Proof that DAS Skidmore is a new broom [Archive]

no_one

10th Aug 2015, 07:28

Horatio Leafblower,

That would be the hope but CASA do not have a good track record in that regard. For instance take the issue of what markings you need to paint on an aircraft, They issued at least 3 exemptions dating from 2008 allowing an aircraft less than 5700kg and operated within Australia to be operated without marking on the underside of the wings.

CASA EX05/08 - Exemption - display of markings and carriage of identification plates

CASA EX04/12 - Exemption - display of markings and carriage of identification plates

CASA EX16/15 - Exemption — display of markings and carriage of identification plates

The most recent one was in 2015 and is to be in force until the 2015 revision to part 45 comes into force in 2015. 7 years and 3 exemptions to update what is at best a relatively straight forward issue.

Or how about the way that CASA allows builders of experimental amateur built aircraft to do maintenance as an exemption. From time to time it expires and there have been periods when there is no exemption in place.

Hopefully CASA will not be so slow to implement the logging of copilot time in the regulations.

LeadSled

10th Aug 2015, 07:57

Hopefully CASA will not be so slow to implement the logging of copilot time in the regulations.No_One et al,
What would be far better is if Australian pilots were able to log time in accordance with ICAO Annex 1, instead of the "Australian" rules that so disadvantage young Australian pilots, vis a vie their counterparts from other ICAO states, that are vying for the same jobs in the real world.
It would mean going the full circle, until the early 1970s, Australia did comply with Annex 1 (and not by notifying a difference).

Tootle pip!!

Re: "new broom", more a very small brush, really.

BPA

10th Aug 2015, 08:53

I raised this issue 2 years back at one of the CASA part 61 roadshows. The CASA presenter on the day was from their safety team (engineer before joining CASA) and had no idea that some charter companies are required to have 2 crew on certain contracts and the impact Part 61 would have on this.

PLovett

10th Aug 2015, 09:32

The whole idea of the new regulations was to get away from the exemptions but CASA is granting more and more every day. So much for knowing what they are doing. :ugh:

Aussie Bob

10th Aug 2015, 10:39

I had a meeting with the DAS back in April and amongst other things, I had a big cry about nasty Part 61 and how it is ruining my life.

Yep 20 odd years of frigging around and we got part 61

Thank you CASA for listening, congratulations DAS Skidmore and Jeff Boyd for bringing some sense and experience to the table.

Struth :ugh: You reckon that is a good outcome? Honest? An exemption? Mate, you been totally brainwashed by these folk or what? How about telling them how stupid the whole shebang is? How frikking dumb that an exemption is needed after 20 years of writing this ****e.

Your thanking them for making you work harder and having to meet with them? No wonder this industry is faarked.

Horatio Leafblower

10th Aug 2015, 11:07

Credit where it's due Bob.

How much change do you reckon we would have had under the Skull?

Car RAMROD

10th Aug 2015, 11:11

I think the thanks is for allowing us to do what we used to do. Minor victory in the grand scheme of part 61.
Without a few people kicking and screaming (yeah, I've bashed my head into brick walls about this too, it isn't fun), we wouldn't get these exemptions.

Seemingly Mark is listening at this point in time. Better than the last bloke. Long way to go yet!
CAO 48 possibly being put back another 12 months is also good for industry.

Yep bob, it's a good outcome. Better than nothing being changed and us poor buggers having to trudge along without anything being fixed.

jas24zzk

10th Aug 2015, 11:21

Ok,
so you can use this exemption, provided its included in your ops manual.

Can you simply insert said document and proceed, or do you need your ops manual reviewed by CASA? Afterall you have made an amendment.

Cheers
Jas

LeadSled

10th Aug 2015, 11:51

jaz24zzk,
As it seems likely you are aware, all manual amendments have to be forwarded to CASA, hence my previous remarks.
It is not for "review", but acceptance, theoretically not "approval". Sadly, the "acceptance" is all to often "negative acceptance".
Tootle pip!!

Horatio Leafblower

10th Aug 2015, 12:09

How can CASA knock back the insertion of a CASA instrument in a manual?
Sorry Leadsled I just don't have your negative experience in my daily dealings with the dreaded evel empire.

dubbleyew eight

10th Aug 2015, 14:26

there will be seen to be a new broom when we get in this country....

canadian owner maintenance.
the ability to decertify a commercially built privately owned aircraft and maintain it on a standalone basis.
an experimental- amateur maintenance category for privately owned aircraft.

until then the changes are all just ponypoo, window dressing and more of the same "wee know safety" nutter palaver.

Centaurus

10th Aug 2015, 14:52

Hopefully they'll remove that stupid flight test for an ATPL.
Pain in the arse (and wallet for that matter)
Add the MCC course requirement to that.

Sunfish

10th Aug 2015, 19:48

Unfortunately Leafblower, my take on what happened to you is this. Permit me to be the devils advocate.

You went cap in hand to a regulator and grovelled. You then received a temporary allowance of something that should have been your right in the first place!

Be aware that each exemption issued is one more noose around your neck. It can be used to strangle you at will and the best part from a bureaucrats point of view is that they literally have to do nothing to terminate your aviation since the exemption "expires" all on its own.

But wait, there is more…… Not being content with merely hanging a new sword over your head, each new exemption creates more work, and thus job security, for the bureaucrats.

You see in the public service, nothing gets done by a decision maker without a brief of advice from a bureaucrat recommending action.

So in the case of your new exemption. To renew it, the following sequence of writings must occur:

1. A statement about the regulation and why the exemption was given in the first place.

2. The experience of CASA of the effect of the exemption over the last Two years - anecdotal or otherwise evidence of what the exemption actually achieved. (Maybe a bit of international comparison as well if that can be parleyed into an overseas study trip.)

3. The regulations as they stand now, especially the impact of any changes during the currency of the exemption.

4. Mature and scholarly discussion of whether the making of a new exemption is in line with current CASA policy as well as real or foreshadowed changes in regulation or regulatory climate. Please note, the viability of your business, your career, industry economics, fairness, equity and natural justice play no part in this discussion because CASA is not bound to consider such matters and has proven time and again that it does not.

5. ..And finally a recommendation to Skidmore: "That you sign the attached exemption". If I can't string that out into Three months work then I'd be a failure.

To put it another way, the very fact that you had to do what you did is an indictment of the whole rotten, corrupt system. I suppose I could have put that more offensively if I tried, bootlicking, etc.

Glad it helps you….but in Two years the anxiety returns again!

On a related note, it appears to me from my own limited research that advances in technology, particularly avionics, are happening far faster that the current regulatory and exemption system can cope with. The strain between what is now available and the associated capabilities and technical environment the regulations were designed for is becoming to great to bridge, even for CASA and its unlimited budget.

For example Dynon Skyview now has data logging, wifi and video hanging off it as well as ADS-B in and out and intelligent radios. None of it is certified, but the price/perfomance gap is eventually going to be unbridgeable.

Aussie Bob

10th Aug 2015, 20:47

To put it another way, the very fact that you had to do what you did is an indictment of the whole rotten, corrupt system

Horatio, I wish you well in your business and I appreciate your contribution to this forum. No offence meant by my previous post but ...

Arm out the window

10th Aug 2015, 20:52

Amazing work once again, Sunfish, managing to turn a positive into a list of doom-and-gloom laden negatives!

Sunfish

10th Aug 2015, 21:07

AOTW, I'm reminded of the old joke about the Curates egg: The pastor is having lunch with the lord of the manor. ""I say pastor! I think the egg we gave you is rotten!". "Oh no my Lord!' "Parts of it are excellent!".

Good on Mr. Leafblower for bearding the lion in his den, getting a good hearing and result and even posting it on Pprune for curmudgeons like me to criticise. The difficulty I have is why an exemption was needed in the first place.

The fact remains that exemptions are an abominable short term fix to bad regulation - they create risk and uncertainty and leave an opening to temptation for abuse. They should only be used as a last resort, not the first port of call for a lazy regulator.

Lead Balloon

10th Aug 2015, 22:05

Characterising it as "a positive" is merely a manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome.

Sunfish nailed it.

Car RAMROD

10th Aug 2015, 23:22

So, sunfish/lead balloon, how has part 61 impacted your operational and/or business running lives?

Has it cost you more money to get exactly the same things done as you did pre part 61 (think having to do an IPC in a metro, a "single pilot type rated aircraft" because the B200 isn't "good enough" to cover it, only because the metro is over 5700kg despite doing proficiency checks in the metro every 6months anyway, or having to sow to IPCs a year if you fly more than two "type rated" [and we aren't talking airliner jets here for type ratings!] aircraft?). What about being legally able to log co pilot time before, but 61 banning it? It's not as if they were sitting their doing nothing, it's all in the ops manuals!

Do any of you do IPCs or any instrument approach currency in a synthetic trainer? Technically, the component you do in the synthetic is not legal for currency/testing etc under part 61, whereas it was before. I'm still battling this. I've won in the short term but the rules need changing.

Yep the system that has been forced on us is problematic. Sorry for fighting and trying to change it.

bilbert

10th Aug 2015, 23:23

You got that exemption because it has basically no "safety" implications whatever. Safe for CASA to do. POA. So what are the safety implications of not having your rego painted on the wing that required 3 exemptions? It did however probably generate a mountain of paperwork and possibly justified another CASA employee.

601

10th Aug 2015, 23:44

In-spite of all the negative statements on this matter, this exemption maybe the first step in the process of getting this anomaly out of Part 61.

On several occasions we wrote procedures that required exemptions against a Reg or a CAO which were then incorporated into CAOs and then into the re-write of the Regs.

These changes came about because the capabilities of the industry changed and the Regs/CAOs had not kept pace.

There are other examples where exemptions have morphed into the new Regs.

Lead Balloon

10th Aug 2015, 23:51

We're on the same side, Car RAMROD.

My point (and I anticipate Sunfish's point) is that when your captors extend the leash a little, that's not a "positive" for which your captors deserve "thanks".

We shouldn't be captive to (and have to pay for) this pointless regulatory nonsense in the first place. It's just a self-licking ice cream of more rules and more exemptions, with zero positive safety or efficiency impacts.

"Beyond a certain point, complexity is fraud."

dubbleyew eight

11th Aug 2015, 01:17

lead balloon beat me to it.
I was going to discuss an environment with an overreaching and overbearing bully of a regulator and the stockholm syndrome environment that it has created in australian aviation.
lead ballon is on the money.

australian aviation legislation is the greatest assembly of rubbish ever inflicted on an industry.
australia's unique talent is to take the english system of government incompetence and raise it to new levels of stupidity.

what australia has proven beyond doubt is that aeronautical engineering should be preeminent in aviation and that lawyers and the like make no contribution to safety or the development of the technology whatsoever.

CAsA is an enduring farce of clueless bullying.
tallywheel posted a comment a while back that this pox upon us has blown 350million dollars so far.
lead balloon's self licking ice cream has a very large tongue.

ramble on

11th Aug 2015, 01:46

Hear Hear W8!

Car RAMROD

11th Aug 2015, 01:48

I think credit where it's due. Mark Skidmore didn't implement part 61, his predecessor did. Same person didn't listen to the industry saying it needs changing and as his parting gift to the industry he implemented part 61 and didn't have to deal with the fallout. Mark is listening and yeah, I'll thank him for implementing that change.

I'm cynical, I love a casa bashing (who doesn't?) but I'm not convinced that they issued the original rule and then this exemption just to give us false hope!

Waste of time and money? No doubt. Should have just done the job right to begin with. Whilst I dream of a day that we have better rules to operate under (and easier to comprehend!), I know that the chances of that are remote, so I'll take these small ones happily, it has just made my life a little easier.

And no, I've never been to Stockholm...

c100driver

11th Aug 2015, 03:14

Mark is listening and yeah, I'll thank him for implementing that change.

That is the problem he is not implementing a change, he is just issuing an exemption.

Car RAMROD

11th Aug 2015, 03:46

So there is a problem in making an exemption after industry has complained is there? Did you not read the explanatory statement?

"It is expected that a regulatory amendment to expand the definition ..... will be made in due course, after which time this instrument will no longer be required."

I.e they have issued the exemption because it is quicker than changing the regulation.

If the instrument expires and the regulation doesn't get changed then you will see me get angry about it. For now it is a step in the right direction as opposed to another backwards step.

I've had a lot of dealings with the regulator, some good some not so. They haven't made me as sour as they have evidently made some others!

Lead Balloon

11th Aug 2015, 04:25

"It is expected that...."

Oh dear.

I didn't think there'd be anyone so naive left in the aviation industry as to not know what: "it is expected that" means when CASA says it.

Do yourself a favour, Car RAMROD, and do a google search of the terms: "it is expected that" and "CASA".

It's one of the many reasons for the complete distrust of CASA identified in the ASRR Report.

Car RAMROD

11th Aug 2015, 04:47

Right I give up, let's have the exemption cancelled right now with no chance of changing the rule and go back yet another step! Let's keep the entire Part 61 in all it's glory and not change a single thing, even by way of exemption!

Like I said, I'll get angry if the rule doesn't get changed. Considering this exemption has actually made my job just one tiny bit easier I'm thankful.

Do not confuse "being naive" with trying to be proactive and at least a little hopeful. Forgive me for not letting the system get me down, obviously some people's will is much more easily broken :)

Rather than pissing and moaning, how about doing something, actually doing something, to try and get rid of some of the bull**** that ties our hands?

Lead Balloon

11th Aug 2015, 05:13

Nah - I just whinge on pprune.

My point is this: This would be a "positive" and Mr Skidmore would deserve "thanks" if, instead of adopting all of the vacuous, weasel-worded, misleading rhetoric of his predecessors, he actually made a thing called "a commitment".

"The regulations will be changed so as to achieve X. This change will be made no later than Y."

If he's not willing or able to make commitments of that kind, and he has any integrity, he would direct the organisation of which he is now CEO to stop using the vacuous, weasel-worded, misleading rhetoric that nobody (well, almost nobody) believes any more.

Frank Arouet

11th Aug 2015, 05:37

If Skidmore can't admit that there is a problem, he isn't capable of fixing something that seems to him to be non existent.

Exemptions further burden the status quo. In fact to achieve regulatory reform, all exemptions must be written into law or cancelled.

It's taken how long to get to the stage we're at now?

no_one

11th Aug 2015, 06:26

OK here is another example of worlds best practice in regulations.

Yesterdays lucky dip of exemptions includes this one.
CASA 105/15 - Instructions — V.F.R. flights conducted by CGG Aviation (Australia) Pty Ltd (https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L01176)

It basically allows a survey company to conduct a vfr flight over water without the requirement to be able to fix their position by visual reference to the ground or water when below 2000ft. The exemption only applies if they have an ifr gps and maintain a higher than otherwise required fuel reserve along with a few other conditions.

Now the difficulties that arise are:
1. The exemption is only valid for 1 year. What happens if they have a contract that goes for longer than a year and CASA are too disorganized to extend the exemption. Not knowing more than a year in advance that you are going to be able to continue what you are doing is no way to run a business. What bank would be willing to lend to a company that's lifeblood can be snuffed out simply if a casa office does not renew an exemption on time?

2. This regulation by exemption also makes it very hard to make any changes to the business. Say this company decides to merge with another company. Do you notice that the exemption only applies to 1 particular named company? If during their merger they decide to change the companies legal name then a new exemption is required. Will it be forthcoming?

3. Exemptions make it hard to set up a competitor. Any company that wants to do the same work has to apply for an exemption too. Will they get this and in what timeframe? While this may sound good for the company it leads to an inefficient sector.

While the requirements are sensible and good airmanship the way it is implemented is a dog breakfast. Interesting to note that in the USA this activity wouldn't require an exemption because it isn't prohibited by their regulations.

Lead Balloon

11th Aug 2015, 07:04

It's called evidence- and risk-based regulation. There was evidence of a risk that an activity was occurring without the benefit of regulatory micro-management (for which a fee is payable, naturally, for the 'service'). There is just no way that an operator could work out and implement its own mitigation strategies to deal with the risks of these extraordinarily complex and dangerous over-water survey operations.

And when that exemption expires, it stands to reason that the operator and the operation become dangerous. Why else would the rules prohibit it?

The USA? Pfffft. What would the USA know about aviation regulation.

Sunfish

11th Aug 2015, 07:22

"No One" neatly details some of the problems with exemptions and raises the issues of "FUD" - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Anyone who has worked with major vendors in the computer industry will be well aware of "FUD".

Strangely though, it seems our regulator also understands the use of these tools to keep an industry in perpetual subjugation and the granting of an "exemption" is a perfect way to do it. String them along year after year.

It appears that some in CASA really subscribe to O'Briens dictum from Orwells 1984

He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: ‘How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.

Why for example are experimental aircraft owners perpetually wondering if their ability to maintain their aircraft via an "exemption" will continue?

Why is it not possible to make a once and for all determination regarding aircraft markings on undersides of wings?

Surely simple determinations can be made as they are in every other jurisdiction?

"It is expected" that the exemption will rendered nugatory by regulation! My ass! Why give up a perfectly good tool that causes intense cockpit pain? Look at Dick Smith tying himself in knots over ADS-B. Look at John Quadrio.

CASA seems to take pleasure in the infliction of pain.

LeadSled

11th Aug 2015, 08:25

Sorry Leadsled I just don't have your negative experience in my daily dealings with the dreaded evel empire.

Horatio,
That means you are very fortunate, that you do not deal with different offices of CASA.

Just two examples might get the flavour:

(1) The Jeppesen service not acceptable as a source of information for en-route and terminal area operations.
(2) A maintenance controller in one region not acceptable in another.

And another one I have just remembered, a copy of ICAO Annex 11 not acceptable to meet the requirement to carry a copy of Annex11 on international operations.

Engineering-wise, I could go on for pages.

Tootle pip!!

Jabawocky

12th Aug 2015, 12:45

How can CASA knock back the insertion of a CASA instrument in a manual?
Sorry Leadsled I just don't have your negative experience in my daily dealings with the dreaded evel empire.

Leafie,

I would 100% agree with you. It would seem ludicrous and outright impossible to have that happen………………….. except it does.

I can give you an an example of the countries leading engine shop, who when implementing their DAMP policy used the template provided by CASA, which was ideally suited to the task, and have a series of NCR's issued over it. It took much dummy spitting and calling in the previous DAS and cornering him before anything was done.

I could tell you about one lonely old not used paint tin at the back of a cupboard being used as the reason for shutting them down for a few weeks conveniently prior to testifying at a coronial too. But that backfired on them because the "fill in" blew them out of the water :E

They have form. You are lucky to have some sensible folk. No matter how well MS works, and he seems far better from my experience, there will be some out there who do not play the same ball game.

You also have another advantage in your skill set that wise men at CASA would admire and respect and the fools fear. ;)

Frank Arouet

13th Aug 2015, 00:43

Skidmore had time before taking up his position to be fully briefed on the situation at CAsA. This included a plethora of Senate inquiries, the ASRR, Pel-Air, Part 61, the Regulatory Reform Program, the entire Industry in a state of lacking any confidence in The Regulator and the incumbent's arrogance at Fort Fumble.

The Forsyth Review has NOT been addressed and this should have been the simplest and quickest item on his agenda to garner some Industry support. Marc D Stoop, (AOPA President) also notes this in his latest report.

It is rapidly becoming apparent that he has no intention of doing anything except mouth platitudes and call for further input. Either this, or he is being instructed to do nothing and is therefor not in control of his or our destiny.

The Regulatory Review process is evidence of either a planned obstruction of a once vibrant industry, or those in charge of the revision are incompetent.

It appears to be an exercise in wasting taxpayers time and money. The costs with time eclipsing the money if an audit of failed industry economic input is taken into account.

I am now of the opinion it is incompetence and our problem resolution is simply to advise the fare paying passengers their air travel safety is being compromised by incompetence.

There are hundreds of examples and all one needs to do is find a common thread without recourse to individual claims.

I believe that common theme, be it in the courts, the AAT or by individual FOI or engineering oversight, vexatious intervention or other is...
INCOMPETENCE.

Skidmore will perish unless he addresses this claim in it's infancy and good luck to him with that. I can only support a vote of no confidence in him if he doesn't immediately address the existing vote of no confidence by the industry in The Regulator of which he is head.

The CASA Board need to know where industry stands on this matter.

Supporting a vote of no confidence is probably the most desirable way to take this out of the hands of Minister Truss who appears to have gone missing in action. My suggestion to The Moderators is to Poll this motion. The results either way will put to bed industry opinion.

Checklist Charlie

13th Aug 2015, 03:33

I'll second that.

CC

LeadSled

13th Aug 2015, 08:32

Folks,
Duckie has put the link up for you, get in there and have your say, don't whinge and bitch after the Part 91 goes into place with all the nasties that are in there.
After all, sod all was said about Part 61 until it was too late!!
Tootle pip!!

Arm out the window

13th Aug 2015, 08:37

Supporting a vote of no confidence is probably the most desirable way to take this out of the hands of Minister Truss who appears to have gone missing in action. My suggestion to The Moderators is to Poll this motion. The results either way will put to bed industry opinion

Yep, an internet forum no-confidence vote ought to do it, all right.

