CASA do something good

[Arm out the window]

Maybe they're not massive steps in the eyes of some, and it will probably also be said they are just fixing up mistakes that shouldn't have been made, but CASA have shown a pretty positive attitude in addressing some vexing issues re Part 61 such as extending low level rating flight review timings and revamping various other things that were generating a lot of angst.

A bit of a deafening silence here on the subject, so I'm taking the opportunity to say good on them for this, and I hope the seemingly flexible and positive approach to issues like this continues and becomes the norm.

[Dick Smith]

Going halfway is just that. There is no requirement in the USA to do low flying reviews every two years- so our costs are still higher.

Every extra cost from part 61 must be removed - not just some of the costs.

Many people in the industry don't appear to understand that viable business success depends on the lowest costs compared to competitors .

And not just local competitors in Aus. It's a global market place.

There was not one safety problem that required Part 61. Therefore every cost increase must be removed. Don't let CASA con you with a 50% of the way move - you will still go broke

[CaptainMidnight]

Always with the negative waves, Moriarty, always with the negative waves. Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves. Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KuStsFW4EmQ#t=0

[Frank Arouet]

Arm out the window;

I've seen some exemptions granted but the regulation stays the same. The exemptions add to the thousands of other exemptions and thousands of other pages containing a plethora of irrelevant verbiage but no real information that a normal educated person can understand.

The regulatory review process continues to meander gravitationally toward its climatic conclusion. The brass bands and floral tributes await,although wilted, wrinkled, and dampened with age.

Any half thought out compromise of 50% will still end up costing 150% in the long run. The record speaks for itself. Skidmore is just like those before him and just as big a disappointment. He's been captured by the iron ring.

Deafening silence you say? Everybody I've had contact with has been most vocal about Part 61 and none of it complimentary. Put your head out the window and listen.

EDIT for the hell of it;

All the burning bridges that have fallen after me
All the lonely feelings and the burning memories
Everyone I left behind each time I closed the door
Burning bridges lost forevermore

[hiwaytohell]

Don't let CASA con you with a 50% of the way move

Spot on Dick!

[Lumps]

I am not across Part 61 at all, so I guess I should start at the beginning:

Why did we need it? This is not a rhetorical question! Genuinely - CASA basing aside (as much as possible), what were the reasons?

All I've heard was it was to bring us into line with European standards, considering the state of GA in Europe I sincerely hope that it was a little more thought through than that.

[djpil]

From CASA's brochure for the FLOT (Flight Crew Licensing Operations and Training) Conference in 2003:

CASA is proposing new general operating flight rules, and new
regulations for air transport operations - small aeroplanes and
rotorcraft, aerial work operations, aerial agricultural operations, flight
crew licensing and flight training organisations. The new, simplified
regulations align, as far as possible, with ICAO and aim to achieve a
better safety outcome with reduced compliance costs.

I should frame that!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

From CASA's brochure for the FLOT (Flight Crew Licensing Operations and Training) Conference in 2003:

Quote:
CASA is proposing new general operating flight rules, and new
regulations for air transport operations - small aeroplanes and
rotorcraft, aerial work operations, aerial agricultural operations, flight
crew licensing and flight training organisations. The new, simplified
regulations align, as far as possible, with ICAO and aim to achieve a
better safety outcome with reduced compliance costs.
Right up there with, "Deregulation of supply will lead to lower electricity charges"! :confused:

[Arm out the window]

Going halfway is just that. There is no requirement in the USA to do low flying reviews every two years- so our costs are still higher.

The usual flight review can contain a low flying element and so both boxes can be ticked at once.

[jeta108]

An endorsement once counted as a BFR. It doesn't any more. There goes that 50%. Ask Dick about IFR renewals on helicopters. That probably counts for another 75%.

[Ultralights]

From CASA's brochure for the FLOT (Flight Crew Licensing Operations and Training) Conference in 2003:

Quote:
CASA is proposing new general operating flight rules, and new
regulations for air transport operations - small aeroplanes and
rotorcraft, aerial work operations, aerial agricultural operations, flight
crew licensing and flight training organisations. The new, simplified
regulations align, as far as possible, with ICAO and aim to achieve a
better safety outcome with reduced compliance costs.

