Regulatory Reform? Not A Hope In Hell!

[Sunfish]

Two events caught my eye today.

1) "Our" Minister, Warren Truss, was outed by the media as spending approximately $21,000 to charter an aircraft so as to give a breakfast talk on "tightening belts" in the Government and welfare sectors, particularly exhorting pensioners to be more frugal.

Truss me, I?m a politician: MP spends $21k on flight | Gladstone Observer (http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/truss-me-im-a-politician/2717891/)

2) CASA is allegedly holding a series of "town meetings" with the aviation community, to be attlended by Skidmore and senior CASA Executive Managers. To receive "feedback" from industry.

Could I be forgiven for thinking that the only possible good these Two events represent is the injection of $21,000 into the charter industry?

What possible motivation could Truss have for lifting a finger for the aviation industry given his demonstrated total hypocrisy?

What possible use is there in attempting to talk to Skidmore, particularly when he is attended by the authors of our misery - the executive management group?

[gcafinal]

I don't usually write on this forum and I do not have any evidence to support the thread above. What I do know is this.
Major regulatory reform has been going in this country for literally 20 years with an incredible expenditure applied. This expenditure represents the most obscene incompetence at taxpayers expense. Yet the Senate Estimates committee do not have any realistic approach as to how to deal with the situation that has been before us for so long. Agencies are routinely summoned to the Senate Estimates to detail their reports. Usually this is the particular Commissioner, CEO and at most his off-sider. Yet the last U-Tube I looked at showed CASA with 10-15 people present probably more sitting in the background, NONE OF WHOM WERE ABLE TO COMPETENTLY answer the questions asked by the Senators without waffling, "refer that to my colleagues for a response," or "we will have to take that on notice Senator because we do not have that information to hand!!!!!" Words fail me. These people are being paid in the region of $180,000 plus to "not know." They even have a group of lawyers permanently employed in the organisation who are paid even more to "not know!" The current Australian documentation is in quite a mess and has been for ages. The number of "Instruments," Notices of Rule-Making and Exemptions is positively ridiculous. Why are these items not in the main-stream documentation? The problem now is the younger generation coming up the line, through no fault of their own actually don't know any different, because the "mess" is all that they have ever seen, so they think it is normal. It isn't normal. We are laughed out of town by overseas aviation agencies. We cannot even get our documentation to be all the same size and Airservices Australia are totally incapable of getting the ERSA into manageable sizes so that we are not carrying several States we do not need in our flight bag on every flight. The ERSA from my military days used to be a thin document that slid comfortable in the leg of your flight suit for when you needed it. It certainly doesn't now! Regulatory reform? The only realistic way we are going to get on top of this is completely disband CASA and raise a new section in the Department of Transport under the direct control of a Minister with a totally brand new staff recruited from NZ/UK/Canada and the USA. I am about to hand in my wings anyway and give it all away. I have had so many near misses with ultra-lights flying contrary to the circuit direction at CTAFs it is only a matter of time before a large aircraft is brought down or even I am brought down probably with a "pilot error" tag stuck on my headstone afterwards. I hope the Senate Estimates are able to work through that properly when it happens.

[Lookleft]

Could I be forgiven for thinking that the only possible good these Two events represent is the injection of $21,000 into the charter industry?

I will forgive you Sunny as you would be correct. When Canberra once upon a time had several flying schools and charter companies they did very well out of politicians chartering light aircraft to go to some event or other.

All we are seeing is a dance between the industry, the parliament and the public service. No one wants the music to stop as it is keeping a lot of people in a job. The status quo is being well and truly maintained while the illusion of progress is made through various inquiries and public consultations. Any major reform of the system will be driven by images of a burnt out shell of a jet airliner with either a Qantas/Virgin/Jetstar/Tiger logo on the remnant of fin. It is only then that the claim of a superior aviation safety system will be shown to be smoke and mirrors.

Those with the power to change things have no interest in change and those with the interest to change things have no power. Tango anyone?

