CASA CLARC Incompetency [Archive]

lee_apromise

26th Oct 2016, 00:11

I have just gone through the license conversion process and I must say it was incredible how incompetent CASA CLARC is compared to US FAA and NZ CAA. I really don't know how you guys put up with this.

Form 61-4A (Initial Conversion Request Form) took more than 2 months to be approved. CASA would not even recognise US FAA English Proficient as equivalent to Level 4. Had to supply another ICAO license for this small matter.

Documents lost at CLARC office, had to send a few documents again.

Medical took more than 2 months to be approved, thanks to MRS.

ASIC was a part of Form 61-4A application and was swiftly approved (surprised) and received it soon after.

After passing a flight test, submitted Form 61-4B, application returned because and I quote CLARC "we don't have anything in the system that you have been approved and received ASIC".

For heaven's sake, I don't know how you guys put up with it after paying horrendous amounts of unjustifiable fees and do not even receive appropriate customer service. May be government employees' attitude to be blamed?

Next time I need to do a conversion, I'm heading over to Kiwi-land. :ugh:

Peace

Lead Balloon

26th Oct 2016, 00:57

You now realise why Australia has a reputation as the only 3rd world aviation nation where you can drink the water.

Many just leave the industry through frustration, bankruptcy or pending insanity.

And CASA just keeps getting paid to create more complexity....

illusion

26th Oct 2016, 03:48

The government parks the shallow end of the gene pool in unsackable bureaucratic positions to keep the long term unemployment figures down.

Vref+5

28th Oct 2016, 03:54

I got my 61 conversion application refused because - according to CLARC - it was not complete, one of the forms required was missing. So I would have to re-submit everything again (about 30 pages from memory)

I then pointed out that my application had been submitted and received by CASA - according to the CASA date stamp placed on the copy of the refused docuemnts they sent me back - 2 months before the missing form had actually been created - according to the date on the bottom of the new CASA form, so it was in fact a complete application at the date of receipt by CLARC.

Result - another fortnight delay, mumbling by CLARC, then they asked me to just submit the form only

lee_apromise

28th Oct 2016, 04:19

Vref+5, I feel for you man. I had gone through the same a few months ago.

Here's a fun story.

Called CLARC and got to the bottom of ASIC *********.

Me: "Why can you not see my ASIC status on your system?"

CLARC: "Because only CASA Security (in charge of ASIC) can access it. I could put you through CASA Security and you can ask them to send CLARC an email regarding the status of your ASIC."

Me: "Isn't that your job to do so? If you can do it by just calling your colleague at Security, why do I need to supply a certified copy of ASIC?"

CLARC: "In case we get audited, it is safer for us if you send us a certified copy of ASIC."

IMHO, CASA employees have attitude problems. I Can't believe citizens are paying tax to feed these lunatics.

Ollie Onion

28th Oct 2016, 06:36

I started trying to get my certificate of validation 12 months before my planned fir test for conversion as a mate had warned me about CASA taking a while. End result, two 'lost' applications followed by a third application and getting the CoV faxed to the flying school on the morning of my instrument rating test a mere 11 months and 3 weeks after my initial application. Frustrating thing was each time I called them to confirm receipt of the application, first two they said 'it is received, allow two weeks for processing'. Both times I left it for 3 weeks and then called to be told 'no record of that in the system. Third application CASA wouldn't process it as they kept saying they had no record of getting confirmation of my licence from UK CAA despite the UK CAA saying they had sent it 5 times. In the end a very nice UK CAA officer took the contact details for the CASA person I was dealing with and stayed in the office late so that they could talk to them directly and stay on the phone until CASA confirmed receipt of the fax. That should have been the clue to steer clear of Aussie aviatio ,

Lead Balloon

28th Oct 2016, 08:50

Frustrating thing was each time I called them to confirm receipt of the application, first two they said 'it is received, allow two weeks for processing'. Both times I left it for 3 weeks and then called to be told 'no record of that in the system. Third application CASA wouldn't process it as they kept saying they had no record of getting confirmation of my licence from UK CAA despite the UK CAA saying they had sent it 5 times. In the end a very nice UK CAA officer took the contact details for the CASA person I was dealing with and stayed in the office late so that they could talk to them directly and stay on the phone until CASA confirmed receipt of the faxThing is, they get paid the same whether this outcome is the product of intellectual impairment, incompetence, taking the piss just for fun, or just plain lying to cover up laziness.

Whether inadvertently or deliberately on their part, we're all just their playthings.