So what exactly is the purpose of aligning, or in CASA's case, copying ICAO regs? last i knew, ICAO was a guiding set of regs, allowing individual NAA's the ability to write their own regs to suit their environment? but still remain compliant in that their regs will be accepted by other ICAO signatories?

so if we were already ICAO compliant, in that regard, and have been for some decades, why are CASA constantly changing? much to the detriment, and pretty much total destruction of the industry? and why have we not seen 1 safety case justifying these changes other than "to make us more in line with ICAO requirements"?

[currawong]

Arm is right. Some will say they are fixing mistakes that should not have been made in the first place.

I am one of them.

Clean sheet new set of regs should be a chance to finally get it right.

Seems to be more directed at moving everything around to fit A4 paper better.

If the regs were adequate in the first place, there would be no need for dispensations/exemptions.

Even money says the list of dispensations will be bigger than the original rule book.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Dick and Frank have got it right.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

If most other nations can survive with pilot license regulation of around 100 pages,+/-, plus advisory material, why do we need what is now over 2200 pages and growing, and the increased cost are not just "a bit more", they are becoming crippling.

As an example I have quoted before, it has proved cheaper to fly a private air ambulance aircraft from Singapore empty to the mid-Pacific, pick up a patient and fly them to Brisbane, then position the aircraft back to Singapore empty, than fly a similar aircraft from Brisbane and back to Brisbane.

That is what Dick means about Australia being uncompetitive on costs, costs Australian jobs.

And before you start screaming "cheap Asian labor", the Singapore based pilots are paid more than generally here, with a much lower tax rate.

The huge difference in costs are largely regulatory costs, although cheaper finance and insurance in Singapore helps --- the cheaper insurance largely comes about because of CAAS standing with ICAO -- no loading for regulatory risk.

Tootle pip!!

[triton140]

I thought the whole point of the new regs was to get rid of all those pesky exemptions .... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[ramble on]

I have the same issues when dealing with CASA when going to recurrent training at an overseas simulator training school such as Flight Safety or CAE in the USA.

It is a nightmare straight from hell.

Greg Hood wrote/signed off CAAP 5-14 some years ago and it was a bright shining light but it doesnt work anymore.

5 days of recurrent training vs. 1.5 hours for in IR renewal in a Duchess with a local examiner. It seems that they have always preferred the latter because the paperwork is easier.

And they cant understand the concept that a 5 day recurrent is both an aircraft proficiency and instrument proficiency chack, not just one or the other.

Someone recommended "More Human" by Steve Hilton on another thread....I also find it coincidental that I get a lot of spam email concerning "Restore Lost Hair" these days.....I wonder if someone has linked that to "CASA" online.

[triadic]

Good to see some mention of the 2003 FLOT conference. It was without a doubt the best forum that has involved the regulator for many years, both prior and since. The fact that few if any of the recommendations ever came to pass is a reflection on the beaurcratic system the Government places on the rule makers including CASA.

Part 61 needs to be frozen until all the issues are sorted out, a risk/safety case conducted together with a cost/benefit analysis.

One can easily get the impression that someone in CASA have it as their aim to kill GA. mags, props, engines TBO, multiple AFRs, what next.

One can only hope that the DAS can see the mess he has inherited and has the strength to clean it up at no cost to industry.

[LeadSled]

So what exactly is the purpose of aligning, or in CASA's case, copying ICAO regs?Ultralight,

Let us be very clear, what CASA have produced in Part 61 (or anywhere except Parts 21-35, and they are now screwing that) is nothing like ICAO SARPs, and entirely reflects the ideas and attitudes of CASA in the last 6/7 years.

And do not blame the A-Gs or the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, or alleged Government legislative policy, what we have got is exactly what CASA intended, with the full support of the previous Minister Albo.

What is entirely inexplicable is Minister Truss continuing with Albo's policies, even when they are 180 degrees removed from the policies pursued by Truss when he was last the Minister, including, but not limited to airspace and airports policy, and regulatory development policy as reflected in Policy Doc. 1/2007

Tootle pip!!

[flywatcher]

CASA had it right in the drivers licence medical, DLMA, so with one little paragraph in the new RAMPC, in spite of their protestations that nothing has changed, they have removed from the skies forever, with one stroke of the regulatory pen, probably over half of the current DLMA holders. And to the aging class 2 medical holders out there, they have removed any chance of you flying on after CASA has you in their sights.