[IFEZ]

Great post gcafinal, you're absolutely spot on. How it's come to this is beyond me. It's a National disgrace and embarrassment. Ministers from both sides, one DAS after another, all promising change, all promising to fix things and all delivering nothing but more of the same whilst allowing the situation to continue to deteriorate, throwing good money after bad. I truly despair for where the industry is heading, and more widely the country as a whole.

[LeadSled]

gcafinal,
Just one correction to your post, you have undershot the salary levels of the CASA persons who front the RRAT by a substantial margin.
Refer the CASA Annual Report, to get at least some idea of senior exec. remuneration.
Otherwise, I agree entirely.
Tootle pip!!

[tail wheel]

Major regulatory reform has been going in this country for literally 20 years with an incredible expenditure applied.

September 1988 to August 2015 = 27 years, not 20 years.

New Zealand and Canada both took five years to re-write and simplify their Civil Aviation Regulations.

[thorn bird]

"New Zealand and Canada both took five years to re-write and simplify their Civil Aviation Regulations".


and aren't they paying for that now!!


I mean both countries actually have aviation Industries that are growing!!! absolutely outrageous!! cant have that!! Its even been suggested that aviation is the second biggest contributor to NZ GDP!! That would be tantamount to a National Disaster in Australia people would be on the streets demanding the Guvmint do something!!

[gcafinal]

LeadSled, You are absolutely right. I have spent half the day reading the CASA Annual Report 2013-14 and noted the salary ranges being paid to senior CASA management. I could hardly believe my eyes! Are they paid more than Australian politicians? Who in the Australian Government justifies such outrageous benefits for performance levels that have not in any respect, achieved the required aims in 27 years !! If that had happened in Woodside or BHP, they would have been fired years ago.

[Avgas172]

So under the casa formula of progress my C172 is only 8.8 years old, sweet I'll just skip that SIDS for a while ....:E

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

New Zealand and Canada both took five years to re-write and simplify their Civil Aviation Regulations.

It's not that simple. Small r or big R regulator? FAA or EASA based? Bit of Canadian. No MOS needed. Need MOS'

Simplification is really complicated.

[thorn bird]

Bikkie,

"It's not that simple. Small r or big R regulator? FAA or EASA based? Bit of Canadian. No MOS needed. Need MOS'

Simplification is really complicated".

I don't believe "Simplification" is any more complicated than what we have already complicated into gobbledygook .
Its also obvious what we have is no more safe, in fact some would say less safe than what they have.

Its also Patently obvious that what we have is unsustainable, no industry could survive this sort of onslaught.

So the question should be, does the government want an aviation industry or not?

If the answer is no, then at least have the internal fortitude to say so, then everyone can stop wasting their time, effort and money and find something else to do.

[RatsoreA]

I've written this before, but I'll run it up the flagpole one more time for old times sake...

Plenty of people are on here lamenting the state of the industry and the sh&tful regs that no one can understand and the oppressive regime that governs it. Is any one actually doing anything that can change it anything! Real, meaningful change? Just bashing the keyboard for a half hour for the sake of the other equally powerless readers of the forum won't get anything done?!

I got the email about the casa travelling roadshow/forum with head clown Skidmore. Why aren't an organised group signing up for every single one of these, with pointed, direct questions to ask, and keep asking over and over again at every stop he makes? It's not much, but it's something?!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

the casa travelling roadshow/forum with head clown Skidmore. Why aren't an organised group signing up for every single one of these, with pointed, direct questions to ask, and keep asking over and over again at every stop he makes? It's not much, but it's something?!

This is a good point and idea.

However, this was tried with the previous director. Pretty sure this was discussed in senate inquiry or estimates or ASRR or all 3. One senator reported on what he observed.

[RatsoreA]

Surely the same large vocal group at every stop asking exactly the same questions, maybe with a reporter in tow, if nothing else, will give us some value for money in watching them get increasingly uncomfortable and angry/embarrassed.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/512307-general-aviation-meeting.html

Take a look at this thread. Page 3 has the account of the angry meeting.

[tail wheel]

The last cost figure I heard some time ago was around $350 million. I wonder how much that is per word? :E

PNG civil aviation regulations were based on the old Australian ANR/CARs. I understand Australia provided the funding for the PNG Government to implement the New Zealand Regulations.