And we pay for the privilege.

All in the name of "safety".

The machine is broken.

CoodaShooda

29th Oct 2016, 08:47

It's not just CASA.

My apoplexy is only now settling down following a seven year saga to get ASIC in Sale to accept that my company had changed from one highly respected auditor to another highly respected auditor.

In the end, our local Auditor General had words with ASIC's local Regional Director to have him re-educate his southern colleagues.

Hundreds of man hours and tens of thousands of dollars wasted.

All because some arrogant **** in ASIC Sale, to whom common sense and civility are totally alien concepts, disagreed with ASIC's Darwin office processes.

Arm out the window

29th Oct 2016, 09:05

Every time you talk to them, take the name of the person, note the time, note exactly what they said. They only give you their first name, but that's enough to pin the matter down.

Then if you get the runaround and they tell you something contradictory, or to submit something that's already been submitted, you can avoid being fobbed off, point out the contradiction and get referred to someone a bit further up the chain who can probably cut through the crap a bit easier.

Having said that, they have been pretty good on a fair number of applications in my recent experience.

IsDon

29th Oct 2016, 09:10

Form 61-4A (Initial Conversion Request Form) took more than 2 months to be approved. CASA would not even recognise US FAA English Proficient as equivalent to Level 4. Had to supply another ICAO license for this small matter.

Well, that I understand. Common knowledge that Americans can't speak English.

They also have a tendency to make up the spelling of words that are to difficult.

Lead Balloon

29th Oct 2016, 09:27

Then if you get the runaround and they tell you something contradictory, or to submit something that's already been submitted, you can avoid being fobbed off, point out the contradiction and get referred to someone a bit further up the chain who can probably cut through the crap a bit easier.

Having said that, they have been pretty good on a fair number of applications in my recent experience.

We're paying them to be "good" to "great" on nearly every application.

It shouldn't be necessary to take notes of the who, the when and the what was said, in order to reduce the risk of getting the "runaround" and being "fobbed off" by personnel in a government agency. In what organisation that claims "integrity" and "accountability" and compliance with a "service charter" is it possible for there to be a culture that permits inquirers to be given "the runaround" and "fobbed off"?

I reckon part of the problem is that anything unusual is always easier to duck rather than resolve. That, and the almost complete absense of any serious, competent management (as opposed to smooth-talking greasy pole climbers) may have allowed the practice to flourish.

Arm out the window

29th Oct 2016, 09:30

I've always found it good practice to note who said what and when with any organisation bigger than a couple of employees (e.g. Telstra, energy companies etc) - saves a lot of stuffing around.

Lead Balloon

29th Oct 2016, 09:37

Which merely emphasises why just about everybody is heartily sick and tired of incompetent, lazy monopoly or quasi-monopoly organisations stuffing us around for the privilege of milking us for money.

b215

29th Oct 2016, 10:21

I don't know, for the past 3O years ive done a medical, filled out some sort of form, paid a fee and life goes on ? Not that hard..

Creampuff

29th Oct 2016, 10:28

Yep: You don't know.

I can tell by the number of errors in a one sentence post that you're a troll. It is evident that during the past 30 (or is it 3O?) years you have not been the holder of a Class 1 medical certificate issued by CASA.

b215

29th Oct 2016, 10:31

Creampuff

29th Oct 2016, 10:32

Bull****. Sue me for defamation.

b215

29th Oct 2016, 10:40

Bull****. Sue me for defamation.

Ok probably not, just pointing out in 30 or 3o years I've filled out the form , done the medical and life went on

Creampuff

29th Oct 2016, 10:46

Bull****.

It is evident that during the past 30 years you have not been the holder of a Class 1 medical certificate issued by CASA.

b215

29th Oct 2016, 10:58

Bull****.

It is evident that during the past 30 years you have not been the holder of a Class 1 medical certificate issued by CASA.

And you think casa is what's wrong with our industry, sigh..

Creampuff

29th Oct 2016, 11:10

And you think casa is what's wrong with our industry, sigh.. No, I don't "think" CASA is what's wrong with our industry.

I "know" that:

- the regulatory Frankenstein that CASA has created and continues to grow, and

- CASA AVMED's unnecessary and unjustified intrusions, restrictions and career-destroying activities,

contribute substantially to the ongoing destruction of aviation businesses in Australia.

The sell-off of airports and handing over of the ANSP to spivs has not helped either, but I don't blame CASA for that.