CASA Medical Audit conditionsWhere an applicant is currently subject to a CASA medical audit they will be unable to hold a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate.
Under a Class 2 Medical Certificate which is endorsed with "CASA audit required" applicants have the ability to hold a certificate which can then be revalidated by a DAME but CASA will audit the certificate before it is issued. The nature of a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificatedoes not allow an applicant who is subject to CASA medical audit conditions to hold a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificatedue to the requirement the certificate be unconditional.

This makes the RAMPC exactly the same as the class 2 medical. The lower standards of the DLMA was risk mitigated by limitations imposed on the user such as only aircraft less than 1500kg all up weight, ie a light two to four seat Cessna type that everyone was familiar with, day time flight only, visual conditions, singe engine, no turbines or jets, one passenger only who must be informed of the pilots lower standard of medical. This was a great step forward as it enabled older, experienced pilots to continue flying a familiar type aircraft in undemanding conditions.

Even stranger, in the CASA RAMPC FAQs, they state:
Q. I failed my Class 2 medical. Can I still apply for a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate ? A. Yes, you are still eligible to fly under a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate as long as you meet that medical standard and you follow the instructions on the CASA website.
So if you don't meet the class 2 standards, you can get a RAMPC, but if you do conditionally meet the class 2 standards, you can't get a RAMPC. That makes no sense.

The "CASA audit required" statement has made the whole RAMPC exercise completely useless and will only make many older, experienced pilots with a manageable and risk mitigated ailment unable to ever fly again. Every pilot in the world medically self certifys before flying every day of the year except the day they do their medical when they are certified by their medical practitioner.

Surely CASA trusts their own DAMEs, designated aviation medical examiners to confirm whether applicants are fit to fly, the "CASA audit required" statement needs to be removed completely and this responsibility passed to the examining doctor, if he is not happy with the applicant he certainly would not certify him.

[jas24zzk]

Part 61 needs to be frozen until all the issues are sorted out, a risk/safety case conducted together with a cost/benefit analysis.

Part 61 needs to be repealed in favour of the old regs, until the studies you mentioned are conducted, and a sensible set of regs is written.

If you freeze it, we are stuck with the CF that is already in existance, and take away chances for temporary solutions to at least keep people moving.

[jas24zzk]

Dick......that's a big call, you must be very wise.

Welllllllllllllllllllllllllllll, it could be said you do not get as rich as Dick by being stupid :p

Just a thought as I ponder your views on Part 61.

So we should give out ATPLs with no flight test?

I don't think that anyone has said this directly. From what I understand of what is written and has been said, is that the framework for the issuance of an ATPL is borderline unachievable, and excessivelly costly.


So pilots flying multi-crew aircraft mustn't be trained to run the cockpit together?

This runs with ATPL issuance. The guidelines and framework make it basically unachievable. Sure there are providers around the world that CAN provide the required training, but 1, its expensive and 2 THEY need to do a lot of work to comply with CASA...i.e they are not recognised.

So we shouldn't have a Recreational Pilots Licence?
Haven't read any arguments here against the RPL. but read plenty in P61 that makes it as hard to achieve/maintain as an ATPL.

So we should bring back a licence just to be a student pilot?
Had to have one when I was a student, albeit it was issue on the spot by my CFI upon presentation of my class 2 medical. Back then, I didn't need the CAA copy, only the doctors reccomendation.

Now they need an ASIC and all that bearaucratic garbage.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Re. the RPL medical standard, it is so close to the Class 2, that if you can't get a Class 2, you are most unlikely to get an RPL medical certificate.

This is about as far removed from the original intent for the RPL as you can get, which was a medical the same as RAOz.

There is a CASA story behind this, all about "pilots are no going to get away with this" --- in short, risk management didn't get a look in, certain people were not going to let pilots "get away with ----".

Another reason to emulate the US (or RAOz.), legislation now in the Congress and Senate will eliminate the FAA Class 3 (the equivalent of our Class 2) altogether, and substitute their national driver's license standard, for all aircraft up to around 6000lb, with a maximum of 6 seats ---- there will be no other limitations, ie: no limits on IFR or multi-engine etc.

Great for me, all I will have to do is renew my CA driver's license and do a biennial and I will be away --- no more "special issuance".

Tootle pip!!

PS: Australian ATPLs have been issued for years without flight test, those of you who think the new requirements will make any difference to safety outcomes (as opposed to a huge increase in costs) simply have no idea what is required before any pilot get to fly an aircraft as PIC where an ATPL is required.