[Duck Pilot]

Absolutely correct wheelie, few tething problems with the new PNG regs but industry soon took the pineapple and moved on.

They pretty much cut and pasted the kiwi regs with a few exceptions and implemented them. I even think they keeped the kiwi reg titles and numbering in most cases.
It worked.

Problem in Oz is the government have opted for the strict liability policy, which in my opinion is totally wrong. How does this sync with just culture - it doesn't!

[Mr Brewster]

Ah LeadSled, was it not you who was trying to get a job there a decade ago :O

But yes, CASA are incapable of good regulation because they are a loose formation of personal interests, opinions and in a lot of cases vendettas.

I doubt Skidmore is going to be able to make any difference.

And their paylevels, WOW! In the top 1% of any public service body. They argue they are 'specialists'. How many grade ones do you know on $250K a year.

I once flew with a guy up where who told the local FOI

(Best wog accent) "I fly same f#%^g areoplanes over same f%#}^ country in same f+*^## airspace with same stupid f^%#^* airforce controllers in same f*^%#^^ weather for thirty five f%#^*^ years. Only f%%}}^ thing that changes all the time is your f%#}^% regulations. I don't f^%#}% read them and you can f%#^ off"

[Lookleft]

So the question should be, does the government want an aviation industry or not?

I think the answer TB is that they don't care whether it exists or not certainly at the GA end of the spectrum. As the salaries are not performance based there is no benchmark as to what makes a good CASA manager. As long as it is not raining heavy metal and body parts they can always say they to the department heads they are worth every cent.

BTW don't feel so bad that you agree with me as the crazies who are the Mod Squad at the professional agronomists incompetence network have also agreed with me in the past. The head crazy has even plaigerised my posts!;)

[thorn bird]

Leftie, my sincere apologies, as I understand it agronomists are expressly precluded from contributing by the Mod squad.

A question for you however. Are you suggesting because the establishment don't care, we should all give up, accept the inevitable under the regime as it exists and consign general aviation to the dustbin of history, ALA Europe?

What would you suggest the industry should do to ferment change? or is it your opinion that what we have is all okay and requires no change?

[LeadSled]

PNG civil aviation regulations were based on the old Australian ANR/CARs. I understand Australia provided the funding for the PNG Government to implement the New Zealand Regulations. Tailwheel,
Correct, it was the "Balus" project.

We paid Ambidji ( ex-CAA people, mostly, and headed by Doug Roser) to put the NZ Regs in place in PNG, because it was decided that the then Australian regs. were no longer useable.

And that was not even the current mega-shambolic CASA regulations.

Two NZ CAA chaps were hire to bring a CD with them, the NZ to PNG changes were minimal, and as to changes in principle, nil.

For example, if you have a CAA NZ AOC Exposition compliance list, you would find just a handful of references that were different in PNG, but nothing of significance.

Don't forget, the NZ based rules are now in place in many more nations than just PNG and around the Pacific.

But we know better.

Simplification is really complicated. Halfwhatever,
Having considerable experience in the matter, my comment to your above is bollox. It is the CASA "iron ring" that has been running the show, we all know the results.

The iron ring doesn't want it to happen, so its not!

Even the one period when we got some real change and reform, in the past five years CASA have been winding that back, Part 21 is now a shambles, "CAR 35" engineers have ceased to exist No Part 183), and effectively CASA have re-instituted "first of type" procedures, with all the associated costs -- just to mention but two of many matters that have hugely increased costs for industry, and arguable reduced safety standards.

CASA have also made great strides in neutering the intent of the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty, we couldn't possibly allow any of the benefits of the NZ reform to flow through to Australia --- a matter on where CASA is in vehement agreement with several unions, surprise, surprise.

As to the roadshows, what can CASA possibly learn, that is not already in the ASRR (Forsyth) report, and about 20 previous reports over the last 20 or so years??

The answer is NOTHING, showing pious concern is a "feelgood" exercise that is a waste of time and money, CASA is very good at both.