Sunfish

13th Aug 2015, 20:39

I defy the possibility that anyone can fly an aircraft without transgressing at least one strict liability offence in the proposed part 91.

Lets start with fuelling alone as an example. Can't you just see inspectors running out to check your fuel gauges as you arrive somewhere?:

91.510 Fuel planning and in-flight fuel requirements

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft commits an offence if he or she:

(a) commences a flight of the aircraft; and

(b) before the flight commences, has not planned the flight to ensure that after landing, the amount of fuel remaining in the aircraft’s fuel tanks will be at least the aircraft’s fixed fuel reserve.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Note For fuel planning generally, see Advisory Circular 91.210.

(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in a flight commits an offence if:

(a) the aircraft does not have sufficient fuel to:

(i) enable the aircraft to land at its intended destination; and

(ii) ensure that, after landing, the fuel remaining in the aircraft’s fuel tanks is not less than the aircraft’s fixed fuel reserve; and

(b) an alternative aerodrome is available to the pilot in command that would enable him or her to:

(i) land the aircraft safely; and

(ii) ensure that, after landing, the fuel remaining in the aircraft’s fuel tanks is not less than the aircraft’s fixed fuel reserve; and

(c) the pilot in command continues the flight to its intended destination.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft engaged in a flight commits an offence if:

(a) the aircraft has a serviceable radio on board; and

(b) the aircraft does not have sufficient fuel to:

(i) enable the aircraft to land at its intended destination; and

(ii) ensure that, after landing, the fuel remaining in the aircraft’s fuel tanks is not less than the aircraft’s fixed fuel reserve; and

(c) the pilot in command does not immediately declare a situation of urgency to Air Traffic Services.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(4) In this regulation:

fixed fuel reserve, for an aircraft, means the amount of fuel required to allow the aircraft to fly at normal cruising speed in International Standard Atmosphere conditions:
(a) for a rotorcraft — for at least 20 minutes; or

(b) for an aeroplane — for at least 30 minutes.

(5) An offence against subregulation (1), (2) or (3) is an offence of strict liability.

CASA can stick part 91 up its backside, period.

To put that a more polite way; the only response possible to the proposed part 91 is a complete No, Nyet, Nada, Nein - complete and total rejection of the entire draft. To attempt to cheese pare - nibbling round the edges of this turd in an attempt to make it palatable is doomed to failure as well as demonstrating, as Doubleyeweight points out, that we must collectively be suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome if we even try to reason with these bastards.

Start by removing all the "strict liability" clauses. After that it may be possible to have a discussion.

As for you AVM. Skidmore, If you think that there is anything in part 91 that does anything to enhance flight safety at all, then you are as bad as the rest of them.

I could go on about the excuses CASA may make for this "consultation" draft - that it is a lawyers "ambit claim" document and we didn't really mean it, but that is not the way to begin a cooperative discussion in a spirit of openness and good faith. You cannot get to a good result by starting from a draft like this!

Stick it up your arse CASA! That is my comment.

Arm out the window

13th Aug 2015, 21:00

What!?

All that fuel stuff says, in essence, is that you have to have sufficient fuel on board to safely conduct your flight, and if you don't, you're doing the wrong thing.

Don't say that they don't need to legislate for common sense things - of course they do, just like there have to be laws for road speed limits and the like.

In an age of litigation, they don't really have too much choice to not close up loopholes.

"Sure I ran out of fuel, your honour, but I honestly didn't mean to."
"OK, fair enough - case dismissed."

Sunfish

13th Aug 2015, 21:39

AOTW: crap!

The regulation requires you not to use your fixed reserve on pain of criminal conviction!

I will not accept your invitation to debate this matter. CASA can stick it up its arse!

Dexta

13th Aug 2015, 23:22

So, despite careful planning, etc. if I use just one litre of my fixed reserve (as determined by the CAsA inspector) then I am a criminal! Wow, I need to learn to wing walk so I can dip my tanks in flight!

ring gear

14th Aug 2015, 00:57

(AOTW) Timbo,

I'm with Sunfish on this one.

For AVM Skidmore….from a voice form the past…Skates: Fix the bloody shambles Australian Aviation has now become. It is now an international disgrace.

cheers

Lead Balloon

14th Aug 2015, 01:05

That's right: If you land at your intended destination with 29 minutes' reserve, when you could have gone to a suitable alternate and landed with 30 minutes' reserve, you are a criminal (times 2).

Fortunately, no one's ever going to be able to prove it.

Ironically, the number of aircraft that suffer fuel exhaustion hasn't changed that much, despite what the rules used to say and now say. This will be just another change without a difference. Will the aviation community and the public be safer as a consequence of this 'reform'? The answer is a categoric 'no'!

That's the key point, AOTW: The silliness (and wastefulness) of a system which produces more and more rules and offences, with no change to the practical outcome.

rjtjrt

14th Aug 2015, 01:11

Whilst I want to give AVM Skidmore the benefit of trust and judging by performance, he must realise CASA is the Telstra of the present day (ie reactionary, inwardly focussed, anti customer/client, the aviation community are the enemy, feeling CASA are there to service it's employees first and number one, etc). A 19th century bureaucracy at it's most reactionary.
He must not join them but needs to look at them from an outside perspective and a new broom must be weilded.
As said, CASA is an international and local disgrace. And as said above, look to NZ for an example of how to do it and how not to overcomplicate it/re-invent the wheel.

Lead Balloon

14th Aug 2015, 01:42

Here is what the current rule says:234 Fuel requirements

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight within Australian territory, or to or from Australian territory, if he or she has not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.
...

(3) For the purposes of these Regulations, in determining whether fuel and oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient within the meaning of subregulations (1) and (2), a court must, in addition to any other matters, take into account the following matters:

(a) the distance to be travelled by the aircraft on the flight to reach the proposed destination;

(b) the meteorological conditions in which the aircraft is, or may be required, to fly;

(c) the possibility of:

(i) a forced diversion to an alternative aerodrome; and

(ii) a delay pending landing clearance; and

(iii) air traffic control re‑routing the flight after commencement of the flight; and

(iv) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; and

(v) where the aircraft is a multi‑engined aircraft—an engine failure;

(d) any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA for the purposes of this regulation.

(4) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.What is the safety risk created by this provision, the mitigation of which is the provisions of Part 91, and how, precisely, is that mitigation going to be achieved as a matter of practicality?

If there are no coherent answers to those questions, it's a completely pointless (and wasteful) exercise.

Jabawocky

14th Aug 2015, 02:12

Exactly :ok:
Ironically, the number of aircraft that suffer fuel exhaustion hasn't changed that much, despite what the rules used to say and now say. This will be just another change without a difference. Will the aviation community and the public be safer as a consequence of this 'reform'? The answer is a categoric 'no'!

As usual, a prudent pilot will do prudent things regardless of the rules. But If CASA find they want to nail some poor sod, they now have the tools to turn you into a criminal.

Just like the firearms game, a criminal breaks in to your house, steals all your guns, yet you get nailed for not securing them properly :ugh: Even though you complied with the regs to begin with. Of course the fact the crime knew who you were, where you lived and what you had because they had a copy of the registry, is no defence to you! :=

This country is slowly getting screwed up so bad by "legal departments" I think most people are headed towards adopting civil disobedience because no matter how good you are you are never going to win, so why bother.

Part 91 is going to be the same.

Frank Arouet

14th Aug 2015, 05:19

I know of two examples of vexatious prosecutions that began as a result of the accused doing nothing except refer to an FOI a "********". Both have suffered immense losses. I can't find anything in the regulations preventing one expressing such a wide held opinion.

It appears CAsA don't take criticism well either.

LeadSled

14th Aug 2015, 08:49

Folks,
Re. the 30m Fixed Final Reserve, that has a very interesting history --- but the ICAO intent is that the engine (s) will, at least, be running at touchdown. It's all about order of accuracy and normal tolerances for gauges, flowmeters etc, and actual fuel SG.

In fact, based on the record over many years, I actually strongly support the concept of FFR. It has been Qantas (and Boeing and IATA etc) SOPs for over 30 years, so CASA can't be accused of rushing it.

It is quite correct, and intended, that all operational reserves are on top of the FFR.

However, from a strict liability criminal offense point of view, how is 30 minutes calculated???

What the hell does "normal cruise speed" mean??

At the present time, the FFR and most other holding reserves are calculated at the holding fuel flow,(for FFR, at 1500') which you can "legally" calculate for a particular weight and flight conditions.

There is no shortage of similar nonsense throughout Part 91.

The bloke who is now the Project Manager is not responsible for creating the present Part 91, he is one of the "good guys" in CASA, but please read the whole thing, including MOS, and comment --- bury him in comments.

Tootle pip!!

dubbleyew eight

14th Aug 2015, 15:51

I found one single solitary thing in the part 91 draft that was good.

for bloody years now I have had problems logging in to naips to get a weather forecast.
evidently I use naips so infrequently that my password times out.
so every time I try to use it I have to reset the password.
but...
according to the guy in airservices I got to assist me one time my licence number is so old it is outside the range of licence numbers that the software deems to be valid.
so on every attempt to reset the password it refuses me as an invalid user.

throughout the part 91 draft there is a BOM website address that I was never aware of. it allows access to aviation weather forecasts bypassing the schemozzle that is naips logins.
(Australia's official weather forecasts & weather radar - Bureau of Meteorology (http://reg.bom.gov.au/index.shtml)).

finally!!!!

Arm out the window

14th Aug 2015, 23:11

AOTW: crap!

The regulation requires you not to use your fixed reserve on pain of criminal conviction!

I will not accept your invitation to debate this matter. CASA can stick it up its arse!

I'm not inviting you to debate, Sunfish. However, you're reading it wrong I think, and going off half-cocked on your rant.

It says in essence, you must:

1. Not take off unless you've planned to have your fixed reserve remaining at the destination

2. If in flight you won't have your fixed reserve remaining when you get to the destination and an alternate is available, you must not keep going to the destination

3. If you are going to land with less than your fixed reserve and you have a radio, you must declare an emergency.

Lead Balloon

14th Aug 2015, 23:50

So what is it about landing with 29 instead of 30 that turns the circumstances into a crime and an emergency?

The people who run out of fuel under the current rules are going to run out of fuel under the new rules. There are plenty of ways to ping the pilot now (setting aside all of the real hurt they're gonna get when the insurance doesn't respond ...)

What practical outcome does the proposed new rule achieve that isn't already achieved by the current rule?

And I note the irony of 20+ years of work on outcomes-based rules that produces a prescriptive rule to replace an outcomes-based rule. :ugh:

Arm out the window

15th Aug 2015, 01:19

It's not the actual landing with 29 rather than 30, it's either planning to do it in the first place, finding it's going to happen in flight and continuing anyway when an alternate's available, or finding it's going to happen and not declaring it (which I'm sure in the past has led to accidents due to aircraft not getting priority until it was too late). There's nothing there which is victimising pilots who do the right thing.

Whether anything better than the old rules has been achieved is a different story - certainly it's not clear that much benefit if any has been gained when weighed up against the cost of the whole revamp.

Modernising and rationalising a bunch of disparate rule books sounds like a good idea, which is why I suppose they embarked on this whole thing in the first place, but as we all know it's been a 20 year schemozzle in many ways. Once the project was started, though, CASA's choice has been to either chuck it out and call it a waste, or keep ploughing through under various leaders and regimes, and I'm sure most of us in the same position would probably choose to keep going to see it through. Just my 2 bob's worth.

Lead Balloon

15th Aug 2015, 04:53

to keep going to see it through.Gosh - CASA seems to have struck it rich on this thread. Someone who thinks "it is expected that" means something, and someone else who thinks the regulatory reform program is going to end. I really didn't think that there was anyone that naive left.

I'm afraid I have some bad news for you, AOTW. There are only a couple of people in CASA with the expertise to bring the regulatory reform program to a conclusion (Mr Skidmore isn't one of them), and they have zero incentive to do so. In fact, they have a very substantial and positive incentive for it to drag on forever. That's one of the reasons for there now being reform projects to fix messes created by previous reform projects, and ever-increasing exemptions.

It's a never-ending self-licking ice cream, for numerous people on 6 figure salaries.

"Beyond a certain point, complexity is fraud."

Arm out the window

15th Aug 2015, 05:11

I merely pointed out that their option is to either throw the lot in the bin and say "we wasted all this time and money for nothing," or keep going.

What would you do? And why would you say Mark Skidmore doesn't have the 'expertise' to bring it to a conclusion? What sort of expertise would be needed? These are not facetious questions, I just don't understand the absolutely entrenched view espoused by some that CASA couldn't possibly do anything good, ever. Reading back over this and other threads on the subject, that's a common theme, but it's just too easy to throw out a 'they're a bunch of dickheads' comment, which doesn't achieve much.

I agree (as I already alluded to above) that this reform process has been a big expensive shambles, no argument there.

Lead Balloon

15th Aug 2015, 06:17

It is not a "view". It is the data collected over the last couple of decades.

Continuing with this process, run in this way by this regulator, is only going to produce more complexity and burn more money.

Yep: Throw it all in the bin and, more importantly, get rid of the very substantial and positive incentive some have to drag the process on forever.

I'll try to explain the problem by analogy.

Imagine a hypothetical RAAF Squadron that's running like a well-oiled machine.

Then take everyone away, from the CO down, and replace them with .... hmmmm ... let's pick .... university professors.

The professors are, demonstrably, really smart - smarter than most of the Squadron personnel - and can read and understand all the manuals and tech data and SOPs. They understand, completely, what needs to be done to get the Squadron running like a well-oiled machine. And various of their colleagues will tell you that they're "really good blokes".

What could possibly go wrong?

As the debacle stumbles from crisis to crisis, year after year and triple digit millions after triple digit millions, everyone keeps saying: "We have to see this through with the professors. This Squadron is essential to the defence of the nation."

Of course, as you well understand, the debacle will never end because university professors will never be capable of competently and expertly doing all of the jobs that need to be done to get the Squadron running like a well-oiled machine.

Hold that thought.

A regulator can only run like a well-oiled machine if it is comprised of competent experts in regulation. Pilots and engineers, even really smart ones that are good blokes and can lead a squadron of fighter jets or strike bombers and are sure they know what they are doing, are not competent experts in regulation. It's particularly problematic when the person in charge is not a competent expert in regulation.

That's one of the reasons for the regulatory reform debacle. Certainly not the only reason, but one of the reasons.

Arm out the window

15th Aug 2015, 07:02

Which experts in regulation would you like to nominate as alternatives, LB? I'd be keen to hear who you'd put in Skidmore's place.

As an aside, he's done quite a bit more than simply lead squadrons - he was up in some of the highest defence positions, which may not be necessarily the only breeding ground for people who know how to run big organisations but it's not a bad start.

He is a good bloke, knows a lot about aviation, owns his own aeroplane, and based on what I've seen so far, is making a fair fist of dealing with what he's taken on with CASA. He's been out talking directly with various sectors of the industry, and some of these exemptions being issued lately, as I understand it, are the result of that. Exemptions aren't what we would be having in an ideal world, but as I think we all know, they're needed at the moment for whoever is sorting out the mess that is the reform program, which at the moment is the bloke in question.

The 'university professors running the RAAF' analogy, whilst amusing, isn't a good one, unless they were also clued up on aviation matters as well as being good leaders of complex organisations.

At this stage I'd expect a chorus of 'What would Skidmore know about GA?', to which I've previously replied along the lines of 'How does running a GA organisation prepare you any better for the position we're discussing?'

Name a few names from this pool of expert regulators who could do better, or even suggest where they might come from, and let's go from there.

Lead Balloon

15th Aug 2015, 09:50

You make some common (and reasonable) assumptions, but which I consider erroneous: that people with experience in the subject matter being regulated are therefore necessarily qualified to be competent and expert regulators; that people who have managed any big organisation are therefore necessarily qualified to be competent and expert managers in regulators.

I thought my analogy was a valid one. The professors assume they know what they are doing, because they assume they have the necessary smarts and the skills to find out everything that needs to be done. The aviators assume they know what the regulator is supposed to do, because they understand the subject matter being regulated. Both assumptions are invalid.

(I recall one Professor who wrote a breathless article on the dangers of SIMOPS. He opined that "scarcely a more dangerous system could be devised". When I walked him through what SODROPS stood for, he nearly had a coronary. The point is he knew he was right, but he was wrong. Many in the aviation industry know what the regulator should do, but they, too, are wrong.

It seems to me that one of the essential skills of the head of a regulatory authority is to manage the substantial risks that arise from employing people with experience in the subject matter being regulated. Experts almost invariably labour under the misconception that their job, having joined a regulator, is to implement their pet projects and impose, on the world at large, their opinions about the subject matter being regulated. (Sound vaguely familiar?)

The government keeps appointing CASA CEOs who are experts in the subject matter CASA regulates, not expert regulators. How, then, does Mr Skidmore know that his job is not to implement his pet projects or impose, on the aviation community, his opinions about aviation regulation?

A real expert in regulation would recognise, immediately, the fundamental flaw in the regulatory reform program: the regulator is running it. This suits the people who actually understand what's going on and want to avoid responsibility for setting the standards that the regulator should just implement. Much better, for them, to instead leave the regulator to make sh*t up as it goes along and cop the flak for it.

But the roost is now creaking under the weight of the ever-increasing number of chickens coming home, in the form of a regulatory regime that is, by any objective measure, a sick, expensive joke and a hoax on the industry.

Names? Off the top of my head: Graham Peachey. Ron Catchpole. I could name a few more, but they'd all be perceived by large chunks of the aviation community to be unqualified because none of them is a skygod. And the people who actually understand what's going on in aviation regulation are very happy to keep appointing skygods and watch them draw the flak.

Arm out the window

15th Aug 2015, 22:24

I don't know the people you named there, LB, but I imagine they're competent and decent blokes.

I do think that a sound basis in aviation is required for the position of DAS, though, otherwise the tail wags the dog, and I have a bit of trouble accepting your idea that there are substantial risks that arise from employing people with experience in the subject matter being regulated. The 'skygod' description implies an egotist who won't listen to anyone, and no, I wouldn't want someone like that in charge either, but I wouldn't say that's the case with Mark Skidmore; far from it.

It's fair what you say about people wanting to implement their pet projects, but I don't see that that's what Skidmore is trying to do; rather, I think he's genuinely trying to work through and fix some significant problems in the organisation he's been appointed to lead.

I'd also be very surprised to see anyone from whatever background who took over the role throwing out the whole reform program, which is what you have called for: Yep: Throw it all in the bin and, more importantly, get rid of the very substantial and positive incentive some have to drag the process on forever.

What would you do, burn the CASR and reprint all the regs from 1995?

Sunfish

15th Aug 2015, 22:56

AOTW, sunk costs are irrelevant in accounting terms. There is no logical or economic argument for "finishing the project", as others have pointed out this has been going on for Twenty years at great expense and much pain and suffering.

What to do? Throw it out. Throw out the management that attempted the project in the first place and throw out the lawyers because the people who got us into this mess by definition are not the people to get us out of it since they will automatically pervert any new project.

Buy a copy of the New Zealand Regulations and start from there as a "greenfield" project.

P.S. Please stop with the "sweet reason" arguments implying that CASA people are honest and good with our best intentions in mind.

The reality, judging by the experiences catalogued in the Forsyth review and ad nauseam in Pprune as that they are lowlife, vindictive, scum. Don't you remember the conclusion of the Forsyth report? That CASA has lost the trust of the industry?

If draconian penalties are available to CASA then the current mob will use them to the hilt to cause as much pain and suffering as possible.

To put that another way: There is a long catalogue of deliberate dishonesty, vendettas, persecution, deception, capriciousness, inequity, inefficiency, unfairness and injustice by CASA….and you want to give them more power and reduce what little defences we have against these bastards even further???????????

LeadSled

15th Aug 2015, 23:09

Sunfish,
Well said!!
Tootle pip!!

PS: Any of you around Melbourne remember Bill Waterton and his T-6, a classic example.

Arm out the window

15th Aug 2015, 23:40

Sunk costs may be irrelevant in accounting terms, but the costs of replacing and rebuilding from the ashes are not. Buy the Kiwi rules? Maybe. However, our legal system and theirs are a lot different as I understand it, so you might have to throw out a lot more than just the aviation regs.

P.S. Please stop with the "sweet reason" arguments implying that CASA people are honest and good with our best intentions in mind.

I'm not implying that at all, just saying they're not all evil arseholes either, and seeing as we're saying please, please don't tell me what I should and shouldn't say. I will use what I believe to be sound and reasoned arguments and not take the easy option of venting, a la Sunfish's 'get f%%&ed CASA' masterpiece on the Part 91 thread! Good reading, but just over the top.

zanthrus

16th Aug 2015, 00:29

I don't know the people you named there, LB, but I imagine they're competent and decent blokes.

