Strange that CASA as a Gov authority chooses to use the French Law system, allegedly "guilty until proven innocent" when it suits them. Is that what's called ambidextrous?

"serial liars" by Evan Whitton available free on the Internet.

SW. "empty skies are safe skies"

[thorn bird]

A question for Cream Puff..and I'm not being facecious, I would truely value your advice, because I am becoming increasingly uneasy about where I would stand legally as someone employed by a company,to implement procedures for the safe operation of that companies aircraft.
Where would I stand with regard to duty of care under the Law, if I accept
the direction of a CASA representative and implement a procedure that all my experience and training knows to be unsafe and god forbid an accident occurs.
As with CASA do I have no duty of care?..after all I was directed by the experts..is that a defence for killing someone doing something I know to be unsafe?

[Creampuff]

You both end up as defendants. The proportion of your respective liabilities would depend on the extent to which you respectively caused the damage.

[thorn bird]

I guess what you are saying CP is that I'm damned if I do and damned if I dont...This is the situation I find myself in...how do I protect myself and my company??
If I dissent to the CASA direction I become a "Not a fit and proper person" which has been threatened...If I aquiece to their direction to save my position and ensure my company can continue to do business I could end up spending a considerable time in prison, or be bankrupted, CASA get off the hook because they have no duty of care?...am I right with this hypothesis?

[Frank Arouet]

CASA get off the hook because they have no duty of care

But the individual "does" have a duty of care, not the conglomeration. That individual is very exposed to action when he is no longer under the umberella of protection that the conglomeration provides. There are heaps and heaps of them. (no pun intended)

When you people understand the principle of attacking the lowest common denominator, you may be on a winner.

This can possibly be done in a Magistrate's Court at a very minimal cost with a criminal conviction, (for perjury for instance), that leaves open the possibility of civil action.

[Stan van de Wiel]

. Where would I stand with regard to duty of care under the Law, if I accept the direction of a CASA representative and implement a procedure that all my experience and training knows to be unsafe and god forbid an accident occurs.

If this is a change of procedures it must be according to the Ops Manual, simply ask CASA for a written direction to ammend same. CASA always demand everything in writing and will no doubt approve by return. (there has to be a first time doesn't there?)

. Creampuff
You both end up as defendants. The proportion of your respective liabilities would depend on the extent to which you respectively caused the damage.


One would be the Commonwealth Auth with unlimited funds, (0% liability) the other the G.A. Operator who failed to get the approval to ammendment in writing. (100%) Wonder why CASA never approve O.M.s ? Must be a safety consideration. I do believe that CP is sincere in thinking that this is how the real world works, maybe a bit of lateral thinking needed, called reality!

SW. Empty skies are safe skies!

[Kharon]

SVW - If this is a change of procedures it must be according to the Ops Manual, simply ask CASA for a written direction to amend same. Stan – valiant effort but no Ceegar. Gather round children and hear my cautionary tale.

Once upon a time in land far, far away there lived a rich Farmer who had a large, successful place which supported many happy peasant families; and, as it was an old place people had settled and opened businesses in the near by village. In the rough manner of the lower classes, the people where happy enough; and, their rustic, messy easy going ways caused no real offence to the upper classes.

Now, this part of the country was ruled by a newly appointed Royal Chamberlain (RC) who was having great troubles with the Big King (who was a right royal bad lot). The troubles were all about power and money, the usual suspects in this type of tale. Well, the RC knew that only an improved performance could secure his new post; so, to make sure that he was protected, he appointed some of his favourite, trusted men as Deputy Head Chamberlains (DH), they willingly did his bidding and generally; through brute force, ignorance and the newly discovered pedantry made life miserable for the happy peasants.

Then one night, a favourite child of the village did not come home. They searched and looked and worried and searched some more, but to no avail. Young Johnny was mysteriously gone.

The RC knew that the BK was cranky about this and the blame would surely roll down hill; he also knew that the BK was not a fan of the outspoken farmer. Quick as a wink the RC boys seized the chance and made a pact; no matter what it took they were going shine. So they took action and raided the farmer.

Now then, apart from being genial, the farmer was also a shrewd cookie who had, in the past thwarted BK 's ambitions and caused general offence by being independent and not allowing the bully to dictate where and how every blade of grass was grown. He had made safety plans to prevent the inadvertent loss of children; and, those plans had been sent off to BK for royal acceptance. Fees were paid, and the plan had been operating for a long time. The BK had even allowed some of the onerous restrictions (care and feeding of children) to be removed. The Farmer was quite happy that his 'new' plan (being paid for and accepted) and, the newly issued approval would provide protection against the worst excesses of the DH.

But, tragically the plan failed; the RC's DHs infuriated by the mild passive resistance and arguments that the villagers were complying with the royal BK accepted plan, lost it. There was no depravity or excess they did not sink to in the madness which followed.