BTW: What form did you fill out in 1987, at the start of your illustrious 30 year career as a Class 1 CASA medical certificate holder?

The name is Porter

29th Oct 2016, 11:38

60 bucks to land at a ******* airport that I used to own that I got nothing for when it was sold is what is killing aviation, *****

Arfur Dent

29th Oct 2016, 12:30

I thought J'mack was supposed to sort CASA out! (In much the same way he sorted Cathay Pacific).
I guess not...........in both cases.

Watchdog

29th Oct 2016, 21:11

havick

29th Oct 2016, 21:29

As another example of pathetic service from CLARC....a few years back I had to supply my new overseas employer with an emailed verification letter (basically a licence record printout ), filled in form, paid my $50 or so, waiting waiting ...over a month. Rang CLARC from O/S to explain I was sitting in a overseas hotel unpaid waiting for the email.....told "we have 35 days to supply it". Not even a expedited service I would have even been willing to pay for. Other guys on my course, UK CAA, and FAA had theirs provided, next or same day for no charge! GCAA 2 days, free.

CLARC cost me in excess of $12,000 USD in lost wages compared to my associates from other countries.

Pathetic!

Even better I recently had my CASA license go through the same hoops while I'm here in the US.

So yo be proactive I sent in both the FAA forms and the CASA form and paid their fee at the same time.

Got an email from CLARC saying that I have 14 days for the FAA to send through the request otherwise the fee would have to be paid AGAIN!

Fortunately the FAA is efficient and sent through the request the same day.

Just seems a little outrageous that they put a 14 day drop dead date on a fee, when you have no control over the FAA or any other county for that matter sending through their request.

Sunfish

29th Oct 2016, 21:31

Did my BFR and converted to Part 61 no problems and fast (Five days). Nice lady on the phone at CLARC fixed up my online access for me and changed some addresses.

What I don't think some people understand is that Bureaucracy is a desirable system where there are procedures that must be followed and strict accountabilities apply to the public servant doing the processing. Bureaucrats are not allowed to use "common sense" and their own judgement because that leads to the slippery slope of corruption.

They need the required documents, numbered and indexed, in the file. The documents have to be filled out correctly. There is very little wiggle room for the public servant doing the job. Then there is the spectre of the Auditor General or worse, a coroner, tearing there paperwork apart and destroying the hapless bureaucrats career in the process...

To put that another way, what happens when another Frank Abegnale convinces CLARC that he has a B737 endorsement?

havick

29th Oct 2016, 21:36

Sunfish, I also had a good experience with CLARC with regard to my part 61 license and examiner approvals by way of a 61.040

The flight testing office has been great to deal with.

Simply pointing out that in some instances the procedures they follow are circular and sometimes end up in th chicken/egg scenario.

Lead Balloon

29th Oct 2016, 21:47

Did you become a safer pilot as a consequence of conversion of your licence to Part 61 licence, Sunfish? What is the safety benefit of Part 61?

Nobody's advocating that CASA shouldn't have procedures to confirm, and record confirmation of, satisfaction of the requirements for the issue of a permission (provided there's some safety justification for the permission, which is a related but separate question). But those procedures should include recording, on the file, all relevant correspondence, including notes of all telephone calls, from the applicant.

This isn't the product of reasonable and competently-applied bureacratic procedures:Frustrating thing was each time I called them to confirm receipt of the application, first two they said 'it is received, allow two weeks for processing'. Both times I left it for 3 weeks and then called to be told 'no record of that in the system.'

lee_apromise

30th Oct 2016, 00:15

Licence verification
As another example of pathetic service from CLARC....a few years back I had to supply my new overseas employer with an emailed verification letter (basically a licence record printout ), filled in form, paid my $50 or so, waiting waiting ...over a month. Rang CLARC from O/S to explain I was sitting in a overseas hotel unpaid waiting for the email.....told "we have 35 days to supply it". Not even a expedited service I would have even been willing to pay for. Other guys on my course, UK CAA, and FAA had theirs provided, next or same day for no charge! GCAA 2 days, free.

When FAA has an online system where an applicant can request a license verification letter and the system generates and immediately sends it to an email address specified for free, CASA charges $50 for it.

Such a backward country it is. But what choice did I have? I need a job in Australia. Gotta go through draconian government body. :ugh:

cattletruck

30th Oct 2016, 02:30

I've been fortunate with my few experiences in dealing with CLARC which have been rather straight forward, but I cringe when I hear the poor fellas who have had the run-around.