I do think that a sound basis in aviation is required for the position of DAS, though, otherwise the tail wags the dog, and I have a bit of trouble accepting your idea that there are . The 'skygod' description implies an egotist who won't listen to anyone, and no, I wouldn't want someone like that in charge either, but I wouldn't say that's the case with Mark Skidmore; far from it.

It's fair what you say about people wanting to implement their pet projects, but I don't see that that's what Skidmore is trying to do; rather, I think he's genuinely trying to work through and fix some significant problems in the organisation he's been appointed to lead.

I'd also be very surprised to see anyone from whatever background who took over the role throwing out the whole reform program, which is what you have called for:

What would you do, burn the CASR and reprint all the regs from 1995?

Yep. Sounds like an excellent start!

Lead Balloon

16th Aug 2015, 01:42

Yep: Burn it all and get rid of all the people who have a positive incentive to keep producing new rules. Get some real experts to quickly build a very basic regulatory framework to give ICAO some comfort that there is a framework in place.

It's a choice between throwing more money at making an ever-increasing mess, and cutting losses by tidying up the mess as big as it currently is. That's the stark choice.

I think I read somewhere on pprune an analogy with the Spruce Goose and a Dreamliner and the point that there was no way the Spruce Goose could have been constantly improved into a Dreamliner. Someone finally had to make the stark choice of whether to persist or cut losses.

If the people working on the Spruce Goose had access to an endless source of other people's money, they'd still be working on it today.

There is no way that the current regulatory bugger's muddle is ever going to be constantly improved, by this process and by these people, into what was promised over 2 decades ago. But while ever they have access to an endless source of other people's money, they'll keep working on the regulatory equivalent of the Spruce Goose.

The reason that burning the lot would not create substantial safety risks is, ironically, the same reason as to why the current bugger's muddle dragging on forever does not create substantial safety risks: The vast majority of the aviation community would continue to choose to make prudent decisions and the incompetent and deliberate risk takers would continue to be incompetent and deliberately take risks. But at least further waste would be reduced and the running sore of confusion, frustration, business destruction, change fatigue and distrust of the regulator might start to dry up and heal.

Seriously: Australian civil aviation would be better off if the government:

- burnt all of the rules and replaced them with a one sentence law prohibiting everyone from doing everything, and

- gave the regulator a very thick pad of exemption forms.

At least that way:

- everyone would have a consistent understanding of what the law is

- the waste of decades of regulatory reform would end

- thousands of pages of rules that almost nobody reads or cares about would be repealed, and

- the regulator could continue to impose its pet projects and strong opinions on a captive and hapless industry, but in a more efficient way.

Seriously: Australain civil aviation would be better off.

LeadSled

16th Aug 2015, 02:02

However, our legal system and theirs are a lot different as I understand it,Arm,
With the very greatest of respect, you couldn't be more wrong, but you have swallowed the CASA propaganda.

Overall, the NZ legislative system is the same as Australia, and aviation wise, the framework is simply an Act (quite superior to our Act, and includes a requirement for the Minister to promote aviation) Regulations and Advisory Circulars (acceptable means of compliance). No nonsense of MOS. No thousands of Legislative Instruments.

About the only real black spot is medical standards, and that is because, in my opinion, the people are wrong. Sadly, CASA seem to have "harmonised" with NZ CAA in this area, because it/as result of which it (take your pick) disadvantages long standing Australian standards.

The Commonwealth of Australia has a long and respectable history of importing legislation by reference, we have been doing it since 1901.

but I don't see that that's what Skidmore is trying to do; rather, I think he's genuinely trying to work through and fix some significant problems in the organisation he's been appointed to lead.Is he really??

One of his first "decisions" seems to be to reaffirm the Navathe approach to colour vision, taking us back almost 30 years, and the absolute antithesis of facts based or performance/outcome based regulation -- and contrary to Government policy on red tape reduction. Mr. Skidmore has been quite blunt about colour vision standards, he prefers the RAAF "black and white" (interesting choice of words) approach of one simple standard (unrelated to whether you can fly safely), you are in or you are out ---- based on arbitrary tests that neither conform with our present regulations, or ICAO.

Tootle pip!!

Arm out the window

16th Aug 2015, 02:41

LeadSled

16th Aug 2015, 09:39

Re the legal stuff, I was thinking of the risk acceptance etc associated with Kiwi 'extreme tourism' type activities, which (I believe) reduces the issues their operators have with being sued as long as they take reasonable safety related steps. Dunno a lot about it, it's just what I've heard, so as always I'm happy to be corrected where I'm wrong.

Arm,
Actually, the legal framework here is, if anything, better than NZ, but the difference is marginal. Needless to say, I am not referring to aviation legislation.

We have quite a long list of court cases that have supported not paying damages when the person injured was one who voluntarily assumed a risk in a clearly risky enterprise.

Indeed, consumer law here fundamentally allows a business operator in a field of extreme sports or similar activities to contract out of what would otherwise been the normal responsibilities to the consumer.

In 1996, aviation wise, we tool a different tack to the NZers and their Swedavia-McGregor report:<http://www.caa.govt.nz/pubdocs/Swedavia-McGregor_Report.htm> and, as a result, the legal framework for the CASA Experimental and Limited Categories rejected an "equivalent safety" approach, in favor of the then Australian Government policy that people should be free to indulge in risky pursuits, but were personally responsible for the outcomes, not CASA.

This is reflected in the current legislation, but needless to say, CASA can't leave well enough alone, and the outcomes if Part 132 is enacted do not bode well for "Adventure Flying" in Australia, likewise recent CASA intrusion in to other air sports areas that have been successful for many years.

There is quite a regulatory empire being created in the CASA Sports Aviation office, all to address nil real problems, just imagined. Unfortunately, the resultant intrusions and $$$ costs are anything but imaginary.

In the case of Part 132, CASA has turned two (2) simple regulation, that have worked well since 1998 into several hundred pages of regulations and MOS (by the time they are finished) and needless to say, this all addresses no problems, but does it in a manner that provides for the usual costly micro-management and a considerable array of new offenses.

Again, needless to say, without the slightest attempt at justification, let alone cost/benefit justification, and in complete defiance of the present Government red tape cost reduction policy.

Tootle pip!!

Sunfish

16th Aug 2015, 21:44

AOTW:

I'm not implying that at all, just saying they're not all evil arseholes either, and seeing as we're saying please, please don't tell me what I should and shouldn't say. I will use what I believe to be sound and reasoned arguments and not take the easy option of venting, a la Sunfish's 'get f%%&ed CASA' masterpiece on the Part 91 thread! Good reading, but just over the top.

"Sound and reasoned arguments" don't work when you are dealing with arseholes. I have been through about $60 million worth of "sound and reasoned arguments" with venture capitalists who still want your children's shoes and a pint of your blood no matter how "sound and reasoned" you care to be - and they talk real nice too. They are basically no different from biker gangs, just with suits and manners. CASA has proved no different judging by the Forsyth review.

"Sound and reasoned" only works when both sides are looking for a win/win outcome and CASA has demonstrated over Two decades at least that they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in "win/win" outcomes which is why it is necessary to rewrite The Aviation Act to make it a requirement that CASA foster the industry.

AS for "good people" being in CASA, so what? The good people aren't making the decisions. I had a lawyer working for me who was a classic "good people" I eventually had to put him on a tight leash because when he was let loose he turned into an attack dog from hell.

Don't you understand the concept of "Litigation privilege"? Once CASA is in court or the AAT they can and will do anything and everything to win their case, no matter how underhanded and dishonest it is. "Model litigant" you say? Just ask the victims.

To put that another way, there is nothing "sound and reasoned" about CASAs approach to enforcement or conduct at all.

"Sound and reasoned" has got us precisely no where for Twenty plus years! Skidmore is as I correctly suspected a "nodding donkey" (to use the description of some Lloyds insurance brokers prior to the Piper Alpha disaster) because the senior management of CASA will do everything in their power to resist change and there is an endless supply of ex RAAF officers standing in a queue ready to replace them and continue the embuggerance.

Oh wait! Aren't we supposed to be improving air safety?

Let me put it this way. My CASA approved training to fly an aircraft left me simply astonished at the gaps. Once I realised that, I started on a quest to find out what else I didn't know and there was plenty that I had to remedy, starting with some basic acrobatics training for "recovery from unusual situations". However is CASA a resource for any of this? A freindly old Uncle who can point you in the right direction? Even a stern but fair trainer? Not a hope in hell! I discovered it would be better to kiss a crocodile than have anything to do with CASA beyond the bare minimum required by law because they have produced nothing beyond the VFR Guide that helps me be safer and a whole lot of regulation that does the reverse, and that regulation is backed up by capricious and unfair prosecution. I would assume, judging by what happened to Dominic James, that the situation for commercial pilots is no different.

Sorry for the rant "Sound and reasoned" argument has proved pointless in dealing with CASA. A New political party or, sadly, a major accident is the only hope of change.

Jabawocky

16th Aug 2015, 23:22

Sunny,

I'll buy you a beer at Ausfly for that! Post Of The Year award nomination material here;

Perhaps you should print this and bring it with you…..you never know who will be there ;)

AOTW, sunk costs are irrelevant in accounting terms. There is no logical or economic argument for "finishing the project", as others have pointed out this has been going on for Twenty years at great expense and much pain and suffering.

What to do? Throw it out. Throw out the management that attempted the project in the first place and throw out the lawyers because the people who got us into this mess by definition are not the people to get us out of it since they will automatically pervert any new project.

Buy a copy of the New Zealand Regulations and start from there as a "greenfield" project.

P.S. Please stop with the "sweet reason" arguments implying that CASA people are honest and good with our best intentions in mind.

The reality, judging by the experiences catalogued in the Forsyth review and ad nauseam in PPRuNe as that they are lowlife, vindictive, scum. Don't you remember the conclusion of the Forsyth report? That CASA has lost the trust of the industry?

If draconian penalties are available to CASA then the current mob will use them to the hilt to cause as much pain and suffering as possible.

To put that another way: There is a long catalogue of deliberate dishonesty, vendettas, persecution, deception, capriciousness, inequity, inefficiency, unfairness and injustice by CASA….and you want to give them more power and reduce what little defences we have against these bastards even further???????????

CoodaShooda

17th Aug 2015, 03:41

Buy a copy of the New Zealand Regulations and start from there as a "greenfield" project.

I thought that's what Skidmore said he was wanting to do in an interview in The Australian a few weeks back. Also mentioned FAA.

thorn bird

17th Aug 2015, 09:07

Cooda,

sorry mate but it matters naught what Skidmore says.

The "Iron ring" will never allow it.

Skidmore is just a glove puppet, warming the seat for another four years topping up his retirement funds.
I mean really what incentive does he have to do anything?

By doing nothing he has plausible denial.

Think of all the Nuremburg excuses we have heard over time. "that occurred before my appointment", "I was in Montreal at the time", "not my department", "I just did as I was ordered" etc. etc.
Sad to say but the Murky Macavellian is a brilliant Puppeteer. Just like a game of thrones, he's outmaneuvered us all.

GA airports will go to the Development sharks.

Major airports will continue creating new members of the Millionaires club and contributions to the Bermudan economy with their tax free status.

Momentum will ensure CAsA will continue churning out regulations long after there is any industry left to regulate, and the "Iron Ring" members have sufficient retirement funds stashed away.

If you believe in Karma you could pray Pumpkin head has a heart attack before he gets to spend any of the ill gotten gains coming his way.

There is no hope for aviation in Australia, without an Erebus event nothing will change, there's just too much short term money to be made by destroying us and not enough money within the industry to fight against it, too many of us prepared to prostitute ourselves to those who would destroy us

Public Interest?? Pffft!! since when has a politician ever considered that.

I used to be so naïve as to imagine that a public servants job was to serve the public, not their own self interest.

Not anymore!

Arm out the window

18th Aug 2015, 00:55

Skidmore is just a glove puppet, warming the seat for another four years topping up his retirement funds.
I mean really what incentive does he have to do anything?

Sounds like you're there in the office with him, Thorn Bird, seeing as you appear to know what he's up to and what motivates him.

If you don't personally believe that a desire to do your job to the best of your ability and achieve some positive results isn't enough for someone to get off their arse each day, then that's your choice, but it's a pretty sad and cynical one in my book.

itsnotthatbloodyhard

18th Aug 2015, 02:56

AOTW: I think the issue here is one of expectations. The OP had reasonable expectations, got his exemptions, and went away happy. Others will only be happy if the new DAS tears up the entire regulatory framework, renounces any past connection with the RAAF, and then does whatever Dick and his fan club demand (i.e. a glove puppet of a different sort). I'd suggest that this isn't a reasonable expectation, and isn't likely to be fulfilled. At least it'll allow some to continue with their chosen hobby of venting furiously on Internet forums. :ok:

Lead Balloon

18th Aug 2015, 04:01

What, then, is Mr Skidmore's job?

I will guarantee that whatever you and AOTW pluck out of the air will be as wrong as what "Dick and his fan club", and Mr Skidmore, pluck out of the air.

Therein lies another fundamental problem.

Frank Arouet

18th Aug 2015, 05:48

Anybody that adds to the "dog's breakfast" called Regulatory Review is not capable of carrying out the duties that the office holds. Exemptions add to the nightmare. Isn't 20+ years and $millions wasted enough to call a halt and have a hard look at "that problem" which, by all accounts he believes does not exist?

Until Skidmore admits there is a problem he can't address it.

An apologist for the DAS is worse than any perceived "fan club" of realists is I would suggest. His listening days are over, the Forsyth Review said it all and he's done nothing. One can only imagine he is part of the fantastic new world order without aircraft except for the "enlightened ones".

Horatio Leafblower

18th Aug 2015, 05:59

Frank,

Given the dog's breakfast that has the hide to call itself the Australian Government, how do you propose swift and effective changes, fixes and allowances be made to Federal legislation?

How long do you suggest it will take to wait for a legislative amendment to fix a problem that is damaging aviation businesses TODAY? How long is acceptable?

Six weeks?

Six months?

How does the DAS change the direction of CASA's legislative re-drafting debacle without MINISTERIAL DIRECTION to do so?

While we all agree Mr Skidmore is a public servant, is it his job to read PPRuNe and direct CASA accordingly?

...or is it his job to steer the ship in accordance with the policy and directives of the government of the day?

All the screaming in the world, all the invective you smash into your keyboard, all the spittle you have to wipe off your screen as you vent your spleen through these pages is totally wasted if directed (vicariously) at the DAS.

The Regs as they stand are a product of Australian politics. Use your vote wisely at the next election :=

Sunfish

18th Aug 2015, 08:06

The regulations are not a product of politics in the sense of competing world views. They are a product of BOTH SIDES of politics wishing to ignore/be insulated from aviation accident political costs.

THAT is the product CASA sells. THAT is why all pilots are "criminals who haven't been caught yet". There are precisely no votes in Aviation. Its rather like prison reform or regulation of feral animals.

The politicians pay CASA an insurance fee so that they don't have to pay attention to aviation. CASAs customer is the Government not us. We don't matter.

That is why I say that absent a political party or strike action, or a major accident the politicians are right in believing that noises from us can be safely ignored.

Skidmore? Nodding donkey, "safe pair of hands", "won't rock the boat", "One of us", "trusted", "steady".

Skidmore will labor mightily in the garden of the Lord and will, predictably, produce nothing of any import, because his Minister and Department Head chose him to do nothing more than keep aviation out of the headlines. I'm sure he is a nice guy and will try hard an d be granted a small change in the regulations to put his name to (perhaps tyre valve caps will no longer need to be yellow).

Real reform? No hope! As i have said before that would need a reformer backed by a minion or Two from Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as "advisors" (read bureaucratic assassins) to rip CASA apart and restructure it.

The sort of guys needed are, to paraphrase a description of Ohio Political operatives; "guys so smart and clever that you don't even realise they have cut your throat until half an hour after they have taken their leave".

Lead Balloon

18th Aug 2015, 10:17

The politicians pay CASA an insurance fee so that they don't have to pay attention to aviation. CASAs customer is the Government not us. We don't matter.Indeed.

Mr Skidmore's actual job is to draw flak away from the people actually responsible for aviation safety regulation.

Frank Arouet

18th Aug 2015, 11:14

HL;

I'm of the opinion the CAsA orchestra is being directed by one senior public servant that's gone rogue and will one day join previous people in the position at the millionaires factory that own things like airports. It's out of the hands of the politicians who see their positions enhanced by the buffer offered by staying at arms length. No party will commit to effective reform let alone allow such a program come to an end. I concur with sunfish. Skidmore is a disappointment that only serves to prolong the misery of an enduring industry extinction. (save for the illuminati).

Arm out the window

18th Aug 2015, 11:24

Right, that's it for me.

The regulations are not a product of politics in the sense of competing world views. They are a product of BOTH SIDES of politics wishing to ignore/be insulated from aviation accident political costs.

They are how any government deals with its responsibilities. What else do you want?

THAT is the product CASA sells. THAT is why all pilots are "criminals who haven't been caught yet".

If you are a criminal, expect to be treated like one. If you do the right thing, then you won't have a problem.

There are precisely no votes in Aviation. Its rather like prison reform or regulation of feral animals.

Boo f*&king hoo, I may burst into tears if you hit me with any more whingeing.

The politicians pay CASA an insurance fee so that they don't have to pay attention to aviation. CASAs customer is the Government not us. We don't matter.

See above.

That is why I say that absent a political party or strike action, or a major accident the politicians are right in believing that noises from us can be safely ignored.

Well mate, any time you're ready, step up and fix the situation - I'm waiting with bated breath to see your solutions to all these terrible problems.

Skidmore? Nodding donkey, "safe pair of hands", "won't rock the boat", "One of us", "trusted", "steady".

Why don't you jump straight in and do a better job, that should fix everything.

Skidmore will labor mightily in the garden of the Lord What are you on, you goose?

and will, predictably, produce nothing of any import

How's your crystal ball there, Nostradamus?

because his Minister and Department Head chose him to do nothing more than keep aviation out of the headlines

Did they now? You're mates with them, I suppose? Know how they work?

I'm sure he is a nice guy and will try hard an d be granted a small change in the regulations to put his name to (perhaps tyre valve caps will no longer need to be yellow).

Any time you're ready to contribute a bit more, go for it!

Real reform? No hope! As i have said before that would need a reformer backed by a minion or Two from Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as "advisors" (read bureaucratic assassins) to rip CASA apart and restructure it.

On ya, champion - whenever you're ready, step up!

The sort of guys needed are, to paraphrase a description of Ohio Political operatives; "guys so smart and clever that you don't even realise they have cut your throat until half an hour after they have taken their leave".

Yep, that'll work - get them on the payroll, can't wait for the improvements to flow on from your outstanding input.

dubbleyew eight

18th Aug 2015, 11:44

my don't the ex-raaf hate it when someone criticises one of their number.
I mean, hell we flew jets, how could we be wrong?
you bug smashers know so little.

....problem is that you are regulating bug smashers not jets and your prior experience is actually the problem.
W8

Sunfish

18th Aug 2015, 20:09

AOTW:

If you are a criminal, expect to be treated like one. If you do the right thing, then you won't have a problem.

Not true, and therein lies the problem on Two counts: There is ample evidence of vendettas and capricious, malicious persecution.

But more importantly for those like me and the majority who try and obey the law, CASA has made the regulations so voluminous, difficult and complex that it is almost impossible to "do the right thing" all the time.

AOTW, you have heard of the Forsyth review I trust? Is that all just "whinging"? I'd love to hear your comments.

To put that another way; what part of "CASA has lost the trust of the industry" don't you understand?

Arm out the window

18th Aug 2015, 22:02

I mean, hell we flew jets, how could we be wrong?
you bug smashers know so little.

That's the well-worn chorus, but it's far off the mark - I've worked for over a decade in GA too and the difference in experience that forms the basis of much of the anti-RAAF sentiment here just isn't real, though it's a convenient fallback option when trotting out the insults.

People doing the right thing? A lot of the time, but you don't need to turn over too many rocks to find aircraft being flown unserviceable, hours falsified, parts kept in service too long, maintenance not being written up in the MR, rules of the air being methodically busted etc etc ... then when the authorities come after the perpetrators it's a big surprise? Come on. At least some (I'm not saying all) of these so-called vendettas are just the dodgy operator that everyone knows is doing the wrong thing finally getting caught up with. Don't tell me you don't know of stuff like this going on.

what part of "CASA has lost the trust of the industry" don't you understand?

I understand it all right, but stubbornly refusing to budge one little bit to re-engage with them and slagging them off at every opportunity is hardly going to change anything, is it?

Jabawocky

19th Aug 2015, 04:14

I understand it all right, but stubbornly refusing to budge one little bit to re-engage with them and slagging them off at every opportunity is hardly going to change anything, is it?

I would normally agree with you. And I do in a general sense, but when it comes to some at CASA it would not be polite to slag them off personally without just cause, but as a whole, they take on the person of the lowest common denominator and that unfortunately has caused most to view the organisation with the contempt is not only deserves but asks for.

If they want better engagement having had industry try for so long, it is time they actually did some and listened and responded. The DAS is trying. I have an acid test for him shortly, but I fear he and JB are two guys trying hard against a bureaucratic monster that can't be tamed with anything less than a 338 Lapua.