In the end the happy peasants flew to far off lands, but the leaders were all rounded up and subjected to the infamous trial by innuendo; alas, they lost this final battle too.

Aye well; the rest is now history, there is a wasteland where once stood a farm which supported a village. The RC made a little speech at the executions, which will live forever in the minds of fair, honest folk. "It is unfortunate that you believed you're plans to be accepted, your cause just and that your village was safe – off with their heads".

And if you think that's a fairy tale – do some research.

Selah.

[thorn bird]

Stan I agree with your idea re written direction, it was asked for, both in the case of unsafe practice, and in directions to alter certificated AFM procedures. My legal advice was that this placed the certification of the aircraft in jeopardy which in turn could negate the aircrafts insurance.
In all cases written direction was denied, however the inference was if you didnt do as you were told you wouldnt be permitted to operate the aircraft, so again damned if you do and damned if you dont.
I imagine the airlines have a robust legal team to challenge these things but what chance a GA operator affording that? and of course if you dissent even on safety grounds you are "Not a fit and proper person", so your in a lose lose situation.
I seriously believe now that it is CASA's policy to shut down GA. Why I have no idea, but at least they could be open and honest about it.

[Sarcs]

TB don't envy your situation...treading the thin line between pergatory and redemption!:ugh:

TB: I seriously believe now that it is CASA's policy to shut down GA.

Phelan's article also hinted at Fort Fumble's philosophy for GA:

Three separate industry identities who have discussed this with us report that one official who is directly involved has openly stated his belief that aviation in Australia should be limited to airline and defence operations.

TB: Why I have no idea, but at least they could be open and honest about it.

Why indeed! Maybe GA is seen only as..."that troublesome third cousin"...where all the miscreants and cowboys of the industry hang out!:E

[kaz3g]

Where would I stand with regard to duty of care under the
Law, if I accept the direction of a CASA representative and implement a
procedure that all my experience and training knows to be unsafe and god forbid an accident occurs.


Get it in writing!

kaz

[Creampuff]

Yes. It is CASA’s policy to shut GA down. If not for the meticulous investigative skills of the various experts in this area, the plan would never have been discovered or exposed.

What a wonderful catharsis it is for all of us now, to finally acknowledge the reality, collectively and publicly: CASA’s policy is to shut GA down.

So: Let’s all sung “Kum bay yah”.

What next?

I know: let’s vilify CASA on PPRuNe! The Easter Bunny will come to the rescue of GA and we’ll all be happy again. Yay! :rolleyes:

[Sunfish]

The problem for you Creampuff is that you can't make the problem go away.

There are consistent accounts over many years in many forums, not just he internet, alleging that CASAs conduct could be improved in many ways.

Furthermore, a small but significant number of people have spent very considerable amounts of their own money to object to the behaviour of the regulator in the courts.

The consistent thread of these allegations is that the behaviour of the regulator is capricious unjust ineffective and vindictive.

I don't believe any other Government entity, even including the ATO, has been now or ever subject to the stream of allegations made against CASA.

We are not talking about simple incompetence here. This is our concern.

[Kharon]

Sunny - Furthermore, a small but significant number of people have spent very considerable amounts of their own money to object to the behaviour of the regulator in the courts. This is, I believe, the radical of a large number of complaints. The problem seems not lie so much within the 'actual' judicial system; but the ways, means and motivation used to place a person or organisation into that system.

Research into the legal head of power for Request Corrective Action (RCA) is very enlightening and worth doing. The actual power of a RCA and your ability to defend against it is also worth looking at; very carefully. Next step, look at the power to acquit or escalate; then, just for fun look at the defence and options available before allowing the escalation to occur. If you don't, you are well along the road to perdition.

A lot of the 'problems' stem from this point. CASA can and frequently do with alarming rapidity add up three or four 'half arsed' (subjective) RCA; and, with indecent haste parley the 'dross' into the 'gold' of Non Compliance. From this point on you are dealing with lawyers, the system and starting a long way behind the 8 ball.

Translating a 'subjective' RCA into a fit with an existing regulation is an art form with this outfit. Once the matter gets to the AAT unless it's a clear cut issue, the needle is very effectively hidden under the manufactured paperwork haystack.

Selah

[Creampuff]

The allegation that the regulator is “capricious unjust ineffective and vindictive” is not a problem for me, Sunfish. It’s a problem for the people who wish to prove the allegation.

I have the Federal Court, the AAT and the OLSC on my side. I know who’s on your side.

I know which side I’d rather be betting on.

(It would be instructive for you to read what the AAT said about the FOI in the Polar matter – the AAT said, in not so many words, that he was an officious pr*ck. But the AAT wasn’t very impressed by Mr Butson character either. Nor did it make much difference to the merits of the decisions. You need to try to understand both sides of a story.)