[Ixixly]

Just in regards to your "PS" Leadsled, I've always agreed with this point but never been quite sure how to properly express it, I think what most people would agree with is that getting an ATPL shouldn't be heavily burdened by impossible regulations, ie, CASA shouldn't be saying "All ATPLs should be able to fly a Multi-Crew Jet if they have an ATPL" instead CASA should be telling all operators "If you want to operate Jets you should appropriately train your ATPL Pilots as required", it should come down to the operator taking on the additional costs associated with higher level operations rather than the entire industry taking the costs regardless of what they will use the ATPL for.

Great example is anyone conducting an RPT Operation in something like a Caravan which will now be prohibitively expensive to pay for crew as they will either have to fork out a heap for new Captains to do the Flight Test or hire people who already have an ATPL that have forked out the money themselves and will of course expect a return on investment.

And there will be those of you who say "Well, there aren't that many operations like that anyway" and nor will there be any more as these new Regs make it too damned expensive, once again strangling future possibilities within Aviation unless you're flying Jets.

Let's not forget that yes, you can probably get an exemption for these operations, but as others have said the Regs should be designed so there aren't a need for huge numbers of exemptions within the industry!!

Even worse now we'll probably end up with double dipping where the ATPL Candidate needs to complete an MCC course to gain an ATPL and be able to fly a relatively complex Multi-Crew Aircraft before they're awarded it and then the Company that employs them will need to redo all this again anyway.

[Captain Sherm]

I feel in danger of being cast as an apologist for CASA which I am not.....they employ folks to do that and can fight their own fights.


But.....


An operator can quite happily build the MCC training into their type rating and induction training ......Low and High Capacity operators under CAOs 82.3 and 82.5 have been required to do this for quite some time and will no doubt continue.


And....


The operator who has an ATPL candidate on strength or is intending to hire such a person can adapt an IPC to include the elements of the ATPL test so there is no extra check session required. Only cost would be for CASA to attend to check out one of the operator's check pilots to hold the ATPL testing approval for the future.


Unless a pilot is going to go directly to a command position he/she does not have to have an ATPL when hired


Other than the above I have no idea about the good the bad and the ugly of Part 61.

[LeadSled]

Sherm,
All true, and what has happened in airlines since Pontius was a pilate.

But is does not help one little bit the young chap or chapess looking to progress, and the job add says an ATPL is a requirement for the application.

Then the job is filled by somebody on a 457 visa because they already have an ALTP/ATPL/ATR.

Tootle pip!!

[Arm out the window]

They did another good thing today - student at the school where I work did his flight test, a week later the licence turns up in the mail, and it's not the first time recently CLARC have been right on the ball.

Good on you whoever made that happen, and I hope it's a portent of things to come. I believe they were largely left with this Part 61 ****fight by the outgoing DAS, and that there's a strong push from Skidmore (who many of you bag without knowing anything about him) to make it work more in the customer's (that is, our) favour.

Call me a CASA apologist if you will, but there needs to be more balance in this whole raft of threads upon threads slagging them off.

[Lead Balloon]

Another manifestation of how long the Australian aviation frogs have been swimming in the warming water:They did another good thing today - student at the school where I work did his flight test, a week later the licence turns up in the mail, and it's not the first time recently CLARC have been right on the ball.A regulatory authority doing the job for which it is (handsomely) paid and charges a (rip off) fee is a "good thing" for which we should, apparently, be grateful.

Apparently they've achieved this astonishing outcome more than once.

Yay! :rolleyes:

You're not a CASA apologist, AOTW. You just live in a world in which these costs and delays and uncertainties don't affect your capacity to feed your family and pay the mortgage.

[Arm out the window]

Just a bit of credit for an efficient turnaround as opposed to the previous long delays. Everyone's happy to sink the boot in, but there's no balance. That's all I'm doing, because I'm sick of the toxic sense of hopeless negativity displayed here.

It's all too easy to criticise, much harder to look past that and admit that you can't go back. Let's sack all of CASA and bring back CAR 5! GA will flourish once more!

[Lead Balloon]

Let's sack all of CASA and bring back CAR 5!And what would the down side of that be?GA will flourish once more!The quagmire in which GA finds itself is not just about CASA and the regulatory bugger's muddle it's created over the last couple of decades, but CASA's a substantial contributing factor. AOPA's Project Eureka document canvasses, quite coherently, the other factors.