And it is not just people in aviation who find them difficult, or impossible to deal with, I was at a shooting industry function last week, during the Q&A session I made reference to aviation and afterwards I got swamped with folks wanting to know how to work with or around the problems at CASA. The news I gave them was not good. And I knew exactly who they were talking about.

Its not just us folks.

Frank Arouet

19th Aug 2015, 06:15

If Skidmore is a "new broom", and this thread is to support the notion that he is actively achieving anything because of one exemption, I would suggest to his ex Batman and cheers squad that he may like to give the industry some sort of statement to the effect he recognizes a problem exists and he is the man to fix it. I can't over emphasize the need for him to read and act on the Forsyth Review, if only to say he accepts the industry input which highlights a problem. Asking for more input and consulting with industry is akin to "fiddling while Rome burns". Soon there will be no industry. Doesn't he get that? Or doesn't he care?

Arm out the window

19th Aug 2015, 06:46

Perhaps a statement like this would be suitable - if only he'd put one out, the recalcitrant bastard!

GPO Box 2005 Canberra ACT 2601 Telephone: (02) 6217 1001 Facsimile: (02) 6217 1555
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF AVIATION SAFETY

Trim Ref: F15/529

23 April 2015

Dear Sir/Madam

Update on new flight crew licensing regulations

I am writing to you about the new flight crew licensing suite of regulations that took effect in September 2014. Following the introduction of the regulations, CASA became aware a number of people and organisations had concerns about some of the new requirements. To address these issues
a special forum with representatives of the aviation community was held in December 2014.

The forum was extremely valuable in providing CASA with first-hand experience and feedback on key issues. As a result of this feedback CASA has made adjustments to the way some aspects of the new rules are being implemented, as well as some changes to the regulatory requirements themselves.

Where requirements have been changed this has been
done by way of instruments and exemptions. Some of the changes already made relate to check pilots conducting proficiency checks, low level rating and aerial mustering training and flight testing, fire fighting operations, aerial application proficiency checks and R22 and R44 helicopter ratings.

Many of the issues identified to date relate to some of the transition arrangements for the new rules and I accept CASA has to do better in this area. The changes being made now by way of instruments and exemptions will be incorporated into a revised rule set at a later date.

Good progress is also being made on a range of other issues that need to be addressed. These include the student pilot dual check period, the low-level rating flight review period, updates to the Part 61 Manual of Standards, English language proficiency, flight examiner ratings and flight testing. We are also developing further guidance and information material to help everyone understand the new rules.

Already more than 10,600 new Part 61 licences have been issued, even though the transition period for pilots runs until September 2018. The fact that we are adjusting the new rules and the way they are applied shows we are committed to continuous improvement. Aviation safety standards are not intended to be static as they must adapt to reflect the real world
environment.

To that end, I need your feedback. While consultation takes place as rules are being developed, inevitably there are issues or unintended consequences that need to be addressed. We need feedback from individuals and organisations about what is working well and what is not. I give my personal assurance that all comments, feedback and criticism will
be looked at carefully and given full consideration. Of course this does not mean CASA can accept every suggestion or agree with every viewpoint, but we will listen and where legitimate issues or problems are identified we will respond.
If you have a contribution you wish to make to the review of the new flight crew licensing suite of regulations please send them to: [email protected]

I thank everyone for their patience and valued contributions as we collectively work to bed down the new licensing regulations and stress again that I want open and honest feedback on what is working and what is not. By co-operating we will get the right safety outcomes from regulations that support a vibrant and strong Australian aviation community.

You can find detailed information on the licensing suite of regulations on CASA’s web site:
www.casa.gov.au/licensingregs.

Safe flying

Mark Skidmore AM
Director of Aviation Safety

LeadSled

19th Aug 2015, 09:41

perhaps tyre valve caps will no longer need to be yellowSunfish,
And can legally replace said valve cap, after checking the pressure (Schedule 8), without having to have a torque wrench with a current calibration certificate to tighten the valve cap to the prescribed torque in accord with manufacturer's specification.

Yes!! it is a strict liability offense, not so to do. I bet most of you didn't know how hard it is to check your tyre pressures "legally".

Seriously, spend the time watching the replays of Dick in the Senate last night, and you will get to understand how any aviation reform is sidetracked and stymied by the do nothings of the "public" service, aided and abetted by a group of unions who will fight tooth and nail to make certain their rice bowl is not upset.

And what makes it easy, quite often, is committed union members in CASA riding shotgun on any changes ---- the whole edifice stinks.

Tootle pip!!

Frank Arouet

19th Aug 2015, 10:47

Despite having your arm out the window being a strict liability offence it's hard to take offence when one is reminded how studious one must be to remain current and interpret messages no matter how cryptic in nature and no matter the subject matter can't be brought to mention the review by name. A bit like the regulations that are in their third decade of review.

I rest my case.

Jabawocky

19th Aug 2015, 12:36

And can be legally replaced said valve cap, after checking the pressure (Schedule 8), without having to have a torque wrench with a current calibration certificate to tighten the valve cap to the prescribed toque in accord with manufacturer's specification.

Yes!! it is a strict liability offense, not so to do. I bet most of you didn't know how hard it is to check your tyre pressures "legally".

And this is why most of us just don't care anymore.

Simply, change the rules, scrap the rules, piss about with them as much as you like. The smart folk will just keep doing one thing…..be sensible, safe and not kill themselves because at the end of the day that is what actually matters. Calibration certificates for my index finger and thumb……..bend over mr FOI/AWI and lets check the calibration with the master tool :}

Seriously, that is where everyone is headed.

LeadSled

19th Aug 2015, 15:29

Arm,
Just to remind you, it was a former CASA head of Office of Legal Counsel who stated that, as far as he was concerned, pilots and engineers were ALL just "criminals who had not been caught yet".

The same person also said:" Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".

More than one CASA (or its predecessors) inquiry has commented on the creation of "inadvertent criminals" because of aviation law that is complex, contradictory and generally impossible to wholly comply with.

After all, from the CASA point of view, of great utility is the fact that, for a strict liability offense, CASA (the DPP) does not have to prove the traditional criminal intent (the guilty mind) that used to be fundamental to convicting anybody of a criminal offense.

In other words, despite the best efforts of a law abiding citizen in the aviation world, it is all to easy to wind up with a criminal record (with all the serious consequences that entails) without the slightest criminal intent, other than "committing aviation".

Arm, do you actually understand the travel restrictions that can follow from even a criminal charge, even without a conviction. Just a criminal charge under any aviation statute is enough to bar you from entry to a number of countries, including USA.

Tootle pip!!

Sunfish

19th Aug 2015, 19:39

Three subjects:

To be fair, for once, to Mr. Arm Out The Window he does have a point; constructive engagement with the regulator is the usual way of achieving progress in its widest sense, but what he is missing is that constructive engagement - sweet reason, has been tried by an alphabet soup of organisations for a very long time with no results.

The culmination of the failure of the engagement process was the Forsyth review - and its conclusion was that CASA had lost the trust of the industry. Since the publication of the findings of the review nothing has happened. One is therefore left to conclude that those in charge do not accept that change is either necessary or desirable.

Given that there appears no willingness to change, and the fact that industry has already engaged with CASA for Ten plus years in dialogue, could we be forgiven for believing that there is no point in wasting our time with any more consultation?

Furthermore, all that anyone is doing in bringing anything to CASAs attention, is to risk the possibility of victimisation and persecution in future - as evidenced by the number of confidential submissions to the Forsyth Review and the committees warnings to CASA regarding this subject.

With knowledge of that past history, why would anyone want to give AVM. Skidmore "full and frank" feedback? Especially with his senior management in attendance and taking notes???? At the risks of invoking Godwins law, its a little like Himmler asking inmates at Dachau for "feedback". The ball is in the Governments court. Feedback has been given. Mountains of it. Some at great cost. No upside and plenty of downside by feeding back.

The second matter I want to raise is "The Vision Thing". I was transfixed by what I saw on the South Island of New Zealand in the way of aviation in GA. The place was buzzing. Virtually every town had a strip with (turbine!) helicopters operating scenic or hunting and fishing operations. I stopped at Milford Sound on a sunny day(!) and the airstrip was literally buzzing with operations, fixed wing and helicopters. If you go to YouTube you can see some of the back country STOL stuff New Zealanders engage in -- landing on river banks to fish, flying to remote beaches, even landing on mountain tops. Can anyone not imagine the jobs, investment and economic growth this aviation regulatory environment provides????

Can anyone not understand the economic opportunity costs of an Australian regulatory environment that virtually prohibits us from having an aviation sector as vibrant as New Zealand??? Then of course there is the USA…

To put that another way; aviation camping tours? Landing aircraft in national parks, let alone river banks and beaches? Back country grass airstrips and camping? Forget it in Australia except by stealth. In my own region and for example; where is the floatplane service on Lake Eildon? Where are the helicopter scenic tours and transfers to the snow country? Where are the high country airstrips for summer camping? Why are our airstrips always under threat of closure and housing development? Why can't we have a vibrant, growing, employing, GA sector? Because the dead hand of CASA imposes almost impossible regulatory costs and burdens on the industry and furthermore CASA has no duty towards that sector at all.

To put that another way; we fly "in spite of CASA", not with CASAs blessing.

The final matter is the RAAF mindset and how it interacts with "The Vision Thing". I would have thought that "vision" is not encouraged in the services, nor is independent action well regarded in relation to operating or maintaining Government aircraft. I suspect , but cannot confirm, that a career spent in a rigid hierarchy does not make for free thinking and a light approach to regulation, but I'd love to be proved wrong.

Arm out the window

19th Aug 2015, 21:06

Points taken - it's galling to be threatened with strict liability and penalty units whenever you read the regs, and if they can take the threatening tone and intent down a bit well and good. I don't know about the legal side of it - objectively speaking they need to be able to deter people from doing the wrong thing and have a means of punishing those who do, but I don't want draconian and anti-common sense rules either.

Likewise, I would like to see GA thriving without undue restriction, but I don't see it being achieved with an adversarial 'get f@&#ed CASA' stance and prejudice against individuals because of perceptions of how their backgrounds mould them.

I would honestly say most military people I know are as free-thinking as anyone else, and one of my main bugbears is the use of these silly comments about what happened in the mess, or similar - they're just irrelevant and simply cloud the real issues at hand.

We are stuck with these guys, at least in the short term, and constructive engagement with honest feedback is the only way to go in my view - by all means, stage a revolution if you can muster up the support, but I don't see it getting far ...

Sunfish

19th Aug 2015, 21:33

AOTW, thank you for your comments.

I don't believe there will be a revolution and GA, and later Experimental and Recreational, will just fade away under an ever increasing mountain of regulation. The sad part is that investment, jobs and economic growth will go with them or never happen.

I know a little more about the recreational marine environment where the same thing is happening. I proofread a Victorian Government study, commissioned around 1995, that discovered that rec. boating was worth about $350 million a year and God knows how many thousands of jobs. The report found that a modest investment in facilities and a slight change to regulations would result in double digit growth and a sector Three times larger - approaching $1.5 billion - the study was never released - to many NIMBY and regulator groups opposed.

Fast forward to today and it costs upwards of $20,000 minimum plus at least Six months work to comply with "safety standards" for a Sydney - Hobart race, we are going to get a graded national licensing scheme for yachtsmen and vessels which will severely limit what you are allowed to do, where you go and when you go.The police regulations are tightening every year to the point where Two glasses of wine, even at anchor, can get you prosecuted. Marina facilities are poor, expensive and badly designed and anything new faces a barrage of NIMBYs. I guess there are positives for me - most of the year I don't have to share the water with anyone.

Contrast that with NZ where boating is over 3% of GDP and their technological capabilities far surpass Australia in the yachting field. I gather they are doing the same with Antique aircraft, GA and RA niche markets as well - and all we can do is regulate ourselves to death???

UnderneathTheRadar

19th Aug 2015, 21:40

Sunny

How about repackaging that for a letter to the Australian on Friday?

Sunfish

19th Aug 2015, 21:45

No point and I'm already worried about coming on CASAs radar when I try for my C of A.

LeadSled

20th Aug 2015, 01:36

No point and I'm already worried about coming on CASAs radar when I try for my C of A.

Sunnie,
For your home built, you don't need to go anywhere near CASA (or SAAA, for that matter) for your Experimental certificate. pm me.
Tootle pip!!

tail wheel

23rd Aug 2015, 00:16

Someone suggested a Poll?

Horatio

In particular, it is hard to service mining contracts in small aircraft when (effective last September) the second crew member required by the client is not legally allowed to log any flight time.

Is the second pilot acting only as a safety pilot (which usually satisfies the resource sector requirements) or as a co-pilot in a two crew environment? And how do you establish a two crew operation and environment in a single pilot certified aircraft?

Is there not a risk a safety pilot may log a heap of multi turbine hours, having done nothing more than wearing out the seat covers?

dubbleyew eight

23rd Aug 2015, 01:00

Likewise, I would like to see GA thriving without undue restriction, but I don't see it being achieved with an adversarial 'get f@&#ed CASA' stance and prejudice against individuals because of perceptions of how their backgrounds mould them.

I don't actually believe that there is any prejudice.

what you see is a reaction to the enduring behaviour of CAsA.

If anyone thinks that strict liability and the move away from the assumption of innocence as underlying principles in our legal system is conducive to safety then they have rocks in their heads.
"Ramp Checks" under a system of draconian law is quite likely to get CAsA staff killed. That I think is an inevitable outcome.

The reality is that if you are 'one of us' then CAsA will deliver amazing rights.
If you have never been CAsA staff or in the RAAF then you are assumed to be a criminal deserving of punitive attention and endless threats. History shows this.

I know of a former CAsA staffer who owned a rutan homebuilt. without any training behind him, totally on the basis that he was 'once one of us' CAsA issued him with a LAME's licence limited to his homebuilt.
He could service and operate that aircraft as, in effect, a canadian owner maintainer.
Applications by other owners for a similar licence were met with a letter stating that they had no qualifications and CAsA could not possibly entertain the request until LAME theory and Schedule of experience requirements were met.

CAsA is rotten to the core. Rotten in thinking, Rotten in behaviour.
If you don't believe this then you were either "one of us" or you are ex-raaf.

If Skidmore wants to have the world behind him and CAsA then both of them need to start respecting the world outside their direct experience.

Unwind all the strict liability bull**** and introduce canadian owner maintenance would be two good starts to the changes.

The alternative is that we continue to pressure for the entire show to be lined up in the unemployment ranks behind the EASA clowns that they so admired.

LeadSled

23rd Aug 2015, 01:21

Folks,
Look up Richard Green V. CASA in the AAT for a most interesting tail of CASA bias. Richard Green beat everything CASA threw at him.
During the short enlightened period of Bruce Byron as DAS, and Greg Vaughan as GM GA, maintenance approvals were granted to Mr. Green, based on compliance with the regulations, and demonstrated training and competence, for the maintenance of one private helicopter.
As soon as Byron and Vaughan left, the MAs evaporated, see the AAT history.
Tootle pip!!

Horatio Leafblower

23rd Aug 2015, 02:13

Tailwheel,

Gees it was easier when you were on holidays.

Is the second pilot acting only as a safety pilot (which usually satisfies the resource sector requirements) or as a co-pilot in a two crew environment?

Two things:

1/. safety pilots and co-pilots are two different things. The corporate standards I see refer to pilot and co-pilot with defined two-crew procedures. Safety pilot? Very 1980s.

And how do you establish a two crew operation and environment in a single pilot certified aircraft?

2/. The B1900 and Metro are both single- pilot certified, but are required to have a co-pilot in some ops by dint of an arbitrary weight cut-off in a legislative requirement.

I have seen some B1900 procedures that are very single-pilot two-crew procedures; and some that more fully utilise both crew. You can write good procedures and you can write crap procedures. Why is a "Safety Pilot" a more valid enhancement to safety than a trained and checked co-pilot, regardless of aircraft type? :confused:

Lookleft

23rd Aug 2015, 07:42

Why is a "Safety Pilot" a more valid enhancement to safety than a trained and checked co-pilot, regardless of aircraft type?

One word HL-Perception. To the insurance company requiring it and to the company using the service. I remember way back when, IBM required two pilots in a Seminole! Without the appropriate training the other pilot can be a liability.

Horatio Leafblower

23rd Aug 2015, 09:18

Looky,

I completely agree when you say:
Without the appropriate training the other pilot can be a liability.

My question, however, was:

Why is a "Safety Pilot" a more valid enhancement to safety than a trained and checked co-pilot.

Having a properly trained Co-pilot (not a seat-warmer merely "satisfying a requirement") has possibly saved my arse at least once.

Arm out the window

23rd Aug 2015, 09:34

"Ramp Checks" under a system of draconian law is quite likely to get CAsA staff killed. That I think is an inevitable outcome.

Dubbleyew Eight, is this really your serious and true opinion? That if you or someone with a similar viewpoint get ramp checked, you would top them? If that's fair dinkum, grow up mate. 'Inevitable outcome' - what a joke.

If you want to talk honestly about things, go for it, but forget about ridiculous veiled threats and similar. I do get on here quite a bit taking the devil's advocate stance, if that's how you want to view opposing rabid anti-CASA stuff, but this kind of talk is just hot air.

dubbleyew eight

23rd Aug 2015, 12:19

the mindset of the ex-raaf is incredible.

obey. accept the total perversion of the legal system.
don't think for yourself, follow procedures.
it is all in your own interests donchaknow.

rotten to the core.

Tee Emm

23rd Aug 2015, 14:14

Is there not a risk a safety pilot may log a heap of multi turbine hours, having done nothing more than wearing out the seat covers?

Yes. They are called First Officers in the airlines

Sunfish

23rd Aug 2015, 20:45

AOTW, while I don't necessarily agree with Dubblew Eight, he has a point - that people can be pushed too far. Hopefully without tragic outcomes but in my opinion the stress of a "confrontation" with an FOI is reason not to fly for at least 24 hours.

To put that another way, I, and the general community, find dealing with Police stressful even when we have done nothing wrong. Now add aggression, stupidity, complex regulations with strict liability criminal penalties and you have a recipe for an extremely nasty outcome.

Regarding ramp checks, I have a friend who was ramped while in charge of a C 172. He asked the FOI why there was not a simple checklist of things he was required to attend to to ensure he always passed a ramp check, but was told by the FOi that it was "too hard"to produce such a document.

Given the current state of regulations, I am quite sure that if an FOI decides he wants to prosecute someone, he can always find something that is illegal in his opinion and prosecute you for it.

Readers might like to contribute their stories of asinine FOI behaviour.

BTW, it is a common Police boast that if they wish to declare a car unroadworthy, they can always find a defect in any car. Furthermore, I am aware that traffic Police do have quotas and I'm speaking as someone with Two relatives in the Police and Judiciary. It is therefore not hard to imagine FOI's having quotas as well.

Arm out the window

23rd Aug 2015, 21:11

but was told by the FOi that it was "too hard"to produce such a document.

They do have such a document! It's here:

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/purpose-ramp-check-make-sure-flight-operations-are-being-conducted-safely-and-0

Anyway, people will think whatever they want to think, so I'll butt out now before my ex-RAAF mindset becomes too much of a liability. Have a nice day one and all.

Lead Balloon

23rd Aug 2015, 23:56

Interesting ramp check guide.

How many operators of private GA aircraft have a flight check system that has been approved by CASA (and revised as required by CASA), and have checklists of procedures from the approved system carried on the aircraft, per CAR 232?

When I learnt to fly, my instructor was critical of pilots who needed checklists to refer to, rather than memorising all of the normal and emergency actions. Has memorising actions been approved by CASA as a system for the purposes of CAR 232?

Horatio Leafblower

24th Aug 2015, 01:03

A system is a system and multiple CASA blokes have told me that memory is a system... as long as it's a system, and not just trying to remember everything before something goes wrong.

Lead Balloon

24th Aug 2015, 01:19

But the ramp check 'guidance' says that the CASA chappie will ask to see checklists.

What happens when I say: "It's all in my head"?

CAR 232 says the system has to be approved by CASA. Has the system of rote learning and recalling normal and emergency actions been approved? Where is that approval?

IFEZ

24th Aug 2015, 01:32

And therein lies the problem. As Sunfish said, just like the cops pulling you over, if they really want to get you, they'll find something. Depends on the individual doing the check, and what side of the bed he got out of that day. And possibly what directive he has received from up the line as to how 'hard' they are going to go that day. Also just like the cops, it depends a bit on your attitude towards them. That ramp check guide is better than nothing, but its still just a guide. Its not all encompassing. Despite peoples best efforts to do the right thing, if you get an a**hole with the CASA vest on who enjoys wielding the big stick, then you're stuffed.:{

LeadSled

24th Aug 2015, 07:32

LB,
If we have to submit out heads to CASA for approval, how long to you reckon before said approved bonce is returned. And if it is not approved, and deemed non-compliant??
Tootle pip!!