[Sunfish]

Creampuff, I am an inexperienced PPL with no commercial ambitions. I am aware that there are "colorful" aviation characters that must be a pain in the backside for CASA to have to deal with. I have limited exposure to CASA and all my interactions with them have been good.

Nevertheless, I have had some administrative experience gained in a business career endiing up as CEO of a firm, and what I see of CASAs characteristics, if only a fraction of what I read is true is, to put it mildly, alarming.

[Sarcs]

Nevertheless, I have had some administrative experience gained in a business career endiing up as CEO of a firm, and what I see of CASAs characteristics, if only a fraction of what I read is true is, to put it mildly, alarming.

Fancy that are relatively unbiased...almost layman (obviously with a brain:E) giving an outsider assessment on the foibles of the regulator!

Careful Sunny you'll get an "unsubstantiated twaddle" remark from Creamy if your not careful!!:ok:

[Creampuff]

It's a little word with big implications: If.

[Kharon]

Have you told me a porkie Shoreditch ?– perhaps it is human

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

[Stan van de Wiel]

CP: The allegation that the regulator is “capricious unjust ineffective and vindictive” is not a problem for me, Sunfish. It’s a problem for the people who wish to prove the allegation.


as usual CP you will only look at one side of an argument! when one side regularly control the "evidence" to their own advantage how is the Court or defendant to know anything is missing.

I have the Federal Court, the AAT and the OLSC on my side. I know who’s on your side

If these entities are all on your side (whatever that may be) wouldn't that be a rather biased system. Yet here you are exclaiming that the legal system works. works for whom? If by on your side you mean the side of your ex employer, i nowhave the answer as to why the OLSC never answered my mail. Thank you.

the AAT said, in not so many words, that he was an officious pr*ck. But the AAT wasn’t very impressed by Mr Butson character either. Nor did it make much difference to the merits of the decisions. You need to try to understand both sides of a story.)

character references aside, what has any of this to do with Aviation Safety.
I have dealt with some rough characters in aviation, but when it came to their flying they were spot on.

[Creampuff]

Allegations to the effect that CASA and its officers are “capricious unjust ineffective and vindictive” were made in both the Polar and Repacholi matters. And what did the Federal Court find? You could strain yourself and go back one page of this thread, and read what was alleged and what was found.

That’s what I mean by the Federal Court, AAT and OLSC being on ‘my side’. That is, they’ve all had these kinds of allegations about CASA and its officers made to them, and they’ve all been rejected. That’s notwithstanding that the Federal Court and the AAT occasionally find that CASA has misconstrued/misapplied the law or hasn’t made the preferable decision in the circumstances.

Funny how the court and tribunal can be diligent and independent enough to make those decisions against CASA, but they are, apparently, too lazy, incompetent or corrupt to see the stinking cesspit of capricious unjust ineffective and vindictive activity behind the smooth representatives. (How are you going with citing a matter in which counsel for CASA was a QC?.) [W]hat has any of this to do with Aviation Safety. I have dealt with some rough characters in aviation, but when it came to their flying they were spot on.Good question and good point.

I have dealt with some officious pr*cks in aviation regulation, but when it came to their technical judgments they were spot on. You should try to be objective and entertain the possibility that CASA FOIs might be ‘rough characters’ but make good technical calls.

I, of course, am biased, because I entertain the possibility that both the CASA and FOI and Mr Butson were making technical calls on the basis of OWTs, and were both wrong.

[Sarcs]

"You need to understand that the gaps in the Commonwealth's powers over aviation-related matters are very narrow. If an AOC holder is a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth, then the Commonwealth's powers in relation to that corporation are NOT restricted merely to matters that go to the safety, regularity or efficiency of air navigation; nor is it restricted to matters in relation to which the Commonwealth has power as a consequence of the external affairs power. In short - and not to put too fine a legal point on it - the Commonwealth can regulate existing corporations on whatever grounds it likes."

Recognise this quote Creamy?? Got to hand it to you mate you're nothing but consistent!

What gets me is that your still banging away defending the indefensible, beloved regulator! Maybe you should have taken note from one of your protaginators at the time:


"xxxxxCP, go get a life for God sake!"


:ok:

ps Thought I'd better try and lift my game to the world according to CP:ok:


"I’m flabbergasted: That’s two mistakes in as many posts! Quotation marks denote that the words between the marks are verbatim. The term “specified route” does not appear in CAR 1988 206(1)(c). I think you meant “specific routes”. On that question, I respectfully agree with Deputy President Dr xxxxxx's analysis in the Coral Sea AAT matter (see: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/1999/329.html) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/1999/329.html))"


Did I get it right Creamy??:E

[Creampuff]

And you're still illiterate! :ok:

[Sarcs]

And you're still illiterate!

Oh well my excuse is I'm only an aviator...what's yours??:E

"A ‘syllogism’ is a form of reasoning in which, from two given or assumed propositions called the premisses and having a common or middle term, a third is deduced called the conclusion, from which the middle term is absent. For instance, given the major premiss: all fish live in the sea; and the minor premiss: carp are fish; it is logical to conclude that carp live in the sea."