Tootle pip!!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Leadie, I was not supporting casa. I agree with all that they don't want change.

We have had all of the inquiries needed. We know what needs doing. But what do we get another round of 'listening' to industry.

[Sunfish]

You will need to stand aviation party candidates in every seat in the country. It matters not if it is "The Cessna Party" or "The F18 Enthusiasts party".

Unless you grab them by the electoral balls, nothing will happen until the inevitable major aircraft crash and even them, the factory wii recommend crash,

[Lookleft]

What would you suggest the industry should do to ferment change? or is it your opinion that what we have is all okay and requires no change?

You need to reread what you agreed with in the first place TB. I have never, and you can pass that on to the Mod Squad, never suggested that all is okay and requires no change. having been a participant in trying to see some change and witnessing the zero result from the government I have the pragmatic but sad view that only one thing will instigate the change required.

I have also seen the rather bizarre suggestion of civil disobedience and trying to get the media onside. The problem will not be fixed from the bottom up if those at the top are unwilling and more importantly not required to change. I don't disagree with the suggestion to adopt the NZ reg process but I go back to the statement above and the one earlier. Those with the power to change are not interested and those with the interest to change do not have the power.

I have yet to see a coordinated, coherent group of concerned aviators do anything other than tap out their righteous anger on a computer.

[Howabout]

Sunny, as regards your post #1 (2), I can't see the point. It's just more of the same - an illusion of 'consulting,' if you like, accompanied by a preordained agenda. Nothing more than 'window-dressing' IMHO.

I knew some really good and dedicated people with all the right motives when it came to representing GA. I cannot say that I agreed with everything they put, but they put their points in a considered, restrained and professional manner in the myriad of meetings that I attended over the years as a military representative.

They gave up heaps of personal time (their own personal time) to prepare and present GA's case in various forums and got scant attention for all their efforts.

Leady drives me absolutely mad sometimes (NAS), but he was nothing other than a gentleman, and a professional, in all those meetings. The only time I ever had an altercation was with an AFAP rep when I said that we'd go with US CTAF (wider NAS stuff excluded) if CASA so mandated.

The point?? GA has gone to these 'community forums' over and over in good faith and got bloody nowhere.

Personally, and I'm way out of it in retirement, I'd boycott the damn things and leave CASA to the iced-vovos and stale coffee in an empty hall talking to themselves. I'd then ask X, the Minister, and the local rep, why nobody turned up.

Leady, you might have been difficult, but you had respect from this end.

[Seiran]

How long until everything is under the CASR 1998? Would make my life much easier having that instead of having CAO, CAR, CASR which all have contradictory statements buried within.

[Lead Balloon]

How long?

It will be all finished at 5pm local on Wednesday 16 September 2015.

(You're kinda new to all this, aren't you....)

[tail wheel]

I think the answer TB is that they don't care whether it exists or not certainly at the GA end of the spectrum. As the salaries are not performance based there is no benchmark as to what makes a good CASA manager.

Not correct. Read the Civil Aviation Act. Unlike the FAA, CASA is solely a regulator and theoretically has no interest in whether aviation exists or not. A bit like the Queensland Police Force, make the "ten infringement notices per shift quota", regardless of how that impacts on Queensland drivers.

Whether CASA is a good regulator or not is another question entirely.....

[RatsoreA]

I have yet to see a coordinated, coherent group of concerned aviators do anything other than tap out their righteous anger on a computer.

Exactly what I was getting at.

I was watching the news some time back, I forget exactly when, but there was a story about truck drivers protesting something about their industry.

What they all did was get in their trucks and they all drove down to Parliament house in Canberra. They didn't do anything illegal, but it certainly stopped traffic for miles around, got them some good coverage and furthered their cause. They banded together as one and created change for their industry with a tiny amount of civil disobedience.

Surely a mass fly-in at Canberra would create a similar amount of disturbance around the airport, maybe cause significant delays to politicians flights, get some media exposure etc.

If nothing else, it would be nice to the GA parking area at Canberra full again!