Tee Emm

24th Aug 2015, 14:30

but cannot confirm, that a career spent in a rigid hierarchy does not make for free thinking and a light approach to regulation, but I'd love to be proved wrong.
I don't know about that now, but I for one, spent the full 18 years of my RAAF career in flying postings from the very early 1950's and enjoyed every minute. Every Commanding Officer I served under (all being former wartime pilots), showed no sign at all of being pedants. Indeed, most encouraged their staff to display initiative and come up with good ideas and then allowed them to implement those ideas. For this reason it was a culture shock to me when I left the RAAF with much regret and joined the Head Office of the then Department of Civil Aviation led at the top by its much vaunted Director General, Sir Donald Anderson.

On my first day in DCA it seemed to me over-endowed with office upon dreary office of Public Service shell-backs whose main ambition in life was to knock back any ideas from the aviation industry outside DCA; and also from those unfortunates inside the Department that dared make waves and suggest improvements. In 2015, I sense that attitude has not changed.

Perhaps it was inevitable that as formerly keen and dynamic RAAF pilots joining DCA as junior public servants rose over the years to higher seniority in the Public Service, they learned to cover their arses by becoming more cautious in decision making, lest some Assistant Secretary gnome on the Executive Floor mark him down as a trouble-maker and thus cause the perceived perpetrator to remain in the lower class of ranks for the rest of his chair-borne career. I again sense things haven't changed much in this regard.

LeadSled

24th Aug 2015, 14:39

TeeEmm,
I rather suspect that if you were back there today, you would find that what has been named "the iron ring" have raised risk aversion to a whole new level since Sir Don's day --- and it was bad then.
Tootle pip!!

dubbleyew eight

26th Aug 2015, 03:40

in the magazine thing that accompanies the Aviation Trader there is an article on page 7 about the guy in Dubbo.
The article is called Wings out West.

The guy is ex-raaf. from the article the sun is shining on this guy. being ex-raaf I'll bet he never has a refusal from CAsA, never has an adversarial ramp check, and if the local economy is robust enough he should prosper.

I'd love for the writer of the article, to ensure a uniform reporting style, to conduct a similar article on Gerald Repacholi. As far as I know all he has ever tried to do is run a similar aviation business.
Gerald is not ex-raaf and has suffered a life of CAsA embuggerment.

The different experiences of trying to run an aviation business would be eye opening I'm sure.

Frank Arouet

26th Aug 2015, 04:50

The AUSFLY at Narromine will be a deciding factor in the poll above. I would suggest it remain up there until after the event to see how well the DAS' new broom works in the popularity stakes.

Lead Balloon

26th Aug 2015, 05:21

I wonder how many years it will take until the "too soon to decide"s make a decision. Governments bank on them hanging on for at least a few, after each new saviour is appointed.

I voted 'no', not because I think Mr S isn't smart enough (I'm confident he's very smart) and not because I think Mr S isn't a good bloke (I'm confident he's a great bloke) and not because I think Mr S doesn't have good intentions (I'm confident he means well).

However, I'm also confident that almost none of his experience will help him to bring about any substantial changes, and the early signs indicate that he's fitting quite snugly - maybe even comfortably - into the straightjacket that comes with the big office and the big paypacket.

BTW: Anyone know when and where the next "Aviation industry forum - 2015 to 2030" is being held? The first one was held miles from the nearest airport, during working hours. It was a bit inconvenient for people like me who need to fly to get to places and have to work to live - I understand that there are a number of people like me in the aviation community. Still, it must have been gruelling for Mr S's offsiders to have to hang around in Mildura pretending to care. I do hope their travel arrangements and allowances covered them for a nice meal at Stefano's.

Stikybeke

26th Aug 2015, 07:01

Well how about this for some abstract consideration...

What if one were to go back to the example offered earlier somewhere with regards to a company's CEO and take the view that Aviation (in its totality) was a company (for example) with a large number of members (i.e. those involved as pilots / engineers / ATC / whatever) that was spread wide across Australia. The newly appointed CEO of course being M.S.

As everyone knows the most common mechanism for communication within such a large company is usually by way of electronic means with limited opportunities presenting whereby a CEO can personally address a well represented members cross section in speaker/ audience format, especially where members attend at their own expense.

I would think that given the recency of appointment that any smart CEO would be offering himself, and some members from Senior Management, as a guest speaker at the upcoming Ausfly to perhaps address the members...

Short notice I know but what the heck. Maybe you could ammend the Poll to include a reference to such an appearance....

Stiky
;)

Arm out the window

26th Aug 2015, 08:44

Mark Skidmore told the Mildura forum a range of issues need to be considered. “I can think of new technology, changing demographics of people involved in aviation, regional aviation versus city-based operations, ageing aircraft, the growth of remotely piloted aircraft and developing our safety culture just to name a few issues,” he said. “Importantly, we need to think about the future of regional and general aviation, costs and how these sectors will remain viable. CASA doesn’t hold all the knowledge so I need to listen to the aviation community and we need to work together.” Issues raised at the forum included the future of Avgas, the sustainability of general aviation, adapting to new technology, the need for better representation of the flying training sector, alternative means of compliance, costs of regulations and ageing aircraft.

That bastard ... you can tell from how he talks about the sustainable future of GA and how we need to work together that he's out to get us and not going to listen to anything anyone says.

I once met a bloke running a GA outfit who had never been in the RAAF and CASA hadn't come after him. Only one though, all the rest were targeted.

Lead Balloon

26th Aug 2015, 10:52

I wasn't aware of anyone casting doubt on Mr S's parentage or capacity to state the bleeding obvious or listen to other people stating the bleeding obvious.

Whatever Mr S's parentage, capacity to state the bleeding obvious and listen to other people state the bleeding obvious may be, the point is that none of it changes thing one about what needs to be changed.

I'm confident that most of the "too soon to decide"s will watch as Mr S talks and listens, talks and listens, talks and listens, and keep watching until they wake up one morning and come to the disturbing conclusion that nothing has really changed for the better.

Mr S nailed his colours to the mast with his response to the colour vision deficiency issue. Mr S listened then demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to consider, understand and act on the objective evidence. So much for evidence-based and risk-based decision making.

Frank Arouet

26th Aug 2015, 11:18

Let nobody be in any doubt that the military have a historic responsibility to the elected government of the day. They, the government, are supposed to represent the voting public who put them there. Myself, once a commissioned officer often failed to take into consideration that factor and now well retired see how the higher echelons of military power accept that the plebs simply don't matter. Haven't since leaving field rank.

Skidmore and his ilk are appointed by the elected government of the day having passed through the lower and into general rank and well after any in house military promotion by ability or examination. They more than ever owe a duty to the elected government of the day who appointed them.

If that government by any name is ambivalent to aviation in Australia sans Airline and Military, that anointed person is not going to do anything to remedy any situation they see as simply perceived. They obviously have blinkered priorities and have lost all objectivity when it comes to carrying out the wishes of the populous who "elected" the government of the day, who "appointed" the individual to carry out the wishes of the government who have lost objectivity towards the people who elected them to look after their priorities.

The government has lost the plot and doesn't care.

The bureaucrats haven't lost the plot and run the show because they can.

Skidmore is a slave of the bureaucrats who have an agenda to rid the skies of aviation that is outside the envelope of the "illiminati" who reserve the right to own the skies free of pesky individuals in "little aeroplanes". ie. anything that is not an airliner or military or belonging to the gods.

Don't look to Skidmore as any sort of savior.

(my opinion of course if that's OK with you).

Arm out the window

26th Aug 2015, 11:35

Frank, you assert that Mark Skidmore is a puppet. What's the basis of this, other than prejudice?

I'm baffled by this kind of melodramatic blanket statement:

Skidmore is a slave of the bureaucrats who have an agenda to rid the skies of aviation that is outside the envelope of the "illiminati" who reserve the right to own the skies free of pesky individuals in "little aeroplanes". ie. anything that is not an airliner or military or belonging to the gods.

Honestly, what do you personally know of the guy, why he was appointed or what he may or may not do? Opinion indeed, and very defeatist too.

sprocket check

26th Aug 2015, 12:27

Frank, I think that is most succinctly put.

The only thing is… deep inside we all know it is possible to make the system change. The only problem is there is not enough heat... yet. There is not enough dissent and too much apathy. There is not enough anger and not enough pain.

There is too much perceived personal risk, a lack of cohesion amongst the aviation community as well as a feeling of helplessness.

Behind the iron curtain of the 80's - it ended up with the young making the brave change - the oldies (35+) all knew what need to happen, but dared not do anything. Fear, the most insidious of diseases, debilitating to hell, is what is holding the entire aviation community prisoner to a small circle of power hungry dictators.

From afar, it seems to me Mr S is nothing but a puppet… in the same style as the so-called Presidents of the communist era. Change will not happen until each and every licence, certificate, authority holder declares a common line.

This may never happen unless there is a force that galvanises the feeling into a cohesive action.

my 2c

No assured value, No liability. Errors & Omissions Excepted. All Rights Reserved.
WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT
Volenti non fit injuria

Calls may be recorded :E

Sunfish

26th Aug 2015, 21:34

Mr. Arm Out The Window once again wishes to talk "sweet reason" and criticises anyone who finds fault with CASA and argues that the status quo is really quite good as far as he is concerned. I fail to see how he could possibly believe that this is so.

Perhaps his most telling fault is that he studiously avoids any mention of the Forsyth Review and its conclusions.

For the record AOTW, The Forsyth review made the most damning statement it is possible to make in polite company about a public servant or public institution words to the effect that CASA has lost the trust of the industry.

I cannot over emphasise the significance of this conclusion!

WIthout trust, as the review observed, it is impossible for industry to build an effective working relationship with CASA.

No matter how nice and trustworthy Skidmore may appear, he is merely a figurehead of an organisation that has demonstrated that it is untrustworthy and the same trustless people are still running it behind the scenes.

Hence the rejection of the Forsyth review by CASA management.

Hence i fail to see the point of engaging with an untrustworthy organisation. No good can come of it except by accident.

To put that another way, Mr. Horatio Leafblower asked for and received an exemption from the regulations, he could just as easily have been refused one, been targeted, harassed,, bullied and driven out of the industry for his temerity.

To put that yet another way; CASA has been declared by the Forsyth Review not to be a "fit and proper person" to have anything to do with aviation, to use the same weapon beloved of CASA lawyers.

Real reform requires that CASA be broken up, its senior management retired and a new vision implemented. Listening to platitudes about relationships from a well meaning AVM. Skidmore would be reassuring, but he isn't the inspector banging on your hangar door the next morning.

Frank Arouet

26th Aug 2015, 23:31

I fail to see what prolonging discussion with Mr Arm will achieve however I will add for his/her benefit that the basis for my statement is demonstrated in CAsA history. If he/she fails to learn from that I'm afraid there is no hope for him/her. I'm not a defeatist simply a realist. If you need a term to describe the industry however I would say that would be apathetic. Why? Well they have been subject to rule by regulation for so long they no longer believe the rule of law exists any more. Again I concur with Sunfish.

sprocket check: I've watched this apathy for 50 years and done my share of duty with the alphabet soup organizations only to be kicked in the guts and then forced to deal with pissants who believe the answers can be found in more regulation, more restrictions, more mandates, because that's the way it's been since they remember when they were taught so. I've openly advocated civil disobedience but the "alpha male" (and female), syndrome associated with most pilot activists can't agree with each other long enough to mount any action. CAsA's tactic is to divide and destroy and the industry falls for it every time.

Last feasible group I sponsored are still fighting over the acronym to go by. Last whistleblowers of any credibility were forced off on their own and out of the spotlight to deal with Senators and government and run their own risks without industry support.

Mark Skidmore is probably a good bloke. He owns a nice little aeroplane, the last bloke also owned an aeroplane but this didn't make him competent to know what industry needs. The DAS will never know until he takes part as an undercover boss with a disguise to seek out unprejudiced industry input instead of asking people to expose themselves to possible vexatious reprisals.

Civil disobedience will only work with consensus. Failing that a big smoking hole in the ground is the only galvanizing thing that will turn the spotlight on the voting populous for examination. I'm guessing neither you, as I, will get any joy saying I told you so then.

The fall guy then becomes Mark Skidmore who is the fuse between the flying public and government. That's CAsA's primary function. To absolve the government from any culpability.

Mark Skidmore may not be a "naughty boy", but he's not the "messiah" either. He's not the wagon I want to hitch my ride with.

Metaphors and opinions are not copyright (c)

Horatio Leafblower

27th Aug 2015, 01:47

Hi Sunfish

The sequence of events was this:

1/. Part 61 was released for comment without the copilot/single pilot crap;
2/. Part 61 was made with a whole heap of stuff (including the copilot/single-pilot stuff)
3/. I approached my local office and had a sympathetic hearing; was told it might change and was an "unintended consequence"
4/. Nothing happened
5/. More of nothing happened. Hired new pilots who refused to log co-pilot time as it was in contravention of Part 61.
6/. Local office told me there was "no appetite for change" on the co-pilot issue;
7/. Lobbied local members both lower house and Senate
8/. Had meeting with Skidmore arranged by local-based Senator (no I am not a member of his Party);
9/. Skidmore listened to the problem. I was backed up by the local team leader in my concerns. Skidmore stated that, in his opinion, the outcome was not a good one and my point had merit.
10/. unknown other charter operators in the same market segment advised CASA and their local members of the same problem.

This path is well-worn and I have been down this track before with the Skull and others. The difference is:

11/. Skidmore listened and did something about it.

This is not an exemption for me only; it was not requested by me only; it does not benefit me only. It fixes a problem.

Can you tell me that this development is not a good thing? :ugh:

LeadSled

27th Aug 2015, 02:04

----- that he studiously avoids any mention of the Forsyth Review and its conclusions.

Sunny,
Not strictly true, he consistently refers to the ASRR as "just one view or one view", he apparently studiously declines to accept the ASRR as a real and collective description of the state of CASA, and CASA v. the aviation sector.

This is entirely consistent with the CASA practice of referring to submissions by ASAC, AOPA, RAOz etc., as "just one view", and not the collective policy position of thousands.

So far, there is no evidence to refute the view that he has:
(a) been snowed by the "iron ring", or alternatively;
(b) he was only ever going to be a chair warmer.

Tootle pip!!

Lead Balloon

27th Aug 2015, 02:22

Can you tell me that this development is not a good thing?
Yes I can.

It's not a good thing.

It's a bad thing made a little less bad.

Think about how much time and money CASA wasted to create the situation to which the exemption was the solution.

Think about how much time and money CASA will waste in developing exemptions to deal with problems CASA has created during the regulatory reform program.

Think about how much time and money CASA could waste in regulatory reform projects to deal with situations that CASA created during the regulatory reform program.

If you call making a bleedingly obvious decision to put a tiny bandaid over a pustulant running sore a 'good thing', you're only encouraging more of the same.

A 'good thing' would be an announcement that the whole program has been shut down and the product will be put through the shredder.

Aussie Bob

27th Aug 2015, 02:27

Can you tell me that this development is not a good thing? :ugh:

Well Horatio, how much should a chief pilot have to do that is nothing to do with running an aviation business? Meetings arranged by politicians is not in my copy of "The Chief Pilot Guide".

Clearly you know exactly what it takes to be a chief pilot, so I put the question back at you; do you really think this is a good thing?

I am somewhat disgusted by it (but not by your actions, which I too would have done).

Lookleft

27th Aug 2015, 02:35

Business people run to politicians all the time. Sounds like HL worked within the system as it currently stands and got the result that he was aiming for. :D

no_one

27th Aug 2015, 02:37

It is a great outcome for HL. The sad and disappointing thing is that it was necessary in the first place.

Horatio Leafblower

27th Aug 2015, 03:22

It's a bad thing made a little less bad.

Think about how much time and money CASA wasted to create the situation to which the exemption was the solution.

Think about how much time and money CASA will waste in developing exemptions to deal with problems CASA has created during the regulatory reform program.

Think about how much time and money CASA could waste in regulatory reform projects to deal with situations that CASA created during the regulatory reform program.

If you call making a bleedingly obvious decision to put a tiny bandaid over a pustulant running sore a 'good thing', you're only encouraging more of the same.

I am not asking about the massive cluster**** that is the whole legislative package.

I am simply stating that the DAS has taken the time to identify problems and seek solutions. If you read between the lines, there is a bloke trying to walk the line between his political masters and a demanding industry screaming for change. All his words must be carefully chosen to avoid publicly dumping his senior management in the ****.

Of course, you can continue demanding completely unrealistic outcomes as the only measure of change, but that'll just leave you angry, bitter and twisted.

sprocket check

27th Aug 2015, 08:02

I don't know Mr Skidmore and know very little about him… but thinking clearly and not influenced by the complex fermented sugars:

What if the industry, rather than berating him, stood behind him and gave him the support to be the broom he needs to be? Am I living in the clouds here? He is in a precarious position as far as I can see with the so called executive calling the bureaucratic shots and laying traps no doubt and dealing with a very angry and discontented mob of aviation professionals.

The question to the broader aviation community is how would one structure a support mechanism for change?

Perhaps the entire community needs to, with a single voice, express a vote of zero nada zilch not even a speckle of confidence in the executive and the mis-regulations being introduced… is such a thing even possible? Is there anyone or group capable of drafting a clear direction for the GA industry?

thorn bird

27th Aug 2015, 08:04

Well Horatio, I guess you'll be the last man standing, GA is doomed.
The general aviation side of the industry cannot continue to function under the burden of the new regulations, and certainly cant under what's coming.

I'm sorry, but the Australian Taxpayer paid a quarter of a BILLION dollars for alleged regulatory reform, allegedly because of the Plethora of exemptions, concessions and dispensations that had to be issued under the old system.

The bloody ink is not even dry on the "NEW" regulations and we are back issuing exemptions, concessions and dispensations against them.
Hey don't forget we have to PAY for each of these, at $190 bucks an hour??? do lawyers charge that much?? There are a lot of people in GA who would be happy with that in a day.

As someone so eloquently said, the taxpayers have been defrauded.

I have no doubt that there are one or two intelligent people within CAsA who realize, as it stands, general aviation is unsustainable under the existing rules, let alone what is in the pipeline.

Therefore I have great sympathy for those who believe there is a deliberate and malicious conspiracy within CAsA to destroy General Aviation.

As the industry declines and more and more of its key support businesses cry enough and leave the field so the costs rise as the law of diminished returns applies. Monopolies unfortunately are not conducive to efficiencies.

Horatio should know a customer base is like a Pyramid, the base consists of those who will always seek the cheapest price. Put your cost up ten percent and you'll lose twenty five percent of your customers. Unfortunately as your pyramid gets lower and lower, so your ability to sustain your business declines.

There are limits to what people will pay.

Horatio might be the last man standing buried in exemptions, concessions and dispensations but I doubt he'll have many customers.

Yet the answer is tantalizingly so easy, close and almost free. ADOPT NZ Rules like a vast majority of our neighbors have.
Want to see the results?? visit New Zealand.

Sunfish

27th Aug 2015, 08:12

Off topic, but i have just had two convicting opinions of a BFR under part 61. One says i now need to do the BFR in a consent speed retractable torevaildate my endorsements for CS and retractable. The other says I can still do it in a C172.
Who is right?

Arm out the window

27th Aug 2015, 08:18

Mr. Arm Out The Window once again wishes to talk "sweet reason" and criticises anyone who finds fault with CASA and argues that the status quo is really quite good as far as he is concerned. I fail to see how he could possibly believe that this is so.

I don't criticise anyone who finds fault with CASA. I don't agree with everything CASA does, far from it.

Nor do I criticise valid and honest arguments from people who've had a bad run with CASA through no fault of their own.

I do have a problem with those who insult and deride people they don't know (e.g. calling Skidmore a puppet who's only in it to line his own pockets with absolutely no direct knowledge of him), and who call for vague but still ridiculous revolutionary action of some sort, all the while moaning about how hard it is to understand regulations they can't be bothered even trying to read because they feel they've been in the game too long and shouldn't have to keep up!

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, all I ask is for a bit of balance rather than blind CASA bashing any time something annoying happens.

GA isn't stuffed because of the new rules! That's just crazy talk.

thorn bird

27th Aug 2015, 08:26

"GA isn't stuffed because of the new rules! That's just crazy talk."

Sorry mate, if you believe that, you are ignoring the evidence.

There is no better illustration of why your wrong than across the Tasman compared with Europe, you can leave us out of it, same, same.

EASA Sacked their reg. writers and has embarked on true evidence based reform. WHY?

Most of the Pacific has adopted Kiwi reg's. WHY?

Arm out the window

27th Aug 2015, 10:38

Sunfish, if you look in Part 61 the requirements for flight reviews and proficiency checks are in there under the heading of limitations on a particular licence, rating or endorsement.

Design feature endorsements (e.g. constant speed, retractable etc) don't have flight reviews mentioned as a limitation on them as, for example, a class or type rating endorsement does, so doing your BFR (or AFR as per the new terminology) in a 172 with none of those things would be fine - it should still cover you for anything in the single engine aeroplane class.