[The name is Porter]

They did another good thing today - student at the school where I work did his flight test, a week later the licence turns up in the mail, and it's not the first time recently CLARC have been right on the ball

I swear you have Stockholm syndrome mate. They're public servants, overpaid ones at that. Since when does doing their job warrant a special dispatch?

[Arm out the window]

I swear you have Stockholm syndrome mate.

No, not at all. I know the whole so called regulation reform program has been an absolute joke over many years, and there are numerous frustrations and injustices that arise from dealing with CASA.

Still, I think there are signs they are emerging from a self-induced virtual paralysis to a point where they are making progress towards being more what we would want from a regulatory body - more customer focussed and willing to listen, at least in some areas, and that this is being driven by the bloke who many here seem to love to hate without even knowing him, Mark Skidmore. He knows they've stuffed things up royally but is, I believe, putting a lot of effort into trying to fix it, within the legal limits he and we are all forced to work with.

And what would the down side of that be?

This is a case where when something is f***ed, it's very hard to unf***. I personally think the new regs are just as hard to read and hard to interpret as the old ones and not easier to work with at all, but changing back from here would cost further millions and not really achieve anything worthwhile except to confuse everyone more.

CASA leadership over the years has produced dismal results, but I'm a fan of Skidmore and think he will do whatever he can to achieve at least a partial rapprochement. Naysayers will now refer to the 'unbreakable iron ring' etc. etc, but one reason for this thread is that I'm heartily sick of hearing people carp on unchallenged with the most ridiculous and over-the-top suggestions about how everything is stuffed and it's all CASA's fault.

Like I said, a bit of balance and a bit of positive thought is needed, not a bunch of grumpy whingeing old bastards sitting around in the pub trying to top one another's stories about how the government are a pack of pricks and how they could do better if only given the chance.

[Lead Balloon]

This is a case where when something is f***ed, it's very hard to unf***. And the last organisation you'd pay to unf*** something is the organisation that f***ed it in the first place. The most accurate predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. I personally think the new regs are just as hard to read and hard to interpret as the old ones and not easier to work with at all[.]That's because the new regs are a bugger's muddle that achieve none of the aims of the 'reform' program.[B]ut changing back from here would cost further millions and not really achieve anything worthwhile except to confuse everyone more.So that's a valid reason for letting the bugger's muddle continue muddling along? You're kidding?

And it does not have to be a change "back". It could be - call me crazy - putting the job in the hands of people who know how to build regulatory regimes. That ain't CASA and never will be.I'm a fan of Skidmore[.]You would not be if you had CVD. You'd realise, through stark personal career-threatening or destroying experience and cost, that aviation 'safety' regulation has little do to with objective and comparative risk assessment and mitigation or cost benefit analyses.

[glenb]

Sorry AOTW. Nothing personal.

To be making those Statements Im not suggesting you are right or Wrong but

What I can DEFINITELY say, you don't own an aeroplane and you MOST DEFINITELY do not depend on, or Own a Small or Medium Sized Aviation Business.

Its not the bloke in the pub winging. Its the Business Owner fighting tooth and nail to save their Businesses. The cost of Regulatory Compliance has increased over 10 fold in the last 18 moths alone. It REALLY is crippling.

Improved Safety? Actually. Quite the Opposite.

[Arm out the window]

It could be - call me crazy - putting the job in the hands of people who know how to build regulatory regimes.

Yes, but how is this supposed actually work in practice? How much is it going to cost, really? Who's going to take over from the current mob? Are they going to be able to do any better? How's the business owner going to do any better under a 'new' regime? Get real!

[Eyrie]

I got a Part 61 PPL a couple of months ago. Several A4 pages of stuff. How much of this crap do I have to carry? Anyone know?

[Lead Balloon]

We'll take that as confirmation you don't own an aeroplane and do not depend on, or own a small or medium sized aviation business, AOTW.Yes, but how is this supposed actually work in practice? How much is it going to cost, really? Who's going to take over from the current mob? Are they going to be able to do any better? How's the business owner going to do any better under a 'new' regime? Get real!You make a very important practical point.

While ever Australians continue to elect the stultifying mediocrities that have presumed the description 'government' over the last couple of decades, there will be no critical mass of competence or capacity to do the job properly. Laura Tingle's and George Megalogenis's recent quarterly essays are instructive on this issue.

This passage from Patty Noonan's recent article in the Wall Street Journal also struck a familiar chord (my bolding at the end):The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.

They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.
Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.

[Arm out the window]

No, it's true I don't own an aeroplane or depend on my own aviation business. I work for one though, and while I could get other jobs if I had to, that's what pays the bills.

Most of the talk on here is about how CASA are hopeless, how they should be gotten rid of, and so on. This is all so much empty waffle, because the proponents of it never say what they'd put in its place, even if they had the power to make it happen in the first place.

If you don't like 'em, fine, but you either have to work with them or somehow get something better in place. That's all there is to it, so carry on all you like, but as I said it's only pub talk when it comes down to it.

I see a bit of improvement, that's all.

[Lead Balloon]

So your domestic and financial security do not depend on aviation. Others are not in the same position. That's why they are a little more animated about and a little less tolerant of matters bureaucratic.

[thorn bird]

"Most of the talk on here is about how CASA are hopeless, how they should be gotten rid of, and so on. This is all so much empty waffle, because the proponents of it never say what they'd put in its place, even if they had the power to make it happen in the first place."

The evidence would support the contention that CAsA are in fact hopeless.

What should be put in its place is firstly recognise that CAsA has completely failed to understand or implement whatever the government of the day's policy was.

As a result,the government should recognise that the independent government business model has been an abject, very expensive failure.

The answer? Disband it completely and absorb its functions back into either the department of infrastructure or preferably a separate department with an aviation minister.

Rewrite the ACT

Accept as a fact that Australia's attempts to write modern effective regulations has been a total and complete failure, has heaped unsustainable costs on industry and has had zero positive affect on safety.

Accept as a fact that others in the world produced regulations that DO enhance safety with minimal effect on the financial viability of their aviation industry.

At the same time accept their regulations encourage investment, foster and promote that investment which has lead to employment and huge contributions to those countries national well being.

The simple most cost affective thing Australia could do, is follow what most of the countries in our region have done. Adopt New Zealand regulations, they may not be perfect, then no regulations are, but they are vastly better than what has been served up to us.

Just where could our industry go if it was unshackled from the "iron ring" and allowed to thrive?

[Arm out the window]

So your solution is to adopt NZ regs? Absorb CASA's functions into some other department or group? Who's going to staff it - probably the exact same people who lost their jobs in your total disbandment, because where else will they come from?

Maybe train up a bunch of other people from scratch, that's a good idea too. All too easy to come out with the 'sack 'em all' rubbish; not so easy to think of a clear workable alternative, is it?

[Eyrie]

AOTW is just a CASA apologist.
Why praise a body for doing something to correct a screw up when they caused it in the first place AND WERE TOLD IT WAS A SCREWUP BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION?

[thorn bird]

AOTW,

New Zealand managed to do exactly that, and their industry is progressing very well.

How well is Australia's doing?

[Arm out the window]

If a CASA apologist is someone who has no criticisms of CASA at all, I'm far from one. They do many things I don't like. Nor am I a one-eyed CASA hater who'd never give them credit for anything, though, as a lot here seem to be.

Have a dummy spit, have a whinge, then get on and work from where you are - that's what the helicopter industry with inspiring leadership from the AHIA have done, and they're making incremental but important headway.

Much of the vitriol aired here is still at the dummy spit / whinge stage and doesn't look like it's going to get much further.

How well is Australia's doing?

Not real flash mate, but I ask again, how is adoption of their regs and sacking of CASA holus-bolus going to work? Really, I mean, not just in whinge land?

[aroa]

If CAsA closed its doors tomorrow..Aviation in Oz could and would just get on with what it does best, maintaining, training, flying and etc WITHOUT LET and HINDRANCE and FINANCIAL IMPOSTS with endlessly changing paperwork and BS Part bombs.

The experiment should be run for 6 months to see if Oz suffers from 30,000ft death plunges and an increase in the accident rate.
I posit no changes there.
GA wont have the fuel levy and etc..., the Commonwealth coffers will benefit by not having to shovel millions for the BIG CON that all "safety" flows only from Fort Fumble.benefiting the common wealth

In PNG they decided CAsA regs were impractical and unworkable and adopted the NZ lot for a much better deal for their industry.
If they can do it we can do it BUT for JCs sake dont let ANY ex CAsA people anywhere near an implementation process...or we'll just end up back where we started.

[thorn bird]

"how is adoption of their regs and sacking of CASA holus-bolus going to work?"

Pretty much what they did in NZ and it worked.

Cost a fraction of what Australia has spent so far. Fairly quick to, couple of years against our 25 years and counting.