‘syllogism’ is a top word though!:ok:

[Kharon]

OK. ok - Come home Blacky. All is forgiven. We accept you were young and naive. But, research is your friend.

CP - I, of course, am biased, because I entertain the possibility that both the CASA and FOI and Mr Butson were making technical calls on the basis of OWTs, and were both wrong.
Oh, please, please explain (in small words) exactly how (biased on your many years instructional and operational experience) how "you" explain that, despite being a bumptious prick and wrong (OWT), the FOI carried the day. I am sure we all long for the peerless, flawless vision that only you can provide; to assist us in correcting our errant, uneducated ways.

Oh, we Prithee, do tell; (we'll pay of course) and edify us mere mortals. Was it your vast operational experience; or, some 'dedicated' training courses; (which we all, in our abhorrent ignorance missed out on); or, perhaps your wondrous knowledge stems from "he, who shall have no name".

The last Grand vizier of operational competence and compliance was the famed 'Red Pickle' (or Willy or Gherkin: : like that anyway). Now lost to history of course. We (that's plural) reckon "Red Pickle", read your operational rattling's, exemplar legal double talk; and wept. Wept, for the logic of argument; the elegance of operational execution; and, the sage, pithy, robust experienced based diatribe of an "old sky hand". This combined with demonstrated purity of law, clarity of vision and untarnished, safe judgements gave him (them/she/shim ??) a warm, fuzzy, deep seated need to vote: Creampuff – Solomon of the skies.

Well – FCS. – Selah.

Exit, stage left; genuflecting and wondering "Why am I in church?'; I should be praying at a runway intersection near me, hoping I'll get away; (before some boofhead pulls 'em up, or pulls 'em down: or whatever the hell they do with the round things). Them 'dangly bits"– you know.

[Creampuff]

As I have said many times: I am merely a wheelchair-bound acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA. I therefore wonder why you get so agitated about my opinions. [H]ow [do] "you" explain that, despite being a bumptious prick and wrong (OWT), the FOI carried the day.It’s simple: Mr Butson was also a bumptious pr*ck and wrong. And a number of AAT members and Federal Court judges decided he was ‘wronger’.

You only need to read and understand the decisions to work that out.

[Kharon]

Can I say P@#ss off on Pprune ? - Just pull the post if not. Exactly what part of P@#ss off would you like to spend another 23 years and AUD $200 million explaining. The wrong part; or, the really wrong part.

Yes Mother - I know, I know but; sometimes, just sometimes ::: http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif :ugh:http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

[VH-MLE]

Kharon, regarding Polar, please tell in minute detail (that means in very basic words), what exactly did FOI allegedly "demand" regarding multi-engine operations??

I would prefer an answer in "engrish" and not your normal dialogue please….

[Kharon]

K - Can I say P@#ss off on PPRuNe ? - Just pull the post if not. Exactly what part of P@#ss off would you like to spend another 23 years and AUD $200 million explaining. The wrong part; or, the really wrong part.

English – Lingua pura (debatable) – Suggestions; read the flaming transcript, read the AFM them read CAR 138, then read CAO 40.1. Then form an opinion, easy enough, it's all in plain 'enough' (ne ces pas) English, and much less confusing than :-

CP - And you're still illiterate!
(It would be instructive for you to read what the AAT said about the FOI in the Polar matter – the AAT said, in not so many words, that he was an officious pr*ck. But the AAT wasn’t very impressed by Mr Butson character either. Nor did it make much difference to the merits of the decisions. You need to try to understand both sides of a story.)

[gobbledock]

But the AAT wasn’t very impressed by Mr Butson character either.
F#ck the AAT. They are nothing short of yet another part of a dirty system. Bureaucratic, deluded, pen pushing trough dwelling pony pooh purveyors.
Let's put some of the 'legal jargon' out of the way, remove the fancy lingo, abstain from the mind numbing banter and ignore the silk suits and silly wig wearing folly.

The fact is this - If you work in our industry (you know, the 'get your hands dirty on the frontline') type of person you know that Butson got rogered, pure and simple. He went head to head with the government (aka CASA), who are power wielding self effacing parasites. Butson's crime was taking a stand against the establishment. He took it to them and in most respects failed, not because he is a rogue, or a misfit, not because he is some kind of 'aviation bad ass'. No, he disagreed with an establishment full of buffoons with giant ego's and tiny wieners. He dared to not bend over and take one in the blurter.

So as far as the technical mumbo jumbo, massaging of facts, definition of intent or any other piece of Westminster worded ****e that the suits want to throw around, it is all crap.
Did Butson make a mistake? Probably, after all, he isn't Jesus H Christ. But take a step back and look at the present CASA and the government. They would have to be the biggest mistake making cluster f#ck to sadly grace the Australian landscape since god only know's when.