For example, I'm working flying helicopters at the moment, and doing a flight review in an R22 every two years covers me for the single engine helicopter class, including turbine machines (gas turbine engine is a design feature endorsement).

Some things like instrument ratings need proficiency checks (much the same as the old renewal), some need flight reviews (like a low level rating or an aircraft class or type rating), some don't need a review at all (like a design feature endorsement).

The caveat is the general competency requirement, which essentially says you mustn't go and fly anything that you're not full bottle on its systems and operating procedures.

Hope that helps, and vive la revolucion!!!

Aussie Bob

27th Aug 2015, 10:51

GA isn't stuffed because of the new rules! That's just crazy talk.

AOTW, are you new to this business? Given your posts I don't think so! Blind Freddie can see aviation in AU is in serious decline. Struth, just 4 years ago you could get a flight review from half a dozen instructors where I live. Now there are none.

What you are saying is that CASA has nothing to do with this. What I am saying is bollocks. Wake up and look around. Nothing to do with CASA you say? I say your dreaming.

Arm out the window

27th Aug 2015, 11:49

What you are saying is that CASA has nothing to do with this.

No, that's not what I'm saying! I'm just not getting on the 'we're all f@$%ed because of those pricks' bandwagon, is all.

Struth, just 4 years ago you could get a flight review from half a dozen instructors where I live.

Depends what flight review you need, but any Grade 1 or 2 working for a flying school can do a basic flight review ... what is it you can't get where you are?

glenb

27th Aug 2015, 12:13

AOTW, sorry but I have to disagree strongly your view regarding the effect on the Industry. As a Business Owner I can assure you the costs of this new legislation are truly unacceptable. My own increase in costs alone, well exceeds the profit of my Business last year. This really will decimate the Australian Owned sector of the Flight Training Industry. The biggest financial challenge for my own organisation will be funding the Approval to continue doing what I used to do. The costs of simply continuing to do what I used to do are well in excess of $100,000 and I mean, well in excess.

ramble on

27th Aug 2015, 12:18

He needs to invoke the parable of Matthew 21:12 - enter the temple and fling aside the tables of unworthy and profiteers.

Exactly what I feel like doing when filtered through Australian International IKEA Airports. The only place in the world it happens - just like the rest of this aviation crap that that gets invented by the profiteers in Australia.

Aussie Bob

27th Aug 2015, 20:04

Depends what flight review you need, but any Grade 1 or 2 working for a flying school can do a basic flight review ... what is it you can't get where you are? Therein lies the problem. From an area that once supported 6 flying schools there are now none. The demise of the final flying school was mostly due to part 61, the onerous requirements of CASA and the need for a new ops manual to continue doing the same stuff. I dunno what cloud you have stepped off, but this all costs time and money in the real world.

I was talking about a basic flight review :rolleyes:

AOTW, your posts remind me of the continual optimism of employees of CASA, who blithely wander around a decaying GA industry blindly stating that all is good. Are you one of them?

Arm out the window

27th Aug 2015, 20:21

No mate, do not and have never worked for them.

Sunfish

27th Aug 2015, 21:03

AOTW, I see you still refuse to address the conclusions of the Forsyth Review.

I think, since the conclusions of the Forsyth review have been studiously ignored by CASA, we can safely conclude that CASA is now a bad actor and therefore does not require or warrant "nice professional gentlemanly treatment" they have received this from the industry for 15+ years anymore.

To put that another way; professional reasoned argument has been tried on CASA with little result. We can therefore conclude that "the problem" of aviation in Australia is CASA itself.

The fact that you and I have not had a bad experience with CASA is not relevant since plenty of other people have had such negative experience of CASA they were prepared to go to the time and trouble to tell a Senate Committee about it.

Arm out the window

27th Aug 2015, 21:17

glenb, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying CASA are all good, I'm just (as I've said a few times) responding to some of the wilder accusations and personal slagging of Mark Skidmore by people who don't know him.

Part of it is that I flew in the RAAF for quite a while and when I see these blanket quotes about how ex-RAAF live in ivory towers and couldn't organise a root in a brothel I get a bit annoyed.

I'm assuming it's new manuals and approvals, and ADSB which have caused the problems for you, and sorry to hear it. I was a business owner (not aviation) and I sympathise with your situation.

Sunfish, I do think Skidmore is trying to change things, and to address outcomes of the Forsyth review, and I don't reckon personal attacks on him are achieving anything.

Anyway, got to go to work.

Lookleft

27th Aug 2015, 23:25

AOTW, your posts remind me of the continual optimism of employees of CASA, who blithely wander around a decaying GA industry blindly stating that all is good. Are you one of them?

You know they have no reasoned argument when they come out with that statement. Good on AOTW for not joining the howling mob, it doesn't make him "against us" whoever "us" is.

Aussie Bob

28th Aug 2015, 06:57

It is what it is, based on observations as a CP and CFI. I have no grudge against CASA and have had no hassles with them either. The FOI's I know have, at times ,been professional and helpful too.

What I do note is a greatly increased bureaucratic burden, unrealistic attitudes, a lack of any real help, huge costs associated with minor changes to AOC's and real issues with the processing any new AOC applications.

I also have no issue with AOTW playing devils advocate, nor his reasoned arguments. It is not an us versus them argument with me playing "them" either. All I have done is state the bleeding obvious (to me).

The current rules are difficult to understand and almost unworkable. Needing politicians and meetings to gain expiring exemptions is hardly a good reference for a new rule book either.

wishiwasupthere

28th Aug 2015, 08:16

NZ CAA Part 61 - 79 pages

FAA Part 61 - 118 pages

CASA Part 61 - 306 pages!!! :ugh:

Flying in Australia isn't that unique. In fact, you could argue that the threats (environmental, weather, traffic density) is greater in the US and NZ.

If CASA can't see that the system is broken and their 'regulation reform' isn't working, they've clearly got their head's in the sand.

thunderbird five

28th Aug 2015, 08:23

CASA Part 61
PLUS about 636 more pages of MOS.
Total, about 1000 ONE THOUSAND pages.

Draggertail

28th Aug 2015, 09:34

CASA Part 61
PLUS about 636 more pages of MOS.
Total, about 1000 ONE THOUSAND pages.

Plus - hundreds of instruments of exemption and no doubt the future necessity to write hundreds of pages of CAAPs to explain this rubbish (when the CASA employees feel brave enough to do so).

cogwheel

28th Aug 2015, 12:59

PLUS about 636 more pages of MOS

What value is the MOS that could not be covered by good training?

Arm out the window

29th Aug 2015, 00:48

As with just about every curriculum in any course you'll find nowadays, for every skill or sequence that's taught there's a breakdown of small and smaller building blocks or 'units and elements of competency' in the jargon they use.

The MOS sets out which of these bits are mandatory training for pretty much all the things that are covered by licences, ratings or endorsements.
Whether they are accurate, exhaustive and sensible is a different story, but they're not too bad in the main I think, from what I've seen so far, apart from some dodgy wording here and there.

To address your question directly, the MOS is there to specify in detail what should be taught and tested. Good training is good training no matter how you get there, and what I suppose you're referring to is what we talk about as what happened in the old days, where good instructors used their brains, skill and common sense to teach people how to fly properly and safely.

Now, not just in aviation but in pretty much anything you want to name that has official courses of training, you get this sometimes seemingly ridiculous level of specification of what has to be done. You can't just point out where the toilet is these days, you have to specify how they should unzip their fly, where to point it so they don't splash their boots and how to wash their hands afterwards, it seems.

I think there are pros and cons to this kind of thing - it can get to a silly level of specificity, but it should also help with standardisation and to prop up inexperienced instructors as well as refresh and educate more experienced ones. It makes you analyse what you do against the defined standards, at least.

LeadSled

29th Aug 2015, 02:00

Arm,

With the very greatest of respect, absolute bollox.
That is all just post facto edu-babble justification for a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ignored --- meantime Australia's demonstrated flying standards continuum to deteriorate.
Our accident rate climbs, and the whole GA sector continues to sink under an unmanageable load of complex, contradictory and confusing and extremely costly regulatory micro-management by CASA.

Tootle pip!!

wishiwasupthere

29th Aug 2015, 03:33

That's all good and fine AOTW, but what makes Australian aviation so unique compared to other countries with a similar mix of airline/business/private aviation (but on different scales) that requires us to have such prescriptive and detailed regulations?? It's hardly worlds best practice.

Arm out the window

29th Aug 2015, 04:54

Ease off a bit there with the call of bollox, LeadSled - I'm not defending it particularly, just saying that's how all training courses have gone these days. I'd rather not have to include all the micro-descriptions of how to tie up your shoelaces in a training course either.

Look at any kind of organisation, they're all drowing in bull**** - talking to a mate who does contract work at a refinery, you can't start work until at least an hour of mandatory safety briefings and induction, not just once but every day.

Regarding why Australia has to have such prescriptive regs, it's all legal arse covering as far as I can see, and if that's the way it is I would be a bit stupid to be the one who didn't sign off all the sub elements of competency on someone's training record. I hate the writer's cramp from that crap, make no mistake!

thorn bird

29th Aug 2015, 07:20

Putting ticks in boxes never made anyone competent at anything.

Same, same putting ticks in boxes does not ensure proper maintenance.

The inescapable truth is the expertise and competence at doing these things lies within the industry, NOT within CAsA, it equates to a kindergarten student dictating the standards required for a university graduate.

As it stands the alleged "reforms" we must embrace are completely unsustainable, what's to come just an evil joke.

I cannot accept that the intelligence level within CAsA is so feeble that they don't understand this, therefore there is only one conclusion any sensible person could come to, the alleged "Reform" project is a malicious, deliberate, concerted, attempt to destroy an industry, and if the Minister had the courage of his convictions he'd stand up and admit that is the fact, and Why it is Australia's interest to not have a GA industry.

AOTW I'm sorry, but I cannot accept any other hypothesis, CAsA and their bulls..t is to blame, take a trip across the Tasman sometime to see what proper regulation can do.

Oh! and they are just as safe as we are, and their reg's only cost a few million...Not half a BILLION! and counting! That I believe is fraudulent waste of taxpayers money.

One thing I'd love to know is just how much CAsA crap adds to every airline ticket.

Aussie Bob

29th Aug 2015, 07:47

I have an old "Flight Instructors Handbook" published by the DCA.

I have have a copy of the new MOS.

If you got two flying schools and gave the instructors from "School A" the former and the instructors from "School B" the latter, then looked at the students from each, say one year down the track, my guess would be that the school with the Flight Instructors Handbook would have better trained pilots.

thorn bird

29th Aug 2015, 07:54

Aussie, have the same book, and I agree completely, CAsA are attemting to fix a problem that didn't exist, and making criminals out of everyone who commits aviation in the process.

Horatio Leafblower

29th Aug 2015, 08:07

Aussie, have the same book, and I agree completely, CAsA are attemting to fix a problem that didn't exist, and making criminals out of everyone who commits aviation in the process.

Aussie, Thorn Bird,

Guys you're not listening.

Look at the whole education and training sector - it's stuffed!

It is so full of paperwork and bull**** that we are turning out tradies at a lower rate, and of a lower quality, than ever before.

I had a meeting with a RTO recently (supposedly about pilot training) and they spent the whole meeting talking about funding and policitcs between various elements of the Higher Education/Vocational Education sector.

THIS COUNTRY IS ROOTED, BOYS. :suspect:

Where is Torres? :ouch:

Aussie Bob

29th Aug 2015, 08:34

Guys you're not listening.

I guess we are reminiscing then :sad:

thorn bird

29th Aug 2015, 08:51

Horatio,

cant help but agree, I have offspring in the medical field, same, same buried in Box ticking and bullsh..t.

Just look where the $90 million the fuel levee minister Albosleezy bought in was allocated, new managers..Coal face staff??..Zilch!!...Levee??..still there and its ripped nearly $400 million from the industry so far.

That's $400 million of profits the Industry must make just to get square.

CAsA's workforce has almost doubled in the past ten years to supervise an Industry that is dying.

I have no idea what you have calculated, but for my company it now costs around $10 grand just to give a kid a job on our smallest aircraft, up the $50 grand for our biggest..$200 grand and two years wait for an AOC compared with NZ eight weeks and $20 grand.
$100 grand to add an aircraft to your AOC.

Part 61 has added more than %25 to our overheads. What will 91 and 135 add?

I am desperate to get out of this job, not because I hate it, I gain great satisfaction from mentoring the young guys coming along, trying to keep them safe, the blizzard of boxes to tick will not have the slightest affect on safety. I am a pilot, not a lawyer, I have no idea what the new regulations mean and I have really, really tried to figure them out.
The liabilities are just too great. Having to accept direction for things I don't understand, from people with no experience qualification or competence, which my experience tells me are unsafe, I must accept liability for, they accept none. This is unacceptable.

Centaurus

29th Aug 2015, 12:35

I have an old "Flight Instructors Handbook" published by the DCA.

DCA in the Sixties employed a significant number of former RAAF pilots as Examiners of Airmen. The DCA Flight Instructors Handbook was largely based upon RAAF Central Flying School teachings. Rather like Mac Job's Aviation Safety Digest magazine, the DCA Flight Instructors Handbook was concise and eminently readable. The authors of the Bible length Part 61 please note.:rolleyes:

triadic

29th Aug 2015, 14:14

I have an old "Flight Instructors Handbook" published by the DCA.

Known then as "Pub 45" and it is still the bible...

Typhoon650

30th Aug 2015, 04:16

Yes, legislation is ruining lots of industries.
I "had to" obtain a forklift licence a couple of years ago. It was supposed to be competency based, so I asked if I could just do the written exam and practical test, as I have been driving forklifts for 25 years. Nope, you MUST sit there and waste two days.
And then there was the self storage facility I worked at until very recently. They had to pay a consulting firm tens of thousands of dollars to come up with evacuation diagrams, fire safety plans etc. The funniest/ saddest thing was, this storage facility was all ground level buildings with plenty of space to get away from anything burning and already extremely obvious exit locations.
We also had to compile and fill out a dangerous goods register, you know, for the massive 5 litre fuel container we had for the power equipment, the 1 litre bottle of mineral turpentine and the regular, small quantities of household cleaners anywhere with a kitchen and toilet has. Don't even start on the quarterly fire drills they introduced, which were pointless as no customers would do anything when advised it was a drill.
The company responsible for the "safety audits" for the above nonsense just wanted to come in and pick anything irrelevant to justify their inspections, even down to benchtop kitchen appliances not be test tagged.
It was at the stage they had to employ a store manager full time to oversee OH & S requirements and they didn't have a clue where to start, so just buried the stores with it. One of the reasons I left that job was because I was the OH & S officer for the store and head office just started dumping all the compliance and regulation duties onto the individual stores, with no training or resources on what exactly to do about it. If I had stayed there, it would've consumed half my working week I suspect.
The real problem with training and competency in industry is the rampant privatisation and with it, driving requirements for needless courses and licences. OH & S legislation has grown at a ridiculous rate since it was privatised and this new industry started lobbying heavily for tickets for anything and everything.
I have a trades background and I've NEVER seen a workplace accident that resulted in someone leaving work. It's all political ass covering for insurance companies and for the new private regulation industries.
If an employee is so stupid they need to be told to stay clear of dangerous equipment, not to spray bottles of chemicals in their face etc, you probably shouldn't employ them for the job!

thorn bird

30th Aug 2015, 07:58

Typhoon,
on the money, common sense completely thrown out the window.
OH&S will be the downfall of this country.
Did you know the unions get a percentage of every fine for non compliance?

LeadSled

30th Aug 2015, 08:21

small quantities of household cleaners anywhere with a kitchen and toilet has

Folks,
I won't mention the organisation, but had a wonderful session with the "auditors" of our fire and evacuation procedures.

The so called "auditor" would not accept that nitrogen was not a flammable gas, as far as he was concerned "gas was gas" and "gas burns". Save me??
Same chap had great trouble accepting the cleaners in the staff kitchen not flammable, seeing as they were all dihydrogen oxide based.

We are "inducting" a new forktruck next week, just replacing an existing one, the risk management assessment we have to go through covers 17 pages. 16 of the 17 pages, only an imbecile would need "instruction" on the "risk management" and "mitigation strategies". For example, what is the risk/hazard of driving around in the dark?? Running into something!! What is the mitigation --- turn the bleeding lights on !! Whod'a thunk it??
Tootle pip!!

Chasco175

30th Aug 2015, 11:35

I have just retired from the mining industry and the same thing is happening there . All this " safety" training is stopping people thinking for themselves because the procedure is supposed to keep them safe. If you make a task foolproof all you do is breed smarter fools. The new procedures affect me through sids/ medical/ afr/ and part 61. I only play aviation to keep myself occupied. As an aside I went around Jandakot yesterday to have a look having not been there for two years. It has gone from being a hive of activity to something dull and not very attractive. Two businesses that I used to spend money in have closed, there appears to be only half as many private aircraft on the field as I remembered. At 3 in the afternoon in reasonable weather/flying conditions there was not one aircraft in the circuit. I stayed for 30 mins . It used to be a good place to go and watch someone else waste money on their hobby/ passion. The surrounding area has been industrialised and I would hazard a guess and say good old Jandakot will go the same way as Bankstown appears to be going. So disappointing. What has happened in the last two years? Make your own mind up. I have.

Horatio Leafblower

30th Aug 2015, 12:26

For example, what is the risk/hazard of driving around in the dark?? Running into something!! What is the mitigation --- turn the bleeding lights on !! Whod'a thunk it??

LeadSled - if that's the quality of your risk assessments, you need new safety managers or new safety consultants.

Tootle Pip.

LeadSled

30th Aug 2015, 16:27

Horatio,

I have paraphrased it a bit, but it does come from one of Sydney's leading "experts" in the field, complies with the AS/NZS standard, and fits the nanny state requirements of the OH&S mob in NSW. After all, a lot of the inspectors are from a very difficult union.
What gets me is the dumbing down of the whole thing. If any of my drivers actually needed this nonsense to drive safely, they wouldn't be driving for us.

Tootle pip!!

Chronic Snoozer

2nd Sep 2015, 18:03

OH&S? There's money to be made there!

Eyrie

3rd Sep 2015, 09:21

Well guys, we can look forward to this:

CASA set to increase Recreational Oversight (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-set-to-increase-recreational-oversight)

Another empire building effort by the folks in CASA Sport Aviation Office.
The Recreational aviation organisations have worked under the assumption that they can keep CASA at bay to some extent and by having the Australian system of self administering organisations the crocodile will eat them last. Well the crocodile is hungry and coming for them now.

Frankly it is pretty obnoxious that people wanting to fly gliders or ultralights are forced to join a private body that has had some of the coercive powers of the State given to it on a monopoly basis.
The outcomes are pathetic also as RAAus members kill themselves regularly and GFA gliding instructors kill and injure their students.
Time to adopt the US rules. The EAA and SSA in the USA have NO regulatory powers at all and reject attempts to give them such powers as it would change the relationship between the organisation and its members.
The Australian system has organisations of individuals which meant to work for the benefit of the members, taking the part of the regulator. You can't work for two bosses with different goals.
Just take a look at the SAAA's ineptitude in defending Part 21 (they don't even try - it is becoming the RV kitbuilders's association - the website no longer highlights "home of Australian Experimental") and the GFA sold out the maintenance of gliders to CASA but the President got a seat on the Board so it's all good. Wonderful!

Horatio Leafblower

3rd Sep 2015, 09:35

Time to adopt the US rules. The EAA and SSA in the USA have NO regulatory powers at all and reject attempts to give them such powers as it would change the relationship between the organisation and its members.

Eyrie,

It's time we had an Aviation party like Ricky Muir has the Motoring Enthusiast party.

It's time the Aviation industry mounted a public information campaign like the Unions do when their members' rights and freedoms are threatened.

It's time we had some vocal and influential representation in Canberra that can talk about more than esoteric and obscure Air Traffic Control rules.

Will the Australian GA, Recreational, Sport and Airline 'fraternity' finally band together now, before we vanish?

Sunfish

3rd Sep 2015, 09:50

Having virtually killed GA, the parasite seeks new hosts. The MPC teaches nothing about a safe system of maintenance, but if your aircraft doesn't burn the coroner will find that your Maintenance release is beautifully filled out.

CASA cannot possibly add value to aviation activities at all. They remind me of my early maintenance "crusades" in the oil and then the aviation industry before I was taken aside and had some sense shaken into me...

A recommendation to ground the entire F27 fleet following a study of nose wheel vibration still makes me blush ;)

Lookleft

4th Sep 2015, 08:37

So HL who will step up and be the Gough Whitlam of Australian Aviation?

Horatio Leafblower

4th Sep 2015, 12:22

I'd do it.

At least I would get to fly more than I do as CP :D

OZBUSDRIVER

4th Sep 2015, 20:47

Gough Whitlam?....someone more like Moses will be required!

Allan L

5th Sep 2015, 09:55

Perhaps Solomon?

triadic

9th Sep 2015, 11:26

TEST... is there a problem with the display on this thread??

