CASA, Have your say..

[Ultralights]

https://haveyoursay.casa.gov.au/

should be interesting.

[tail wheel]

I wonder how long that will last? :confused:

[50 50]

Comments only accepted from registered users, way to avoid the negativity CASA.

[kaz3g]

A really genuine and inquisitive feedback process would protect the identities of respondents.

I seem to remember that one of the issues raised in a recent report was the fear of victimisation?

Kaz

[DutyofCare]

Question >>> CASA invites you to have your say and help us plan for a strong and safe Australian aviation future.

Answer >>> Employ industry professionals with a proven track records, seek overseas regularity experiences / rules & disband most the current unaccountable personal from within

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SAY NO TO THESE USELESS NEW RULES THAT ARE COSTING US JOBS & COUNTLESS AMOUNTS OF TIME / MONEY ???

[andrewr]

Hosted by Bang the Table Pty Ltd! Seriously?

[Oracle1]

I have already had my say, I sold the aeroplane, quit my job and now I am working in a different field. Good thing I had the sense to have other qualifications. Less pressure, triple the money.:D

NEVER EVER AGAIN WILL I ENTER INTO ANY COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENT THAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH CASA

NEVER EVER AGAIN WILL I WORK FOR A LAME OR OWN AN AIRCRAFT THAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH LAMES

NEVER EVER AGAIN WILL I BE RAPED FOR THE COST OF A CERTIFIED PART


:yuk:

[Frank Arouet]

I've had my say over and over and I'd rather stick a burnt stick in my eye than go through it again. I thought the Forsyth Review collated all that "have your say stuff". What more needs saying?

[Lead Balloon]

My recollection is that a lot of individuals, representative organisations and companies had their say by making submissions to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (and, to a lesser extent, the Aviation Accident Investigation inquiry carried out by the Senate Committee). Some very well considered recommendations resulted.

If CASA is unwilling or unable to hear and understand the implications of those recommendations, in the context of circumstances in which they were made, CASA is - indeed - a complete basket case.

The interesting question is how long governments will continue to be willing to pay for what they know is a facade.

[Torres]

You of all people would know that 95% of voting Australians live in blissful innocence of what CASA is, or what it is doing - and not doing - to aviation.

No votes in it for politicians to rip into CASA, indeed, that would only unnecessarily scare the 95% of voters that live in blissful ignorance. That is why useless politicians like Anderson and Truss are never held accountable for their inaction.

And thus it will remain until we have a smoking crater.

Sadly the aviation and airline industry is so disjointed and fractured it will never create a common front to raise public awareness and question political inaction. The Australian industry is not helped by divisive organisations such as AOPA.

[Ultralights]

experimental is the only way left to go for GA.. i am still a homebuilt owner, but will never own a factory built aircraft, its just not worth it, i have given up instructing, and fly purely for fun only,

My other half has given up on aviation altogether, and has now committed our funds to a medical degree and a career in medicine. just a few years ago we were considering starting, or buying a flying school. not now.


sad thing is, no one will give their opinions, and have their say, knowing that based on previous experiences, all the advice and feedback they get, means absolutely nothing, so, now with a new boss, they might actually be willing to listen, but will get next to nothing from the industry based on the past efforts.

[Sunfish]

Ultralights, the Canberra zombies will come after experimental and RAA registrations as soon as they have finished off GA. CASA hates aviation except military and heavy Jet regular public transport.

The reason for this is not that hard to fathom, nor does it require conspiracy theories. In terms of general public passenger volume GA, RAA and experimental is negligible, yet we force on CASA the requirement to regulate a horde of unprofessional pilots and strange aircraft that operate in a completely different environment from heavies and military aircraft.

To put that another way, CASA is forced to consider a hugely disparate set of requirements when it regulates. Its rather like Canada where all official communications have to be in French as well as English, just to satisfy the French speakers in Quebec province.

To put that yet another way, if you were a regulator, wouldn't you prefer to deal with a few well healed airline operators only instead of having to also cater for a bunch of bogan amateurs in dirty jeans and moccasins?

[Arm out the window]

Put it another couple of ways would you Sunfish, I don't think it's quite clear enough yet.

[Lead Balloon]

Gosh AOTW, you used to be such a critic of ad hominem posts. :confused:

[Ultralights]

I wonder if CASA staff realise, that if they regulate GA out of existence, then quite a few of them will not be able to justify their jobs... and with government cost cutting, who knows, will the CASA payroll shrink in relation to their industry they are killing off?

[tail wheel]

I wonder if CASA staff realise, that if they regulate GA out of existence, then quite a few of them will not be able to justify their jobs... and with government cost cutting, who knows, will the CASA payroll shrink in relation to their industry they are killing off?

CASA is not a Government Department, it is a statutory authority. It has greater flexibility in managing it's affairs.

So, if the Government cuts CASA's funding, logically fees imposed on the airline and aviation industry will increase to sustain the present level of incompetence.

There are benefits in operating a monopoly.

[Arm out the window]

Gosh AOTW, you used to be such a critic of ad hominem posts.

It's a reaction to the relentless negativity and wild speculation - you've got to laugh, basically.

[Frank Arouet]

The lack of "relentless positivity" should tell you something.


Most recognize the onset of Stockholm syndrome.

[Arm out the window]

The lack of "relentless positivity" should tell you something.

Yep, it tells me the people who display it have given up.

[Frank Arouet]

au contraire.
Failing to display any sort of positivity in the face of an industry genocide hardly rates an accusation of giving up. More, I would wager is a universal urge to go down with all guns blazing and telling the world about it.
An acceptance of the status quo is proof someone has surrendered to the thugs, been blackmailed into submission, or acting as CAsA "compliant" by being part of the system.

[Arm out the window]

Come on! 'Going down with guns blazing' - it's not the Eureka stockade, no matter how much people like to see themselves as beleaguered victims. The options are:

a) Throw the whole system out and start again (not going to happen even in anyone's wildest dreams);

b) Work within the system to change it;

c) Carry on with a bunch of rhetoric (the preferred option here it seems).

[zanthrus]

a) Throw the whole system out and start again

This is the ONLY viable option.

We all know it.

CASA know it.

The Government knows it.

Grow some balls and DO IT! :mad:

[Frank Arouet]

The idea of working with this unworkable system is like collaborating with the Nazi's. The "Resistance" in both cases is very unforgiving.
If you prefer I be less dramatic, I would say there is a general reckless determination and acceptance of being hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

[aroa]

Is this just yet another .."seen to be doing something" ?

WHAT's TO SAY, FFS. ???

Its been said time and again for decades and it all goes nowhere. :mad:
CAsA is a basket case, is a basket case, is a basket case...now and ..forever ??? :mad::mad:

The INDUSTRY wants and desperately needs change, the Trough Dwellers at 16 Furzer St CB, dont,..just a bigger trough

Dept of Transport aint interested in any oversight and the passing parade of Miniscules dont know jack about the Industry or its problems with the "Regulator" (sic...very sick)

And for AOTW...there are some recent/current issues out of that infamous CNS office that you wouldnt believe as fiction.
You are just fortunate its not a 'job' being done on yourself, because when it is you will have one VERY different perspective of how the CAsA "system" works. Hope yr luck holds.!

[Arm out the window]

Me too, mate. For now I'm continuing with my policy of trying to work legally and with integrity. Maybe I'll come up against someone who is out to get me for some reason, hope not.

While I never claim to not make a few mistakes, though, it still has to be said there are plenty out there who knowingly overfly servicings, flog machines outside their limits, go against manufacturer's recommendations etc - this to me is false economy and a set up for accidents, but they still do it. It's not all honest law abiding citizens being screwed over by the evil empire, is it?

[Sunfish]

AOTW:

While I never claim to not make a few mistakes, though, it still has to be said there are plenty out there who knowingly overfly servicings, flog machines outside their limits, go against manufacturer's recommendations etc - this to me is false economy and a set up for accidents, but they still do it. It's not all honest law abiding citizens being screwed over by the evil empire, is it?

With the greatest of respect, Bollocks. So there are "plenty" who break the law? If that is the case, where is your evidence? Where are the court cases? Where is the statistically significant evidence from the ATSB that non compliance with maintenance and operational regulation is the proximal cause of machine failure and resulting accidents?

Please note, I don't want anecdotal one offs, I want statistically significant analysis proving the hypothesis that "Plenty" are knowingly putting passenger lives at risk.

But wait, there is more. Why should industry tolerate an organisation that:

(a) writes the rules in the most obtuse, impenetrable and non precise way possible, so as to allow

(b) The interpretation of said rules by itself according to its whims, and

C Gets to decide how to enforce those rules on a highly selective and arbitrary basis, and,

(d) Decides, on the basis of bias and personal whim how to punish the alleged offenders.

Why should we tolerate that??

To put that another way; would australian society tolerate a policeman that:

(1) Decides he doesn't like the colour of your car and the music you are playing.

(2) Pulls you over and alleges you are speeding with no, or contradictory, evidence,

(3) Anyway, decides to give your car a "roadworthy" and surprise! Finds a worn wiper blade rubber.

(4) when you refuse to lick his boots as requested, decides that an appropriate penalty is to tie you to the nearest tree and flog you to death with a bicycle chain?

That is what CASA is capable of doing. Read the Forsyth report.

[Arm out the window]

Please note, I don't want anecdotal one offs, I want statistically significant analysis proving the hypothesis that "Plenty" are knowingly putting passenger lives at risk.

I'll just nip away and produce a detailed report!

[Eddie Dean]

Hopefully that is a metaphorical flogging with a bike chain.
Or is it a satirical one?
None the less, your local CAsA team must really suck.

[Panda Fat Cat]

No prizes for guessing the motivation to finally register and post on PPRUNE, I was even going to use the name CASA Fat Cat but thought that would be taken for sure! I'm another who hung up the David Clark's when Part 61 et. al. came out.

To business:

The Government's response to the Forsyth report (The Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report) states in response to Recommendation 8a (that CASA publishes KPIs for service delivery functions) that:

"CASA has already commenced publishing monthly Service Delivery Statistics on its website, and will continue to do so."

Available on CASA's website is:

Service Request Statistics (https://www.casa.gov.au/services/standard-page/service-request-statistics), and

Service Delivery Statistics (https://www.casa.gov.au/services/standard-page/service-delivery-statistics)

Now, even to an MBA graduate it's got to be obvious that neither of these are statistics. There are lots of "Service Target" numbers, but (surprisingly) there are no actuals under the "Average Processing Time" columns.

So, who should we contact in CASA to ask for their statistics page to be updated :}:}