Butson, right or wrong, you got balls and good for you :ok:
To the governing authorities who break peoples spirits, basic human rights, dignity and fairness - Up yours with a double middle finger salute.:mad:

[VH-MLE]

Kharon??? you didn't answer my question!! Simply saying "read the flaming transcript, read the AFM them read CAR 138, then read CAO 40.1" doesn't answer my question. What do you mean??

[LeadSled]

VH-MLE,
I think you will find that what he means is: If you read the relevant aircraft AFM, and CAR 138, and CAO 40.1 (and the CAAP in asymmetric training) and "between the lines" of the transcript, Butson was invited by said FOI to conduct training contrary to the requirements or recommendations of all of the above, in a manner that Butson (and any other sane person) would say constituted as an unacceptable risk.

The resulting blue was the genesis of CASA turning up, mob handed, some short while later to conduct an aggressive audit.

The rest is history.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

Ah. So it was the results of the “aggressive audit” that led to the administrative decisions reviewed by the AAT and Federal Court.

What was discovered during the “aggressive audit”, old Bean?

[Sarcs]

K - Can I say P@#ss off on PPRuNe ? - Just pull the post if not. Exactly what part of P@#ss off would you like to spend another 23 years and AUD $200 million explaining. The wrong part; or, the really wrong part.

Perhaps "K" when life attempts to get the better of you maybe reflect on the thousand year old story of Su Dongpo and the 'eight winds' poem. Su Dongpo thought he'd found enlightenment but then discovered that one fart helped him find 'humility' instead!


"Su Dongpo was an avid student of Buddhist teachings. He was quick-witted and humorous; as a Zen Buddhismfollower he was very serious and self-disciplined. He often discussed buddhismwith his good friend, Zen Master Foyin. The two lived across the river from one another.

Following is an interesting and famous story about him and Zen Master Foyin.

One day, Su Dongpo felt inspired and wrote the following poem:

I bow my head to the heaven within heaven,

Hairline rays illuminating the universe,
The eight winds cannot move me,
Sitting still upon the purple goldenlotus.

The “eight winds” in the poem referred to praise, ridicule, honour, disgrace, gain, loss, pleasure and misery interpersonal forces of the material world that drive and influence the hearts of men. Su Dongpo was saying that he has attained a higher level of spirituality, where these forces no longer affect him.

Impressed by himself, Su Dongpo sent a servant to hand-carry this poem to Fo Yin. He was sure that his friend would be equally impressed. When Fo Yin read the poem, he immediately saw that it was both a tribute to the Buddha and a declaration of spiritual refinement. Smiling, the Zen Master wrote “fart” on the manuscript and had it returned to Su Dongpo.

Su Dongpo was expecting compliments and a seal of approval. When he saw “fart” written on the manuscript, he was shocked . He burst into anger: “How dare he insult me like this? Why that lousy old monk! He’s got a lot of explaining to do!”

Full of indignation, he rushed out of his house and ordered a boat to ferry him to the other shore as quickly as possible. He wanted to find Fo Yin and demand an apology. However, Fo Yin’s door closed. On the door was a piece of paper, for Su Dongpo. The paper had the following two lines:

The eight winds cannot move me,
One fart blows me across the river.
This stopped Su Dongpo cold. Fo Yinhad anticipated this hot-headed visit. Su Dongpo’s anger suddenly drained away as he understood his friend’s meaning. If he really was a man of spiritual refinement completely unaffected by the eight winds, then how could he be so easily provoked?

With a few strokes of the pen and minimal effort, Fo Yin showed that Su Dongpo was in fact not as spiritually advanced as he claimed to be. Ashamed but wiser, Su Dongpo departed quietly.

This event proved to be a turning point in Su Dongpo’s spiritual development. From that point on, he became a man of humility, and not merely someone who boasted of possessing the virtue."

[LeadSled]

Creamie,
Perhaps a better questions to ask is:
Why didn't the CASA team find all the "problems" during the audit, at which the "robust exchange of views" occurred? and,
Why had such problems or the precursors of such problems as were discovered, not found during previous years of satisfactory audits?
Had the organization suddenly changed for the worse??
Don't tell me you are unaware of "amazingly" different results of audits that have been separated by only short periods of time -- at other AOC holders.
Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

No, they are not better questions, because the answers do not assist in understanding why the AAT and the Federal Court came to the decisions that they did.

The allegation that this was all the product of a vindictive FOI, backed up by his managers, was made and was rejected. By a real judge in a real court. How do you explain that?

What was discovered during the “aggressive audit”, old Bean?

[Sarcs]

CP: Yes. It is CASA’s policy to shut GA down. If not for the meticulous investigative skills of the various experts in this area, the plan would never have been discovered or exposed.