What you are alluding is Australia, by that I mean the country, is incapable of
embracing true reform, or should that be CASA is incapable of embracing true reform.

If its the former then there is no hope for this country, the banana republic beckons, if its the latter then logically removing the impediment is the first task,
That and changing the ACT.

As has been said by many, the kiwi reg's aint perfect, but they are streets ahead of the rubbish CAsA produces. The added bonus is they are very close to the USA's, statistically the safest country in the world to fly in and are very much closer to ICAO SARPS than we are. If safety is CAsA's aim rather than liability then copying the best would to me seem sensible.

There are a few very competent people within CAsA mixed among the industry rejects and ex RAAF people, and no I'm not saying all RAAF people are incompetent, but I've run into some shockers in my time.
I have no doubt those very competent people in CAsA could very quickly reform the regulator.
You never know, there has been a lot of very good people who left the organisation in disgust over the years, they may just be persuaded to return if reform is the agenda.

Regarding the politics, there was once a Aviation Department with a responsible minister. Who governs CAsA today? a responsible minister or his department head?

There are some who consider "Yes Minister" is a comedy show, I would call it a documentary.

[Arm out the window]

Aviation in Oz could and would just get on with what it does best, maintaining, training, flying and etc Sadly, I don't think so aroa - most people do the right thing but as we see regularly, there are a lot who don't think the rules apply to them and wouldn't even attempt to follow them if there wasn't the threat of being caught.

Pretty much what they did in NZ and it worked. Did they sack their CAA? Who got picked to stay and who didn't? Who chose? If you're just talking about taking the NZ rules, great, another wholesale change in two years just when we're starting to emerge from some of the paralysis induced by the last one.

[thorn bird]

"we're starting to emerge from some of the paralysis induced by the last one."

Are we?? I see no sign of that, just more companies closing their doors, less and less aviation activity.Pretty soon we will have to take our aircraft to New Zealand or Asia to have them maintained because onerous unworkable maintenance regulations and a lack of LAME's reaches critical mass. How many LAME's graduated last year? what is the average age of LAME's today? our LAME licence is no longer recognised overseas, nor are any modifications made under an Australian EO, so all those ADSB's fitted because we had to be twenty years ahead of the rest of the world to give ASA executives their bonuses will make our aircraft unsaleable in the real world. I have read that 80% of the GA fleet is on the market with no buyers.

At what point do you admit defeat? When there is no industry left?

It happened in Europe.

Bit late, but EASA fired their reg writing department and are embarking on a rewrite, they finally had to accept reality.

It will take a long time for them regain any semblance of an industry.

Australian companies actively investigating moving their AOC's to NZ is surely a wake up call. Australia has failed and failed miserably to provide its industry with sustainable, workable regulation, and the failure has been spread over 25 years, and cost the Australian public hundreds of millions of dollars, for that alone they should be fired, I believe its almost if not actual Corporate fraud.

Call me a winger if you will, I'm retired, I needn't give a ****, but I am offended and ashamed that governments of either persuasion countenance and encourage such ineptitude in any government entity.

[Arm out the window]

failure has been spread over 25 years, and cost the Australian public hundreds of millions of dollars, for that alone they should be fired,

Who's the 'they' that should be fired though, that's the question. McCormick railroaded Part 61 through as a parting shot and then pissed off with his entitlements, leaving others to deal with the mess. It's been a massive waste of time and money in terms of any benefits that I can see, but who's going to sort out the good from the bad when it comes to apportioning blame, if such a thing is even possible?

Sack the lot - might as well sack the whole government while you're at it. As I said, you can only go from where you are, and on top of that you can only do what's possible. Anything else is hot air.

[The name is Porter]

McCormick railroaded part 61 through did he? I doubt one bloke could have done the damage this flawed implementation has caused.

[Arm out the window]

Maybe not, but look at the statement from Jeff Boyd when he took over on the board:

Boyd said the Part 61 regulations were written up without adequate communication from industry and he lobbied against their introduction before he joined the CASA board.

“I was very much involved in it not being brought out when I was on the industry side,” Boyd said.

“We knew Part 61 was never going to work. It got put in a drawer for 12 months and instead of being reworked and rejigged unfortunately the very last day that our previous CEO was in the organisation he promulgated Part 61 as it was 12 months previously.

“The results have been horrendous for the organisation and for industry. It’s a debacle.”


Pretty clear cut, and far from the mealy-mouthed statements you often hear at this level.