Allan L

9th Sep 2015, 12:14

Thanks Triadic, everytime I logged in I found that I was the most recent poster, but with a different time/date each time - each far removed from when I made my last post! I wonder if it's related to people taking part in the poll?

Sunfish

9th Sep 2015, 20:47

From what I heard Truss say at the opening, the Government has allegedly ordered CASA to implement the Forsyth Review recommendations. However he did not mention them by name and he said that CASA had been given some sort of schedule or time limit. A video deconstruction would be needed to see if he said anything concrete at all, which I doubt. I didn't hear Skidmore so I don't know if he said anything more positive.

My take on the situation is that CASA will simply make appropriate noises and wait the government out. Delay is a powerful tool.

Once an election is called, all work (if any) on Forsyth will immediately stop. A new government is not bound to implement any of the previous governments policies and Forsyth can then be safely put in the archive to gather dust.

Another Albanese clone who hates general aviation will then be appointed and the embuggerisation of all those who had the temerity to complain to Forsyth will resume.

To put it another way: It will take more than honeyed words to convince me that the Leopard has changed his spots.

Frank Arouet

9th Sep 2015, 23:57

Given Skidmore started his briefing period before last Christmas I would have considered the Forsyth Report the first thing to read and act on. Some 12 months later nobody can even refer to it by name. One may ask what is the tenure of his appointment because it appears he has already wasted 30% of it. (Or 20% if a 5 year term). Can we get a refund of wages wasted?

And he's still asking for input. (I note yesterdays blurb gave Launceston 24 hours notice of the soiree. Pity it was 24 hours in arrears, 08/09/2015. CASA calls for Change Management Input (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-calls-for-change-management-input)

Lead Balloon

10th Sep 2015, 04:00

The good news, Frank, is that you can still register for the 8 September gabfest. Indeed, it's the only one on the list on the CASA website that has a 'register now' link.

Another organisational triumph for CASA. :D

PS: The CASA website has now magically changed ...

triton140

10th Sep 2015, 04:03

... it appears he has already wasted 30% of it.

My advice to new CEO's has always been to make your changes in the first three months, after that you become too contaminated by the status quo and you'll never make any major changes.

Not looking good ...

Lead Balloon

10th Sep 2015, 04:31

For all those doubters out there, doubt no more. Mr Skidmore has issued a directive!

According to Australian Flying, the directive says that "aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary". Apparently, the directive also says: "If a regulation can be justified on safety-risk grounds, it must be made in a form that provides for the most efficient allocation of industry and CASA resources. Regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder levels of participation in aviation and its capacity for growth."

Pure visionary genius! If only someone had thought to give directives like that in the past. Oh wait ....

I also note from the story that there are, apparently, still people in the industry who believe these directives mean something in the real world. Oh dear ...

Meanwhile, back in the letters pages, Mr Skidmore says that "suspending the new licensing regulations now would only cause confusion, cost and administrative burden for the aviation community." Since when has that stopped CASA from doing something? I can't think of much that CASA does that doesn't cause confusion, cost and administrative burden.

Mr Skidmore goes on to say: "People have asked me 'why not suspend Part 61 and go back to the old regulations'? Let me be clear, the regulations Part 61 replaced have been repealed so there are no regulations to go back to and already more than 13,000 pilots hold new Part 61 licences".

Mr Skidmore is either poorly advised or ignoring advice. It would only take a one-sentence regulation to revive the old regulations. Just as an old licence is deemed to be a Part 61 licence, so a Part 61 licence could be deemed to be a licence under the revived regulations. I'm sure they could manage a one sentence regulation, having produced over 2000 pages of regulations in the quest for "safety through simplicity".

The straps on that straightjacket are evidently tightening around Mr Skidmore.

Frank Arouet

10th Sep 2015, 05:42

I suppose it would be simplistic to say the new DAS is a disappointment but to be fair on him today, Truss is running the joint while Abbott is away.
So things could get worse.

thorn bird

10th Sep 2015, 09:05

"Mr Skidmore is either poorly advised or ignoring advice. It would only take a one-sentence regulation to revive the old regulations. Just as an old licence is deemed to be a Part 61 licence, so a Part 61 licence could be deemed to be a licence under the revived regulations".

Haven't applied for a new Part 61 licence yet, still trying to make my mind up if I want to keep going under the weight of the Crap piling up on us all.

Aviation has been my life for over fifty years, but its all becoming too hard.
I cannot see any point to it anymore, my 30,000 hour experience is meaningless to the regulator, Just a silly old fart who knows nothing.

I'm still using a licence issued in 1979, almost identical to the "New" one, strange aint it??? "everything old is new again"

Way back in 1966 as an industry, we had problems with smart ass, ex RAAF "types"...Sky Gods, if you want to anoint them as such, but my dear old Dad who won a DFC and taught me to fly, hammered into me.
"when you think you know it all...give it up and do something else"
Knowledge and expertise does not reside in CAsA it resides in the Industry,
It really is time the ex RAAF Cadre in CAsA stand aside and utilize the expertise of the industry, while there is still an industry left.

Lead Balloon

10th Sep 2015, 09:23

But TB, you lack the necessary experience to give you the wisdom and - let's call it for what it is - sheer guts to issue a directive that says: "aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary".

Think of the momentous occasion that it must have been when Mr Skidmore signed a piece of paper with those words.

A piece of paper! :eek:

With those words! :eek:

And more words! :eek:

Called a directive! :eek::eek:

Imagine all the CASA people slapping their own foreheads and gazing skywards: "If only we'd been directed to do that before! Finally we can stop making aviation safety regulations that have been shown to be unnecessary."

It cracks me up. I can just imagine the conversations that duchessed Mr Skidmore into falling for it. But he isn't the first and won't be the last.

Arm out the window

10th Sep 2015, 09:31

According to Australian Flying, the directive says that "aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary".

Now that's just the pits. Where does he get off, putting out directives like that?

I demand - no, we as an industry should, nay, must! - demand that regulations must NOT be shown to be necessary. Band together now, brothers and sisters, and rid us of the scourge of this farcical band of fools forthwith!

Lead Balloon

10th Sep 2015, 09:55

And that's the genius of scams: Some of the people fall for them, every time. :D Including Mr Skidmore in this case.

People think that CASA was busy making regulations without having to justify them as necessary, because no one had directed them not to (patent poppycock), and as a consequence of the directive things will change.

Conversation in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel:

"So, these civil aviation safety regulations you're instructing us to draft. Are they necessary?"

CASA wallah: "Nup. No ... wait ... errmmm ... I know the answer to this one ... Yes!"

OPC: "Lucky. Now that Mr Skidmore has given that directive (which is completely meaningless and irrelevant to us because we don't work for him) we're obliged not to draft unnecessary regulations. Gone are the days when we sat around drafting unnecessary regulations for ****s and giggles."

It still cracks me up.

Sunfish

10th Sep 2015, 20:28

you had better have a calibration certificate for that torque wrench before you tighten that valve cap.

Arm out the window

10th Sep 2015, 21:00

Haven't applied for a new Part 61 licence yet, still trying to make my mind up if I want to keep going under the weight of the Crap piling up on us all.

Understandable; there is a particularly rigorous process involved with applying for a Part 61 licence - you send away a form, or perhaps two if you don't have a photo less than 10 years old on record. Bastards!

Lead Balloon

10th Sep 2015, 21:30

What is the safety risk that is mitigated by sending CASA the pieces of paper and the photograph?

You know the answer. There is no safety risk that is mitigated by sending CASA the pieces of paper and the photograph.

The licence holder goes through the process to end up precisely where s/he started (unless CASA stuffs it up).

It is therefore a completely unnecessary transaction, and demonstrates (once again) that these 'directives' are meaningless gestures.

IFEZ

10th Sep 2015, 23:09

Not only that, when you get your new licence back, it doesn't even have your photo on it..! What was the point of going to the trouble of getting it and sending it in..?? On top of that, you get a letter saying that you must carry your licence on you at all times (nothing new there) but also photo ID to prove who you are..!! Wouldn't it have been easier to put the photo on the actual licence like the previous version had..?? :ugh:

triadic

11th Sep 2015, 03:28

The title page for this thread says that last post was from IFEZ, but it does not show and the time of the last post keeps changing, tho the poster's id does not.
Seem there is a problem here?? Anybody else see this??

Lead Balloon

11th Sep 2015, 04:43

Relax triadic.

Every time someone votes in the poll it looks like there's been a recent post when there hasn't. :ok:

gerry111

11th Sep 2015, 12:55

I'm sometimes amused that intelligent people take online polls seriously. (That's all of you PPRuNers, when I mention intelligent people!) For this poll, there are a mere 243 voters so far! I've abstained from voting as I don't think that it will change things one little bit.

I do agree with 'Arm out the window' that slagging off at Mr Skidmore, on this forum isn't going to achieve much. :)

dubbleyew eight

13th Sep 2015, 01:47

the problem isn't skidmore. he is just a muppet placed to minimise the damage to the government.

whoever thought that "strict liability" should form the basis of aviation legislation needs 5 years in prison for perverting the course of justice and promoting a system of malicious prosecution. no parole.

...and talking of malicious prosecutions did anyone notice that the high court has just caused new south wales to compensate a victim some 2 million dollars plus costs.
I think john quadrio has a few million in compensation owed to him by CAsA.
I also think that the crew who stitched up the case against Quadrio should see prison time for perverting the course of justice and malicious prosecution.

skidmore isn't the problem and everyone acting like stockholm syndrome victims when the case people are nice guys won't solve it either.
some prison time for the miscreants would sort out aspects of the culture quick smart.

Arm out the window

13th Sep 2015, 02:09

the problem isn't skidmore. he is just a muppet placed to minimise the damage to the government.

Your in-depth knowledge of the individual and how and why he was appointed to his position is wonderful, dubbleyew eight. You should be in a position to make some changes to the status quo based on that - get stuck in any time.

dubbleyew eight

13th Sep 2015, 09:09

You should be in a position to make some changes to the status quo based on that - get stuck in any time.

I love the way the ex airforce all work to reinforce the efforts of other ex airforce people.

obey.
obey.
how could we be wrong, we're the ex airforce, we've flown jets.
just fcuking obey all right.:yuk:

since you mention that I could make changes here they are....

introduce canadian owner maintenance to the australian system.
allow for a privately owned aircraft to be de-certified and maintained on a standalone basis.
create an experimental-owner maintained category of registration for any privately owned aircraft.

see what that would do is allow the open discussion and resolution of maintenance issues for privately owned aircraft.

I know I'm boring. I've only been saying the same things for 15 years now.
...but of course I'm a legend in my own lunchbox so the fckuwits in CAsA will ignore the obvious improvements that would bring.

thats why hangars have doors that can be locked. so CAsA can't see the maintenance being done.:mad:

Arm out the window

13th Sep 2015, 12:30

Dubbleyew Eight, all you're doing is insulting someone you don't know, and going on to insult me too, as an ex-serviceman. I'm not going to sway your bigoted viewpoint, but I would suggest you have a read back over what you posted:

obey.
obey.
how could we be wrong, we're the ex airforce, we've flown jets.
just fcuking obey all right.

This is your level of debate, is it? Good on you then, have fun with it.

Sunfish

13th Sep 2015, 21:25

Unfortunately I have to agree with Dubbleyew Eight and I utterly reject the notion pedalled by "Arm out the window" that anyone is entitled to respect just because they are an "ex-serviceman", speaking as one myself.

With one or Two notable exceptions, I have been underwhelmed by the performance of ex - Duntroon / Academy graduates in management and I am being polite.

They range from the "I joined the airforce to get a free engineering degree" on to "I'm suing the airforce for loss of hearing next year" upwards to absolute blockheads who believe that there is only one way to do anything and that is the Air Force way….or else!

Then of course there is the "club like" atmosphere such RAAF appointments foster - an atmosphere that is actively discouraged, even to the point of anti discrimination legislation, in business right across the country, but is somehow seen as praiseworthy in aviation., as evidenced by "Arm Out The Windows" staunch defence of a brother officer simply because he is a brother officer.

To put that another way; the Australian Airforce has done more to destroy Australian civil aviation then the Germans and Japanese ever did.

To put that yet another way; I fail to see the relevance of military aviation to civil aviation at all. Appointing an AVM. as Director of air safety makes about as much sense as appointing a Vet to run St Vincents hospital - that is, of course, if your objective is to have a thriving aviation industry, which it obviously isn't.

Arm out the window

14th Sep 2015, 00:07

I utterly reject the notion pedalled by "Arm out the window" that anyone is entitled to respect just because they are an "ex-serviceman", speaking as one myself.

That's not the notion I'm 'pedalling' at all! What I'm saying is that Dubbleyew Eight, I believe, doesn't even know the bloke at all, but is happy to call him a blindly obedient muppet, and then to go on to say that all ex-service people are like that.

To me, it's a simple truth that you shouldn't make sweeping statements you can't back up, but it seems in this case a lot of people are happy to say 'Skidmore is this' or 'Skidmore is that' without the first clue about his capabilities, motivations or otherwise.

I'm not defending him because of some kind of ridiculous 'brother officer' code of conduct, and if you knew me you'd know I have never subscribed to any kind of elitist bull**** like that. I defend him because I first met him over 30 years ago and ever since then have been impressed by his integrity and leadership qualities. I challenge you blokes to stop making unfounded insulting statements and keep the invective out of it.

Frank Arouet

14th Sep 2015, 00:58

I'll say this, he is a carbon copy of the previous Directors of Aviation Safety.
All promised a clean out of the organization and failed to achieve that. All refused to listen to industry concerns but made a big noise about industry consultation.
This DAS has the benefit of a recent DPM review and Senate inquiry to use as a yardstick. The consultation is done. He hasn't acted to the extent that he may be called a reformer.
He's an average DAS.

Sunfish

14th Sep 2015, 21:32

AOTW, I am sure you are right and that AVM. Skidmore is a hard working man of great integrity, charm and intelligence with nothing but the best interests of the industry at heart. I do not know the man at all and I am happy to agree with your assessment.

BUT, we are talking about the office of Director of Air Safety, a public office, and Australians have a long and proud tradition of refusing to sanctify office holders and also subjecting them to robust (and unfair) criticism.

The issue is whether the DAS can implement any meaningful reform within CASA. My opinion is that he can't. This is not a personal reflexion on his character. There are some jobs that can't be done.

To put that in sporting terms; if I say "Full forward X is going to make mincemeat of full back Y" its ridiculous to respond "how dare you say that about Y? He is a good bloke."

I'm sure everyone wishes AVM. Skidmore all the best, but the chance of him doing more than scratching the teflon like surface of CASA are slim.

Arm out the window

14th Sep 2015, 22:20

I understand and partly agree with your comment, Sunfish - I'm sure anyone in the job in question would be pushing **** uphill to make significant changes, but I'm not yet at the point where I think there's no hope, and I believe Skidmore will make some positive progress.

I think rather than saying 'X is going to make mincemeat of Y' and me indignantly responding 'Y is a good bloke', it has been 'Y is an ineffectual ********' - to which I've been replying along the lines of 'You don't even know Y so what are you on about, and by the way, could you do any better?'

I shouldn't let myself get wound up by Dubbleyew Eight, and to the gent in question (who I've noticed from a search of his comments often comes in with a volley of inflammatory, over the top comment and then disappears in a cloud of 'censored' and 'vomit' icons), if you're seriously trying to make constructive comment, have a critical read over what you've written before hitting the enter key.

Duck Pilot

15th Sep 2015, 08:47

Rumour from way down south in Canbera is that a few people in high places are getting nervous, to many chiefs to command very few Indians. I suggest that a few commentators here sit on their hands for a month or two then comment. The wheels are in motion for the better my sources tell me. Yesterday's public announcement of a departure of one EM is a clear indication that the knife is very sharp and could still be within hand's reach of the decision makers.

Frank Arouet

15th Sep 2015, 10:41

Replaced with a pissweek downgrade.

dubbleyew eight

15th Sep 2015, 11:15

arm out the window I can assure you that I have always been quite sincere in my comments.

Arm out the window

15th Sep 2015, 20:39

Well I'll look forward to the news reports of you killing the next bloke who comes to ramp check you then!

BombsGone

19th Sep 2015, 06:06

Read the article in Friday's Australian about CASA's new regulatory philosophy. I think it shows a subtle but significant change in focus from a regulate and enforce organisation, to one in which risk assessment and consultation are front and centre. Whilst I understand the skepticism based on past actions of CASA, looking overseas and at other safety critical industries it is not an impossible task to provide for safety without killing an industry.

From the early 90's the military aviation safety culture and processes have undergone significant change. In the early 90's accident investigations were behind closed doors and reports routinely found Pilot error as the major factor in the accident. By the late 90's the culture changed to one in which risk assessment and mitigation were centre stage, with accident investigations resulting in major organisational and procedural changes. The results have been a large, statistically significant reduction in accidents particularly in Air Force. DAS Skidmore was in leadership positions throughout this period of change and his experience of it can be seen in his public comments.

The military is not the commercial world, the pressure points are different, the equipment and roles can be vastly different, and funnily enough the commercial regulatory environment is not as flexible. However DAS Skidmore was in a good position to see sound safety culture and principles develop over time in Defence so don't rule out his background as irrelevant. Of note the previous DAS left Air Force under the old culture of "it's always the captains fault" so when he blamed the pilot in the Norfolk Island accident entirely he was reflecting a culture that produced poor results in Defence and has largely been eradicated.

Organisational change starts at the top so be skeptical and keep the pressure on but reasoned argument backed up with facts will produce better results than hurling abuse.

Frank Arouet

19th Sep 2015, 06:33

QUOTE "it is not an impossible task to provide for safety without killing an industry". QUOTE

The parrot is not sleeping unfortunately, it's already dead.

Lead Balloon

19th Sep 2015, 07:28

It cracks me up that there are people who think that all the FOIs and AWIs and investigators are sitting around wondering what the "regulatory philosophy" is this week compared to last, and changing accordingly.

The "regulatory philosophy" is manifested in and dictated by the volume and content of the thousands of pages of laws that have been made. Mr Skidmore is just as bound as everyone else, and there is no "regulatory philosophy" that can make those laws mean something that they don't.

BombsGone

19th Sep 2015, 07:45

FOIs and AWIs can't change the way they do business without support from the top. A good boss sets the tone and changing the culture of an organisation can be a powerful tool for good. Neither an optimist or a pessimist but the noises coming from the top indicate that the new boss has correctly identified the problem and is trying to articulate a way forward.

I really feel for the GA industry in this country, my limited time working in GA did not leave me with great expectations either. A turn around in the industry as a whole really needs a Transport minister to champion GA. I don't think changes at CASA alone will help.

Arm out the window

19th Sep 2015, 07:49

We may all be bound by laws, but how they're policed and applied can be a particularly variable thing as I'm sure we all know.

I'd say there's quite a bit of flexibility in how public officers of any kind approach their work, and some firm direction from above as to how the job should be done could certainly make a difference to the end results.

It might be just because I'm having a pre-BBQ beer on a Saturday arvo, but I feel a certain positivity in the air regarding a lot of this stuff.

Lead Balloon

19th Sep 2015, 08:29

This cracks me up too: The misconception that a law has no consequences if a regulator changes its "philosophy".

Try reading the terms of any contract of insurance that you hope will save your house if you are involved in an accident. Your contract of employment has an implied, if not express, compliance with law clause. Try telling a coroner that you didn't have to comply with the law because the regulator had a "philosophy". The content of the sick, expensive joke that is the ATSB's report on the ditching of NGA had nothing to do with the regulator's "philosophy".

Arm out the window

19th Sep 2015, 08:36

This cracks me up too: The misconception that a law has no consequences if a regulator changes its "philosophy".

Nobody's saying that, are they?

Laws exist, but they can and are policed and applied in all sorts of different ways.

BombsGone

19th Sep 2015, 08:57

Lead Balloon, as an aviation professional I found the NGA ATSB report and CASA's response to be amatuer hour stuff. Any risk assessment of the operation should have raised alarm bells and led to mitigation strategies by the operator well before any accident occurred. No amount of rule making by office dwellers remote from the operation would have helped, however CASA should have been aware that the safety system was deficient well before the accident and acted.

I think we can agree that aviation regulation in this country has been poorly handled and major change is needed in the way regulations are conceived and written. Trying to read and interpret current regulations is a nightmare, they seem to be written in such a way as to support prosecution of legal cases rather than supporting sound safety decisions by operators. I still believe a good place to start is articulating what you are setting out to achieve, and then following through with changes that meet the aim.

Lead Balloon

19th Sep 2015, 08:59

Laws exist, but they can and are policed and applied in all sorts of different ways.Indeed.

And among those ways are "inconsistently" and "arbitrarily" and "unpredictably", and the more laws there are the greater the scope for the foregoing. (You realise of course that no "regulatory philosophy" can stop or dictate the way in which FOIs and AWIs and investigators exercise their powers, even if it's the DAS's thought bubble?)

You should read the Report of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review, and mark the significance of Mr Skidmore's comments about it in front of the Senate Committee as well as his recent statements about Part 61. He's just going to keep on keeping on running the system that's adding rules to the regulatory dog's breakfast.

I suppose your point is that it doesn't matter if there are another couple of thousand pages of regulations in a few years, provided the regulator has a "philosophy" of policing and applying them ... what word encapsulates the concept ... hmmm ... "nicely"?

BombsGone

19th Sep 2015, 09:12

Lead Balloon, agree laws should be simple enough that interpretation is not the problem. The sheer volume of our aviation regulations shows that there has been a problem in the approach used in the past.

Lead Balloon

19th Sep 2015, 09:59

My vote for understatement of the decade:The sheer volume of our aviation regulations shows that there has been a problem in the approach used in the past.Ya reckon?

And they're about a quarter of the way through the process. However, because of the problems in the "new" regulations already made, projects to fix them will mean the program won't finish in the year 2075 as projected, but instead a considerable time after that.

Let's hope the rules are enforced "nicely" until at least then.

Sunfish

19th Sep 2015, 10:46

*&^% CASA's "philosophy". &^%$ the DAS "new broom". Period.

What "philosophy" implies is that CASA staff have even more power to interpret the regulations to suit themselves to the detriment of safety, the aviation industry and all of us!! At best it is a well meaning temporary measure.

The essence of Weberian bureaucratic regulation as practiced by a Westminster democracy is strict delineation of authorities, processes and criteria for decision making. It was created thus to stamp out nepotism, corruption and a host of other ills. The key concept is again "the reasonable man" this time acting as a bureaucrat. Needless to say, CASA pays lip service to such concepts.

What "philosophy" is doing is saying the equivalent of an FOI saying: "the regulations say I can cut off your head for taking off with a tail wind, but instead, today, because I am a good guy, I like your face, the DAS says to play nice and the sun is shining I'm only going to fine you $500.00.".

Real reform is a rule stating " the penalty for taking off downwind is $500.00".

To put that yet another way; while a tolerant common sense "philosophy" is welcomed, it can be replaced in seconds with a draconian "zero tolerance" philosophy". Reform of regulations is required.

Arm out the window

19th Sep 2015, 11:12

You just can't be pleased, can you?

Lead Balloon

19th Sep 2015, 11:27

Are you suggesting that gestures like "philosophies" and "directives" should, in and of themselves, be a basis on which people should be "pleased"?

If so, it is an odd suggestion.

An objective assessment of both the law relating to the effect of things like "philosophies" and "directives" on the exercise of the powers conferred on individual delegates in CASA, and the outcome of similar gestures in the past, prove them to be almost completely empty.

Devoid of practical effect.

Except to fool the young and the perpetually gullible.

Sunfish

19th Sep 2015, 11:28

AOTW, I am regularly "pleased" in a variety of glorious ways!

However that is not the same as sleeping soundly, safe in the knowledge that CASA has my best interests at heart.

Let us say then that the alleged reinterpretation of CASA "philosophy" is delightful, titillating, foreplay.

Whether CASA genuinely wants to go to the altar or just 'love you long time' is still to be determined. Now back to the fourth quarter of the roos and the swans.

Arm out the window

19th Sep 2015, 22:11

Real reform is a rule stating " the penalty for taking off downwind is $500.00".

Apart from the fact that that's not a rule, it's a strange thing to want - a rigidly applied blanket penalty which would allow no room for common sense (e.g. there was a two knot tailwind by the time I got to the end of the runway but I took off anyway, here's my $500 CASA!).

So do we want rigid enforcement or some flexibility; directives or no directives; consultation or no consultation? Whatever they do, they're never going to do anything good in the eyes of some.

Lead Balloon

20th Sep 2015, 08:12

I think you're mixing up the issue of the clarity of the rules on the one hand with the issue of the "philosophy" of enforcement and the enforcement tools available to the regulator on the other.

Sunfish's theoretical 'rule' is effectively the current rule summarised. However, the penalty for breaching the current rule is $2,500 instead of the $500 proposed by Sunfish, and the regulator has lots of other enforcement tools to 'deal' with the miscreant.

On the current state of the rules, the regulator can choose to do any one or more or all of the following to pilots who land and take off downwind due to incompetence or deliberate decision contrary to what a reasonble pilot would do:

- educate and counsel them

- issue an infringement notice or recommend prosecution action - the presumption of innocence applies here

- commence licence suspension/revocation action and require testing of the pilot - there is no presumption of innocence or standard of proof here. If a 'show cause' is issued and the pilot chooses not to respond or the regulator isn't persuaded by the response, the regulator's decision will be effective to suspend or revoke the miscreant's licence and require the miscreant to undergo testing.

If the enforcement options available to the regulator were instead, for example, only education, counselling or proving, to the civil standard of proof, that the pilot's licence should be suspended or revoked, I reckon most of CASA's critics on the enforcement front wouldn't give a toss about the regulator's "philosophy". That's because the regulator's "philosophy" could change to "nuke everybody" and it wouldn't matter - the regulator wouldn't have the weapons to implement its "philosophy".

Arm out the window

20th Sep 2015, 08:59

I think you're mixing up the issue of the clarity of the rules on the one hand with the issue of the "philosophy" of enforcement and the enforcement tools available to the regulator on the other

No, look, I'm pretty right with that. The rules aren't all that hard to understand and comply with and most of us know when we're doing the wrong thing.

The gist of Sunfish's argument is, it seems to me from that last post, that he wants rigid rules with no room for interpretation, which will remove the possibility of CASA officers either being lenient or harsh depending on their wishes. I think that would just lead to more grief, as it would be a strict liability (i.e. no excuses) thing when perhaps a warning, or no action, might be more appropriate. I like the idea that the cops might be able to let me off if I'm speeding to get my pregnant wife to hospital or something like that.

Only having the options of educating, counselling or proving makes the system even less workable, because unless they're going to effectively let you off, they are forced to go to court with the associated pain and cost. A middle ground like an on-the-spot warning and / or fine is needed, I think.

I take your point about the suspension / revocation / testing process - that seems to be a weapon readily available for misuse by the authority, given that it can put a person or operation out of business while the matter's being (or not being) resolved. I don't know what would be better there.

Back to the previous point, though; Sunfish was implying that a 'philosophy' or directions about how to approach interaction with the aviation community is bad because it implies that CASA staff will have more power to interpret rules to suit themselves. He seems to be saying that all flexibility of interpretation should be removed from the working staff and that any direction from above is pointless in the organisation.

I say that the directions being issued are steps in the right direction, and while you can be cynical and say it's just window dressing veiling their real evil intentions, I don't think so. This, for example:

9.CASA demonstrates proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision-making and exercises its powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice
and this:

I understand some people may be sceptical at first about how or whether these principles will make a practical change to the way we carry out our regulatory responsibilities," Skidmore said.

“To regain trust, we must earn that trust.

sound like positive steps to me. Anyhow, we all have our own views so I won't try to force mine on you guys.

Lead Balloon

20th Sep 2015, 10:47

Only having the options of educating, counselling or proving makes the system even less workable, because unless they're going to effectively let you off, they are forced to go to court with the associated pain and cost.Oh dear.

It would, indeed, be "less workable" if a regulatory authority had to go through "pain and cost" of doing that which is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of our civil society.

Let's make it "more workable" then.

And people wonder how fascism gets hold and thrives. :=

Arm out the window

20th Sep 2015, 11:13

Pain and cost to the accused, I mean.

aroa

20th Sep 2015, 12:06

CAsA doesnt give a rats about yr pain and costs. They would hound someone to the last taxpayer dollar as long as the result showed their 'philosiphy' of "All control, No liability, No accountability"
Just ask J Quadrio.! And plenty of others. :mad::mad:

Preferably with strict liability for EVERTHING, it helps CAsA avoid the courts where the justice system may not give them the result they require..!!
Damn the requirement that the evidence must be to the standard of proof for a prosecution...just issue a penalty notice instead. :mad::mad:

Pay up or get flogged. Just ask.

"progress" is being made tho ??. I was advised NINE years ago that CAsA was looking to make minor "safety"(sic) reg breaches..eg incomplete lines in your log book, civil offences instead of criminal.
Havent heard a squeak since...must be one loooong hard look. :mad:
Or has disinterest, bureaucratic sloth or the incompetant, corrupted system just stayed with what they do best giving us Just Arse instead of Justice.

Facism thrives with this outfit.

Dont know if Skidmore has read thru all theASRR submissions, but the only way to let it hang all out is for a Judicial Inquiry or a Royal Commission.
There are people still / or were at the CAsA coal face that should be in jail.:ok:
THEN there maybe some philosophical changes regs notwithstanding.

Lead Balloon

20th Sep 2015, 22:19

Pain and cost to the accused, I mean.With (genuine) respect AOTW (I spent a couple of decades in the RAAF, so I'm a big fan), you evidently have no insight into the pain and cost that can be inflicted by CASA through administrative decisions.

Although I could nominate many, many examples, I'd just suggest you contact Dr Arthur Pape or John O'Brien. They'll be happy to talk to you.

Ask them how painless and cost-free CASA's acts of pure bastadry in relation to pilots with CVD were for Dr Pape and John. Those acts of bastadry were committed through mere administrative decisions made at the whim of medicos with a biased opinion. Ask Dr Pape and John how much stress and cost they incurred, and continue to incur, in order to get objective decisions made on the basis of real evidence.

Please: ask them. :ok:

Sunfish

20th Sep 2015, 22:21

Arm out the window makes Two arguments in favour of CASAs current regulatory system.

" The rules aren't all that hard to understand and comply with and most of us know when we're doing the wrong thing.", and

"The gist of Sunfish's argument is, it seems to me from that last post, that he wants rigid rules with no room for interpretation, which will remove the possibility of CASA officers either being lenient or harsh depending on their wishes."

The first part of the first argument - that the rules are understandable is bollox and needs no further evidence.

The second part of that argument is insidious; "most of us know when we are doing the wrong thing".

In other words, we know what the regulations mean and if we do not comply with them then we have guilty minds - mens rea, and thus are ripe for punishment.

This neatly encapsulates CASAs entire regulatory stance.

What should have been stated was :" Everybody understands the rules and most of us know when we are complying with them". That is the desired end state and removes the guilty mind assertion that automatically tags all infringers as criminals - even "criminals who haven't been caught yet" to use CASAs own words.

The second argument - that flexibility in enforcement is a good thing is about matters both of proportion and procedure.

YEs, FOI's and AWI's need flexibility, but that flexibility needs to be carefully bounded by a written policy (not fckuing philosophy") that describes in detail what the discretions are and how they should be applied. The usual rider at the end of such instructions is that any departure from policy has to have a written justification.

Now to procedure. When the traffic police pull me over for speeding. Strictly speaking, they have no more than Two options. They can sometimes give me a warning, or write me a ticket.

They do not have the right to make up a penalty on the spot or in cahoots with senior management and decide that they want to strap me to a hot exhaust pipe or send me for "counselling" or make me reset my licence test at their whim.

CASA on the other hand can construct its own fiendish set of punishments as it did with Dominic James - and it gets to be the torturer as well! This is plain wrong!

The "show cause" process is a perfect example, can the police cart me off to the station at whim and interrogate me until I self incriminate? Not without strict procedural rules they can't.

Yes, there does need to be discretion and nuanced enforcement, but it belongs in policies not philosophies.

My local police flashed his lights at me the other day, I was Ten kmh over. My police officer relative blips his siren when he sees a driver talking on their mobile. CASA should be doing more of the same.

Eyrie

20th Sep 2015, 22:26

Let's consider Sunfish's "taking off downwind". I'll take off downwind when the combination of wind, slope and obstacles off the departure end are such that taking off downwind is the best option.
If you get this or many other things wrong, you risk your aircraft and your life. Do we really need a penalty other than this?
Do we really need to legislate good airmanship? Is it even possible?

Arm out the window

20th Sep 2015, 22:56

Lead Balloon, I was just commenting on your own suggestion! You said this:

If the enforcement options available to the regulator were instead, for example, only education, counselling or proving, to the civil standard of proof, that the pilot's licence should be suspended or revoked, I reckon most of CASA's critics on the enforcement front wouldn't give a toss about the regulator's "philosophy". That's because the regulator's "philosophy" could change to "nuke everybody" and it wouldn't matter - the regulator wouldn't have the weapons to implement its "philosophy".

which boils down to CASA only having the options to

a) educate
b) counsel
c) prove the wrongdoing in court

That's why I mentioned court and the associated pain - I'm not defending it as a good option! You were the one who suggested not having other options.

Ask them how painless and cost-free CASA's acts of pure bastadry in relation to pilots with CVD were for Dr Pape and John

Again, I only mentioned the courts to illustrate the undesirability of going down that path, although you and aroa seem to think I reckon it's a good idea!

I was just a bit surprised to see the calls for more rigid rules and less flexibility in their delivery. Combined with no middle ground options, that would have us all either copping everything sweet or many more court cases, surely.

Lead Balloon

20th Sep 2015, 23:57

AOTW

You either ignore or fail to understand that going down the court path is not the only path that involves pain and cost to the licence holder. You're labouring under the misconception that all the "flexibility" is good for the licence holder.
many more court cases, surely.Nope.

To prove a case in court, CASA has to have admissible evidence and discharge a burden of proof.

Let's take a hypothetical pilot called Bohn O'Jien. He has a medical certificate. He's been flying as a CPL for a very long time. He has CVD.

Let's imagine that one day a hypothetical medico in CASA with a pet project decides Bohn's CVD creates an unacceptable risk to the safety of air navigation. The medico unilaterally decides to impose a condition on Bohn's medical certificate, the consequences of which are that his career is stopped in its tracks. Bohn then has to spend about $40,000 to get representation in the AAT (not to mention the time he has to spend and the stress he's put under) to get an objective umpire to work out that there is no substantial evidence to show Bohn's CVD creates an unacceptable risk to the safety of air navigation.

If, instead, CASA had been obliged to prove to a court that Bohn's CVD created an unacceptable risk to the safety of air navigation, before CASA imposed the career stopping condition, there would have been no condition imposed.

The matter would never have got to court.

That's because there is no substantial evidence to prove Bohn's CVD created an unacceptable risk to the safety of air navigation. The only material on which CASA's proposed condition was based was the opinion of mostly biased medicos and scaremongers with an interest in perpetuating the prejudice against pilots with CVD - people who make money out of micro-managing other people's lives by preying on the populace's fear of dying in an aircraft accident. Bohn's side, on the other hand, has admissible evidence based on things called "facts".

Most of CASA's administrative actions are based on material that would never be admissible in a court action.

BTW: Not all court matters are prosecutions.

Arm out the window

21st Sep 2015, 01:15

If, instead, CASA had been obliged to prove to a court that Bohn's CVD created an unacceptable risk to the safety of air navigation, before CASA imposed the career stopping condition, there would have been no condition imposed.
The matter would never have got to court.

Court, tribunal, or something - for every alleged misdemeanour, there would still have to be a process where the CASA officer would allege that some person wasn't working within the rules, and if the person wanted to dispute that they would need to have a ruling involving lawyers and umpires of some kind, wouldn't they?

I've already commented about arbitrary groundings and suspensions:
I take your point about the suspension / revocation / testing process - that seems to be a weapon readily available for misuse by the authority, given that it can put a person or operation out of business while the matter's being (or not being) resolved.

I can't see that it's an improvement in the system if you can only educate or warn, and then your next step is threatening (or actually proceeding to) court.

To mix things up further, Sunfish wanted rigid rules a few posts back and now he wants more flexibility -
My local police flashed his lights at me the other day, I was Ten kmh over. My police officer relative blips his siren when he sees a driver talking on their mobile. CASA should be doing more of the same.

This is a fine example of an officer using discretion - I like the idea, but you can't have it both ways.

IFEZ

21st Sep 2015, 01:32

Great post Lead Balloon, summed it up perfectly :D. Those (past & present) at CAsA who are responsible for the whole CVD debacle should collectively hang their heads in shame.
When you get a chance, I'd love to see a similar hypothetical summary of the Jomonic Dames & Quon Jodrio cases..!

Lead Balloon

21st Sep 2015, 02:03

AOTW

We can have it both ways. Precisely the same flexibility is available if the only options available to CASA are:

- education
- counselling
- prove a breach in court.

Counselling is equivalent to the police officer flashing his or her lights, rather than taking court action for the offence of speeding.

Let's keep it simple. Focus on a hypothetical, hard and fast, "don't take off downwind" rule.

If you think it's easy to gather admissible evidence to prove that a pilot took off downwind, I'd urge you to think again. Bob glancing up from the other side of the airfield when he heard Fred say that the windsock was pointing in the wrong direction doesn't count. The TAF doesn't count. The passenger who thought they were all gonna die doesn't count.)

In circumstances in which there are witnesses who are able to give convincing, first-hand evidence as to the actual wind conditions in which the aircraft actually took off, the pilot probably deserves to be dealt with by a court anyway, if the regulator doesn't consider education or counselling to be an appropriate way to deal with the pilot's incompetence or deliberate flouting of the rules.

Lead Balloon

21st Sep 2015, 21:02

Gather 'round, ppruners ....

Once upon a time, in a far away land, there was a pilot named Jominic Dames.

Like most commercial pilots, Jominic worked in an environment that meant he was almost always in a double bind: He was expected to comply with his employer's operations manual (most of whose content was dictated by the regulator) and the aircraft flight manual, plus all the rules including rules about fatigue and fuel management and diversions. But, alas, all of those documents contained mistakes and the rules were ambiguous.

One dark and stormy night, Jominic took off while tired, in an aircraft whose fuel capacity and performance were not suited to the mission at the altitude he was forced to fly. He didn't notice that In the seat beside him there was a mannequin rather than a co-pilot.

Along the way, he was given erroneous weather information, and some relevant weather information was not provided. This meant he was misled about the weather conditions and trends at his destination. He then made the mistake of pressing on to his destination, and had to ditch in the ocean when a safe landing at the destination was not assured. All POB survived and were recovered, but some suffered lifelong physical and other injuries.

It was, of course, all Jominic's fault. There were no systemic issues. The performance of the life vests was Jominic's fault. The procedure for preparing the raft for ditching was Jominic's fault. The erroneous and withheld weather information was Jominic's fault. The unsuitability of the aircraft allocated by the operator for the mission was, of course, also Jominic's fault.

The regulator and transport safety investigator reached the obvious conclusion, and launched an investigation to prove it, accordingly.

Fortunately, the regulator and transport safety investigator were not distracted by irrelevant issues like the commercial and political connections of the operator which employed Jominic, the content of reports of audits of the operator carried out by the regulator before the accident, or the circumstances in which flight information services had been withdrawn by Airservices from the Australian territory that was Jominic's destination. Nor were the regulator or transport safety investigator diverted to trivialities like the content of the CVR or a proper analysis of the actual fuel capacity and performance of the aircraft in question. An earlier transport safety investigator report about the unreliability of weather forecasts at the destination was irrelevant. The 50/50 split between FOIs on the question whether Jominic was obliged to divert was neither here nor there. A competent pilot would, of course, have known the correct answer: yes and no. A competent pilot would have known that there were errors in the weather information provided by flight service, and that relevant weather information had been withheld.

In accordance with contemporary accident investigation techniques, just culture and the systems approach to identification of the causes of errors, Jominic was proved to be the cause of the accident.

In a happy coincidence, the matter could be dealt with 'flexibly' by the regulator.

Accordingly, the operator was given the flexibility to continue operations as if nothing had ever happened, and everyone else came to the same conclusions about themselves: FIGJAM.

Except, alas, for Jominic. He received a different kind of 'flexibility' because he had embarrassed all of the wrong people. Such was his level of incompetence that the regulator considered that gathering the evidence to support a prosecution would not be in the interests of air safety. The appropriate regulatory response to such a heinous safety risk was to f*ck Jominic over administratively, indefinitely.

And to this day, Jominic appreciates the benefits of the regulator having "flexibility".

Of course, it's all just a fairy tale and could never happen in the real world.

Sunfish

21st Sep 2015, 22:50

AOTW:

To mix things up further, Sunfish wanted rigid rules a few posts back and now he wants more flexibility

Again, missing the point.

I want plain English common sense rules such that any reasonable person can determine what is required to comply. I do not want a system where we are told what does NOT comply, leaving us to crystal ball prognosticate what MIGHT satisfy CASA, even then CASA won't "approve" it just "accepts".

I want a clear set of policy guidelines on how such rules are to be enforced - including the degree of any discretion available to an investigator.

I want the final arbiter to be the judicial system where rules of evidence apply.

I do not want some Two bit, corrupt,, biased, Kangaroo court (show cause bullshyte) run by CASA which is both rule writer, rule interpreter and rule enforcer to have anything to do with punishment.

I want to be afforded procedural fairness, natural justice and the principle of equity and proportionality to be applied and always in the interests of the accused. Including the right to cross examine accusers and witnesses.

To put that another way; exactly how long do you think the general public would put up with the situation if the road traffic police were allowed to behave like CASA does writing rules, interpreting those rules to their own advantage and enforcing them capriciously like CASA does?