Isn't it amazing how long that myth has attempted to be busted by Fort Fumble execs, here's a quote from your old boss (Ironbar) CP, in an apparent attempt to dispel a few myths:

The first one is that we've got a vendetta on small operators - absolutely not. We have a risk based program that, as I said earlier, tells us where to focus our attention. We require small operators to maintain standards. I will never apologise for that. I think that is the absolute bottom line.
We don't put many small operators out of business, despite the fact that people suggest that we do. Those that we do are done through a rigorous process, and a rigorous process that is eminently challengeable. There is no policy whatsoever, to have any vendetta whatsoever on small operators. But I do require, and CASA requires and the Board requires, and aviation requires and the public requires, certain minimum standards.
Back then 'rigorous' was the catch word, these days it's 'robust'! Perhaps it should be 'overwhelming' or 'annihilation'...or..

"rigorous process that is eminently challengeable"..yeah if you have a spare couple of million sitting in some offshore account!:ok:

[T28D]

Creamie, protesteth in support of your old employer all you must.

You simply cannot ignore the fact that what occurred on the tarmac in Hedland and what was lead into evidence at the various stages of the legal process were highly probably 2 different stories, same event.

Court heard it all devoid of emotion, Hedland Tarmac was no doubt heavy in emotion and most proobably invective and colourful colloquial language descriptive of each party by the other.

Justice is only served well when ALL the facts and colour are examined.

The Polar matter was/is very messy.

[Creampuff]

One aspect of PPRuNe that I find perpetually entertaining is the ‘execute the messenger’ element. If we all just vilify anyone with whose opinion we disagree, reality will go away.

For the record, my personal view is that CASA, in its current structure and composition, is a waste of money and oxygen. Personally, I’d like to see it dissolved and rebuilt, from the ground up.

For those who share my view, we have a formidable handicap.

What do you think that handicap might be?

It’s none other than the rabid nonsense that passes for ‘debate’ and ‘comment’ on PPRuNe. It is so easy – so very easy – to make important people worry – worry a lot - by showing them the kind of material that gets posted on PPRuNe, in contrast to what tribunals and courts decide.

I’m just a wheelchair-bound, acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA. The outcome makes no difference to me. Think about that. :ok:

[gobbledock]

CP,
I’m just a wheelchair-bound, acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA. Ohh, so you used to work in HR for a certain "Regulator' then? (Spelt with a Capital 'R' for Rats#it)

[T28D]

And this is the greatest self serving piece of nonsenseI have seen on Pprune in many a year:

I’m just a wheelchair-bound, acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA. The outcome makes no difference to me. Think about that. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[aroa]

Creamie...thanks. You've said it "the outcome makes no difference to me"
That puts you really OFF the slate.

So,... never been a shaftee...you have never have to undergo the stress, financial and mental, trauma,etc.. of having to deal with the derogatory comments, lies and bullsh*t, and trumped up charges put about by CASA persons on a "kill" mission.
If you aint been a victim then you have ABSOLUTELY NO idea.

Its not a very balanced equation when CASA control freaks with endless $$s for legals and courts, give combat to individuals, small businesses and pensioners even.

And for what end? Conform with the CASA "Code of Conduct", about fairness, integrity, honesty, CAC Act , MLD and etc. do they?
All for the Holy Grail of "safety":D

Dont make me weep tears of piss..FFS its all about the bully boys/whole rotten system showing who's fcuking the cat.:mad:
And the taxpayer pays their bills ... and the outcome for aviation is,?... well, they really dont give a sh*t one way or the other.:mad:

Tell an AWI who has made a wrong call to FCUK OFF... and all hell breaks loose. You then face criminal charges ... and they havent even done a frigging investigation yet, but their whole sh*tshow is full of holes and the end result is SFA/Nix /Nought. At GREAT cost to the taxpayer.
Who cares? CASA doesnt give a rats.:mad: But I do.
And as I and others have said before, the totally outrageous punitive approach to aviation "safety" just DOESNT work.:mad:

Its just madness for this vital industry to be continually suffering the Butsons, JQ, and others. For why???
Something has to give.:ugh:

CP you have the right to comment, BUT. You DONT have the RIGHT (?) experience.
We do, unfortunately.

[VH-MLE]

LeadSled, “I think you will find that what he means is: If you read the relevant aircraft AFM, and CAR 138, and CAO 40.1 (and the CAAP in asymmetric training) and "between the lines" of the transcript, Butson was invited by said FOI to conduct training contrary to the requirements or recommendations of all of the above, in a manner that Butson (and any other sane person) would say constituted as an unacceptable risk”,

that doesn’t answer my question – my question is and I will try and spell it out loud and clear for you (and Kharon), WHAT EXACTLY DID THE FOI DEMAND OF POLAR AS FAR AS MULTI-ENGINE TRAINING IS CONCERNED? Simply making vague statements quoting flight manuals, CAR 138, a CAAP and an even vaguer statement of “reading between the lines” doesn’t answer my question...