[zanthrus]

I will be in that for sure. :ok:

[Cloud Basher]

I don't usually write on this forum and I do not have any evidence to support the thread above. What I do know is this.
Major regulatory reform has been going in this country for literally 20 years with an incredible expenditure applied. This expenditure represents the most obscene incompetence at taxpayers expense. Yet the Senate Estimates committee do not have any realistic approach as to how to deal with the situation that has been before us for so long. Agencies are routinely summoned to the Senate Estimates to detail their reports. Usually this is the particular Commissioner, CEO and at most his off-sider. Yet the last U-Tube I looked at showed CASA with 10-15 people present probably more sitting in the background, NONE OF WHOM WERE ABLE TO COMPETENTLY answer the questions asked by the Senators without waffling, "refer that to my colleagues for a response," or "we will have to take that on notice Senator because we do not have that information to hand!!!!!" Words fail me. These people are being paid in the region of $180,000 plus to "not know." They even have a group of lawyers permanently employed in the organisation who are paid even more to "not know!" The current Australian documentation is in quite a mess and has been for ages. The number of "Instruments," Notices of Rule-Making and Exemptions is positively ridiculous. Why are these items not in the main-stream documentation? The problem now is the younger generation coming up the line, through no fault of their own actually don't know any different, because the "mess" is all that they have ever seen, so they think it is normal. It isn't normal. We are laughed out of town by overseas aviation agencies. We cannot even get our documentation to be all the same size and Airservices Australia are totally incapable of getting the ERSA into manageable sizes so that we are not carrying several States we do not need in our flight bag on every flight. The ERSA from my military days used to be a thin document that slid comfortable in the leg of your flight suit for when you needed it. It certainly doesn't now! Regulatory reform? The only realistic way we are going to get on top of this is completely disband CASA and raise a new section in the Department of Transport under the direct control of a Minister with a totally brand new staff recruited from NZ/UK/Canada and the USA. I am about to hand in my wings anyway and give it all away. I have had so many near misses with ultra-lights flying contrary to the circuit direction at CTAFs it is only a matter of time before a large aircraft is brought down or even I am brought down probably with a "pilot error" tag stuck on my headstone afterwards. I hope the Senate Estimates are able to work through that properly when it happens.

gcafinal,
I had to laugh when I read this. I had this exact conversation yesterday with similarly minded individuals. We were playing "If i were king for a day". We came to the same conclusion. We simply disband CASA effectively immediately, get someone from the FAA, NZ and Canada, cross out NZ regs as the title and write Australian regs and start afresh tonight at midnight. And it flows from there...

Cheers
CB

[gchriste]

The problem is it will never happen without someone putting some very large balls on the line. There is too much pride in their own self worth, and vested interest in protecting the 100's of millions spent so far, to make any switch to the NZ or other systems palatable for them.

Could you imagine anyone in CASA having the ability to step up and basically say" You know what, we have wasted several hundred million of your money, are throwing it all out, and doing a cut and replace on some better regs from over the pond".

Sadly, will never happen, without political direction otherwise. They are so far vested into seeing it finish, they will pump more and more money into it.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

We simply disband CASA effectively immediately, get someone from the FAA, NZ and Canada, cross out NZ regs as the title and write Australian regs and start afresh tonight at midnight. And it flows from there...

I'd have a one line regulation for each part simply pointing to the NZ or FAA regs. That would stop anyone rewriting and 'simplifying' the regs with strict liability and the big R attitude.

[Eddie Dean]

Not a bad idea there halfman, but I reckon those on Pprune would still find cause to argue

[IFEZ]

Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and admit that the whole thing is a f'up of epic proportions and start again. $350M is a very costly mistake but sooner or later someone has to draw a line under it and say that's it, no more. We blew over $1B on a public transport ticketing system in Victoria (that still doesn't work properly) with that attitude. Not to mention $640M to NOT build a road that Melbourne desperately needed.
As previous posters have pointed out though, when you have massive egos and vested interests involved, and no doubt plenty of politics as well, that's easier said than done. Still, if NZ can do it, why can't we..?
I look forward to the person GC was referring to with the very large set of balls, to rise from the pack and sort this mess out. Dreaming..? Probably.
Agree that no one from CASA will do it. It has to come from higher up, but sadly there doesn't seem to be anyone in the current crop with the will (or the set) needed.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Curious.

If you made a hard copy of the FAR and CASR with all their memoranda...how many pages in comparison? If you pulled two relevant regs from each unit. Which would be easier to understand?

Plop factor and comprehensible text should be the two biggest arguments against our version of regs. Even a simple country minister like Warren would understand that!

[Sunfish]

gchriste:

Could you imagine anyone in CASA having the ability to step up and basically say" You know what, we have wasted several hundred million of your money, are throwing it all out, and doing a cut and replace on some better regs from over the pond".

Sadly, will never happen, without political direction otherwise. They are so far vested into seeing it finish, they will pump more and more money into it.


No! No! No! You do not understand! The way the CASA executive team have set this up is so that it can Never finish!!!!!! The way the regulations are crafted sets up a perpetual employment machine.

This is why, for example, whole swathes of aviation, like experimental and the RAA live from day to day on "exemptions" that have a fixed shelf life - a Two year expiry date, by which time they must be "renewed" again! As we have seen, sometimes there is a Two or Three week delay in renewing the exemption that sees the entire sector stop flying.

From my own public service experience, I can advise you that "renewing" an exemption is not a trivial matter if the regulator does not want it to be. If I were doing it, I would start with a review of the assumptions, reasons and recommendations underlying the brief to management recommending the previous exemption, then I would test each against the evidence for and against that has accumulated in the previous Two years, then I would review how changes in current and future technology and regulations might impact the making of a new exemption, then I would write a discussion section on the impact of making a new exemption, then I would make my recommendation….

If I couldn't string that out into a years work then I'm a failure.

Furthermore there is the delicious narcissists game that is played every time: "will we renew your exemption? Maybe we will, maybe we won't." Watch your clients tie themselves in knots like the poor old SAAA did last time there maintenance exemption was delayed.

To put that another way: If you think that renewing an exemption is trivial, think again. this is just one example of the "make work" that goes on in CASA.

I say again: CASA is a perpetual regulation machine, they hate the very idea of finality - the distillation of the regulations in to clear concise plain English puts most of them out of a job.

[LeadSled]

Folks,

Missing in all this is the answer to the question: Is it the rules that are the problem?

There has always been a very authoritarian streak in Commonwealth regulation in Australia, not confined to aviation. However, because aviation is all about "aviation safety", which is right up there with "motherhood" as a No.1 GOOD THING in the eyes and opinions of something called "the general public", the "mystique of aviation safety" gives a little something special to those who work for "the regulator".

Indeed, adopting the expression "the regulator" is quite recent, and has a certain physiological power frisson about it.

The Menzies "two airline policy" of the 1950s on, until Hawke abandoned it, made "the regulator" in Australia, by world standards, incredibly intrusive in all matters aviation, a huge reinforcement to what was an already well developed above mentioned authoritarian streak.

Unlike the US, where aviation regulation has always been a civil institution (an original Department of Commerce branch), civil aviation regulation in Australia started of as a branch of the military, and as we know, has never broken free of that legacy, either, the successive organisations showing a distinct preference for ex-military "officers", where nil civil aviation experience, indeed often a distinct antipathy for and disdain of "civies" no impediment to recruitment, and the "necessary" micro management of civil aviation.

The style and content of the aviation regulations is a symptom of the problem, they are a matter of CASA choice, and not, as so often claimed, "government policy".

"Strict liability", as we see it in civil aviation regulation, is a symptom of the problem, not a core problem. A core problem is that much that should be civil law is, by CASA choice, not Government policy, criminal law. It is CASA choice, not Government policy, that much that is law, should not be law at all, whether civil or criminal.

There must be a complete change of culture in the organisation, without that, it doesn't matter a hoot what the words on paper are, there will be no real change.

Tootle pip!!

[thunderbird five]

LEADie is correct. Just reading up on Strict liability this morning, CASA's own blurb from legal service group in Flight Safety Aust Sept-Oct 2007 says:
‘If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of strict liability,............... blah blah blah....
So, in other words, if CASA, by their choice, puts into a reg. "this is an offence of strict liability" (whatever the words they use are) then job's done and dusted.