After 20 years in private industry I've recently become a public servant (not CASA), it's no job for life for me as I have to re-apply for my job every year unlike some people in the place who don't know how good they have have it. I was originally employed as a contractor to wear the risk of doing some critical upgrades to a number of important and publicly visible systems, which were done without drama, when that project finished a position was offered.

There are some really great people in the organisation who get things done sensibly and efficiently. There are also a number of boat anchors of which I've observed Australian Public Service HR policies seemingly designed to protect their boat anchor ways of... dragging the boat for no good reason.

God help you if a boat anchor is tasked to assist you, which is why I cringe. My advice when dealing with these organisations is to always get a name or reference number up front - either of which is the poison chalice for the boat anchor employee in the public service.

This should allow their teams to focus on their most productive employees and sideline the problem boat anchor to mundane duties like loading the photocopier with paper whilst on an executive salary.

skkm

30th Oct 2016, 02:32

To put that another way, what happens when another Frank Abegnale convinces CLARC that he has a B737 endorsement?

Not quite a 737 endo, but everyone who had DA42 on their Part 5 licence ended up with a bonus Gas Turbine endorsement on their Part 61 conversion. Something to do with the diesel version running on Jet-A.

Lead Balloon

30th Oct 2016, 07:04

There are some really great people in [this government] organisation who get things done sensibly and efficiently. There are also a number of boat anchors of which I've observed Australian Public Service HR policies seemingly designed to protect their boat anchor ways of... dragging the boat for no good reason. That would be typical of most organisations, cattletruck, private sector and public sector.

However, the substantial differences include that in the private sector the 'boat anchors' cause one or both of two things to happen:

1. The boat anchors get sacked.

2. The boat anchors cause the employer to go broke and shut down, as a consequence of stuffing too many customers around and losing business to competitors.

Alas, CASA has no competitors, other than "I've had enough of this and I'm out". And some of the things that are being done by the "really great people who get things done sensibly and efficiently" in CASA, don't actually contribute thing one to the safety of air navigation. Think Part 61 and Class 2 medical certification. CASA drives the processes that produce the rules that necessitate the bureaucratic processes that require the bureaucrats, some of whom are "really great people" and some of whom are "boat anchors". It's a self-licking ice cream.

The 'boat anchors' consequently have a far greater and chronic negative impact than they would have in the private sector.

Get rid of the pointless rules and regulatory micro-management and you get rid of the pointless processes, as well as save the costs of the people and reduce the amount of mess and stress caused by the 'boat anchors'.

Clare Prop

30th Oct 2016, 08:00

Ceritifcates of Validation went from taking 24 hours at the regional offices to up to 9 months when it all moved to Can't Berra. It is still an absolute joke. Killed off my flying tourism business dead.

Part 61 was originally supposed to put the whole C of V process in the hands of the flying schools but no, they had to keep CLARC in the loop so no change there.

Lead Balloon

30th Oct 2016, 08:45

But you should take comfort from the fact that we're so much "safer", Clare.

Think on how many terrorists pretending to be "flying tourists" could bring down Western democracy using a Cessna 172 that you've hired to them. :=

ramble on

30th Oct 2016, 09:09

Come on now all...remember the young things are just doing their jobs....Box, tick, box, tick, box, ? resubmit....

"Empty skies are safe skies" here in this dysfunctional Australapagos Island of Aviation

no_one

30th Oct 2016, 19:56

I had the CASA lost paperwork treatment. I submitted an application to reserve a registration mark. Got the automatic paperwork received, wait 2 weeks email. Waited 3 and sent an an email to see what was going on. No record of it in the system, can you please resend. So I send it off again but by that point supposedly the rego mark had been taken by someone else. To cover their tracks in their response letter the reference the data I had to resend it them and not the original date.

I now CC the DAS in all CASA correspondence no matter how mundane. I don't know if it helps but at least when they claim to have lost the paper work I can get them to check the boss's inbox.

Jabawocky

31st Oct 2016, 05:55

I received my part 61 licence after doing an instrument renewal. And I felt so much safer after they sent me my part 61 licence sans CIR :}:ugh:

Yeah that worked well.

I then had to explain all this to the poor person on the end of the phone that I actually did have a CIR and it was their error it was missing. Funny enough it did not take long to fix but I wonder what would happen if I had just stuffed it in my licence folder and did not decipher all the new codes for everything to discover the error, and then got ramped after popping out the soup at the minima. :hmm:

Would have been fun and games then.

But I am so much safer as a result.