I'm still waiting for your answer too Kharon....

VH-MLE

ps I also agree with Creampuff that CASA is well past its use by date and in need of major overhaul, but that has or had absolutely no bearing at all on the Polar matter in my view.

[Kharon]

CP - It is so easy – so very easy – to make important people worry – worry a lot - by showing them the kind of material that gets posted on PPRuNe, in contrast to what tribunals and courts decide. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif Insha'Allah - Oh, I hope so.

The beauty part is that within the hallowed halls of the tribunal lies the solution. Proof positive in lovely, publicly available transcript; all the porkpies, half truths, misdirection, misleading etc. etc. All there; and, the best part – it's all said under oath (which is Criminal). It's all too easy when you think it through.

Just get down and dirty, do some reading and expose the misleading, lying monkeys for what they are. They all sign oaths at the end of a statement, prove the statement to be a fib and Bingo; you win a chocolate frog on the bag a bad man stand. It's actually like shooting fish in a barrel, once you get the hang of it. A signed confession (or two) in every statement. .

Send your proof off to a decent Polly near you and worry the crap out of them. THEY SHOULD BE WORRIED – a lot more than they appear to be.

Wait just a while longer for my response CP; not too long now.

[Creampuff]

CP you have the right to comment …That’s very generous of you. Thanks.The beauty part is that within the hallowed halls of the tribunal lies the solution. Proof positive in lovely, publicly available transcript; all the porkpies, half truths, misdirection, misleading etc. etc. All there; and, the best part – it's all said under oath (which is Criminal). It's all too easy when you think it through.

Just get down and dirty, do some reading and expose the misleading, lying monkeys for what they are. They all sign oaths at the end of a statement, prove the statement to be a fib and Bingo; you win a chocolate frog on the bag a bad man stand. It's actually like shooting fish in a barrel, once you get the hang of it. A signed confession (or two) in every statement. .

Send your proof off to a decent Polly near you and worry the crap out of them. THEY SHOULD BE WORRIED – a lot more than they appear to be.Make sure you post a copy of the damning material here, too. It’s apparently too easy (when you think it through), so we should soon see a veritable tsunami of identified “porkpies, half truths, misdirection, misleading etc. etc”. Standing by …

And I’m still waiting for someone to identify a matter in which counsel for CASA was a QC. Remember: “Proof positive in lovely, publicly available transcript.” It’s all public record …

[Kharon]

Things like shagging, picking your nose, scratching your ass (or nuts), are private pleasures, great fun to do; but no fun to watch.

Public executions hardly ever happen these days, (although there are a couple I would pay good money to watch). However in our 'civilised' society even the humble chooks are slaughtered far away from the sensitive souls who eat 'em.

No mate, slaughter is not a sport for the gentle, sensitive, litigious public to see. Only a select few will understand the Pain and suffering of the dammed. I reckon my seat on the ferry boat is secure.

Crucifixion?

[Sarcs]

And I’m still waiting for someone to identify a matter in which counsel for CASA was a QC. Remember: “Proof positive in lovely, publicly available transcript.” It’s all public record …

Creamy this bloke (below) seems to have those fancy letters behind his name....I could be wrong but wasn't he also the lead 'legal eagle' at the Hempel inquest??

Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Budget Estimates May 2006
Transport and Regional Services
Question: CASA 15
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Topic: Mr Ian Harvey QC
Hansard Page: 39 (23/05/06)
Senator McLucas asked:

Senator McLUCAS—My next question is tangentially related to this issue. Can you tell me what work CASA has employed Mr Ian Harvey QC to undertake over the last, say, five to seven years?
Mr Gemmell—We can. Mr Harvey has done quite a bit of work for CASA. He very commonly represents us. I have come across him representing us in the Federal Court and indeed in coronial inquiries and various things. So he has done quite a bit, be we would have to check all the details of that.
Senator McLUCAS—If you could just give me a list. I hope that is not too difficult to find.
Mr Gemmell—No, we could find that.

Answer:

Over the past 5 years, Mr Ian Harvey QC has appeared for CASA in the following matters:

In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

• Cole v CASA
• Brazier v CASA
• Aerolink v CASA
• Schutt Flying Academy v CASA
• McWilliam v CASA
• Polar Aviation v CASA
• Mulligan v CASA
• Heavylift v CASA

In the Federal Court

• Layton v CASA
• CASA v Boatman (led by P. Brereton QC)
• Byers v CASA
• McWilliam v CASA (led by R. Tracey QC)
• CASA v Hotop (led by P. Brereton QC)

Coronial Inquests

• Police Air Wing (Western Australia)
• Toowomba (Queensland)
• Hamilton Island (Queensland)

Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Budget Estimates May 2006
Transport and Regional Services
Other Court Proceedings
• Sydney Heli-Scenic v CASA (NSW) (led by G. Hilton SC)
Mr Harvey has also provided training for CASA on five occasions.
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Budget Estimates May 2006
Transport and Regional Services
Question: CASA 16
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Topic: Mr Ian Harvey QC – CASA’s Preferred Barrister

Hansard Page: 39 (23/05/06)
Senator McLucas asked:
Senator McLUCAS—It would be quite simple to find. Would you describe
Mr Harvey as CASA’s preferred barrister?
Mr Gemmell—No. My understanding is that we have a contractual arrangement with a panel of suppliers who we roll around with. Mr Harvey on occasions would be representing our insurers. It would be a decision about representation coming from both CASA and our insurers, and it depends on who our insurers are. I am not sure the description ‘preferred’ would be correct, but I can check that to see if any part of the contract does indicate that.