We don't seem the same language used in motor car road rules, or boats etc.


Aviators just want clear and concise regs, such as FAA:
"You may......................."

[Lead Balloon]

Wrong.

CASA does it that way because governments let CASA and want CASA to do it that way.

CASA has the culture that governments want CASA to have.

The distinctions between the origins and evolution of the FAA and CASA are merely a manifestation of the origins and evolution of the governments of the USA and Australia, of which those agencies are a part.

Australians beg for more government. Americans arm themselves to stop the government.

[Lead Balloon]

This explains everything: Conservative Comedy with Political Satirist PJ O'Rourke - FORA.tv (http://library.fora.tv/2009/04/22/Conservative_Comedy_with_Political_Satirist_PJ_ORourke)

It may be funny, but it is deadly accurate.

[gcafinal]

Given the discussion on these threads, I was reading through the large number of CASA Instruments and Rulings and came across CASA Instrument 102/15 relating to the Jabiru aircraft. In part there is a statement that must be signed by intending passengers (assuming the pilot does actually tell the passenger) as follows:


‘I ACCEPT THE RISK OF BEING INJURED OR KILLED IN THE EVENT OF AN ENGINE MALFUNCTION DURING FLIGHT, NOTING THAT:


‘(A) THE AIRCRAFT MUST BE FLOWN AWAY FROM PEOPLE ON THE GROUND (AND BUILDINGS), EVEN IF THAT MEANS AN EMERGENCY LANDING AT A LOCATION THAT IS LESS SAFE FOR THAT PURPOSE; AND


‘(B) THE SAFETY OF AN EMERGENCY LANDING CANNOT BE GUARANTEED EVEN IF THERE IS A SUITABLE LANDING LOCATION.


‘I NOTE CASA’S ADVICE THAT I SHOULD NOT FLY IN THE AIRCRAFT IF I AM NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE HEIGHTENED RISK INVOLVED.


‘I ACCEPT THE RISK NOTING THAT THE ENGINE MANUFACTURER IS WORKING TO IDENTIFY AND FIX THE ENGINE ISSUES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.


‘I AM AWARE THAT CASA REQUIRES MY SIGNATURE ON THIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE FLIGHT MAY COMMENCE.


This aircraft is allowed to fly in the same airspace as ourselves and I wonder what the Australian Public at large would think of this "protection" from their aviation "safety" authority? Why do we bother with Airworthiness Standards if approvals for aircraft operations have come to this? I do not accept the caveat that the aircraft must be flown away from built up areas? Does that mean its OK for it to crash on my farm? I really think it is time to hand my wings in. This is a legislative nightmare!

[Lead Balloon]

Let me guess: You want "the government" to "ban it"?

What are the probabilities of the events about which you are concerned? What are the probabilities of being killed crossing the street?

[Lead Balloon]

There is a simple rule here, a rule of legislation, a rule of business, a rule of life: beyond a certain point complexity is fraud.Australia's civil aviation legislation passed that point a long time ago.

[Eyrie]

The question to ask of Skidmore is this "If your organisation was out to destroy private aviation in Australia, what would it be doing differently?"

As for the NZ rules, I have recently had cause to look up some of them. While clearly and concisely written you must remember NZ is the home of the world's most anal, nit picking bureacrats. Take a look at some of the forms they have "permission to use an EFB" Yes, even for Part 91 private ops. "Test pilot approval for amateur built" Yes, you need their permission to test fly your own homebuilt.
There's no such thing as a class rating for tricycle single piston land day VFR. You need a type rating for each type. Oh, and an extensive list of charges for everything.

Screw the NZ rules.

[Jetjr]

Gcafinal, this is for Jabiru ENGINES, not jabiru aircraft
Theres plenty of debate as to this action and its hope of achieving anything
It applied equally to experimental types and homebuilts. Owners can take out Jab engine and fit homemade engine or some rare auto conversion and not come under limitations any more