Answer:

Mr Ian Harvey QC is one of a small number of barristers with demonstrable experience and expertise in aviation-related matters of the kind in which CASA tends to become involved. In litigation before the courts and before coronial inquests, CASA’s insurers and external solicitors determine who will appear on CASA’s behalf. In many of those cases, Mr Harvey is their choice on the basis of his recognised ability and expertise.
Before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, CASA’s own in-house counsel appears for CASA in about half of all matters brought. Mr Harvey has appeared in a majority of the remainder of those matters in recent years.
As is customary with barristers, Mr Harvey is self-employed and is engaged on a fixed daily rate in each matter briefed.

Or doesn't this chap count...AA seems to like him he even got the nod to train up Ops staff who may be exposed to legal action in the courts!

[Creampuff]

You are correct! You get a Gold Star! :D

All of the matters in which counsel for CASA has been a QC are matters of public record – all you need to do is read. :ok:

You would have been awarded a further Gold Star if you’d identified the fact that SCs are now equivalent to QCs.

So, now all you need to do is identify all the porkpies, half truths, misdirection, misleading etc. etc – again, all the material is public record. :ok:

[gobbledock]

Mr Harvey has also provided training for CASA on five occasions.Training CASA staff in what, on what five occasions? Was it in things such as:

1) Voodoo hoodoo,
2) Safety management systems,
3) How to change the printer's ink cartridges,
4) Office Fire Warden's, or
5) How to wear PPE while changing/removing the worm castings from Fort Fumbles Brisbane worm farm located in the buildings basement

Just curious.

[Sarcs]

Mr Harvey has also provided training for CASA on five occasions.

Yeah Gobbles one wonders what can be taught to some of these geriatric old farts!:=

Maybe the truth is Creamy is resentful of this Harvey QC bloke. Harvey keeps on getting to feed from the trough while poor old Creamy keeps missing the gig...even when he is the regulatory guru...yeah I can imagine how that would hurt!!:E

What gets me with this legal lark is you get a bloke like Harvey teaching numnuts from CASA how to 'not stuff up' in a court of law, then in the next breath Harvey QC is batting for the other side (no pun intended) or the other 'respondent' or assisting the Coroner. Maybe I am missing something but how is that not a conflict of interest??:ugh:

[aroa]

Ive stated in the past when CASA bums want to do a dump on ya ,they can turn a wormcast into a MT Everest of crud. Been the there, had that.

Great to have that confirmed by Gobbles :ok: that they're in the BNE basement. Must be a Pic of Mt Everest on the wall.

That must be the training ground, where the FOIs, SAWIs and Legal Eagles get together and nut out ways of converting the little nuggets into something else entirely.

As JQ and others know. :eek:

:mad:

[gobbledock]

Great to have that confirmed by Gobbles http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif that they're in the BNE basement. Must be a Pic of Mt Everest on the wall.Close. There is something even harder to climb on the wall:

http://images.smh.com.au/2011/08/01/2530298/ipad-art-wide-pg4-scanner-420x0.jpg

Footnote: Photo taken as he entered Archerfield Airport!!

[blackhand]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, 77 NCNs - and no threat of closure by the regulator.
Maybe CASA doesn't hate everyone. Only bigmouths that annoy the fck out of them.

[aroa]

Or is it just different strokes for/by different folks.?

Another JQ type scenario in train in effing FNQ. Does the tropical heat addle brains or something.? WTF.:\

The vic get a accusatory letter threatening his licence and approvals.
Its another 'worm cast' and worse...pointing the finger at the wrong person... and the mothers havent even done a thorough investigation yet.!!
Sounds very familiar to me. :mad:

Shoot first and try and sort it out later after its all turned to ****e.
But the vic has to go get legals at great expense...and since I doubt very much this will go anywhere near a courthouse...he'll be out of pocket.
For what ffs....CASAs incompetancy training.?
And being a serial, recalcitrant MLD denier CASA wont pay his bills either.

FBA* needed to remove "investigations" from CASA entirely. :ok:
This wrong-headed part of the Hydra DEFINITELY has to get the chop.
Investigations must be done by a SKILLED independant agency.
*Fcuking big axe.
We wish.:sad: