A Quick "poll" if you have a moment. Much appreciated

[glenb]

Good Evening, I was at a community event on the weekend and got chatting to a young lawyer about the impact of red tape, and bureaucracy on business. We drifted on to CASAs obligations to "achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards", as one of their functions in the Act. This lawyer didn't believe me when I suggested that over 80% of our Industry would state that in fact we DONT have "clear and concise aviation safety standards". I suggested I would take a quick poll on here, to see how close to the 80% ,mark I was. I intend to catch up with him again this week, so would be keen to try and get 100 hundred responses if possible. (It makes it much easier to work out the percentage), and obviously all responses would be appreciated.

So the question "Have CASA achieved clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of them as one of their core functions in the Civil Aviation Act"?

Comments welcome, and those answering in the affirmative, could you quote your current medical status. If these polls work, I might call on your assistance on another topic. I will see what sort of response I get here. By the way, I am thick skinned so feel free to heap s$%t on me if you feel it appropriate.

Cheers All.

[Cloudee]

Good Evening, I was at a community event on the weekend and got chatting to a young lawyer about the impact of red tape, and bureaucracy on business. We drifted on to CASAs obligations to "achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards", as one of their functions in the Act. This lawyer didn't believe me when I suggested that over 80% of our Industry would state that in fact we DONT have "clear and concise aviation safety standards". I suggested I would take a quick poll on here, to see how close to the 80% ,mark I was. I intend to catch up with him again this week, so would be keen to try and get 100 hundred responses if possible. (It makes it much easier to work out the percentage), and obviously all responses would be appreciated.

So the question "Have CASA achieved clear and concise aviation safety standards as is required of them as one of their core functions in the Civil Aviation Act"?

Comments welcome, and those answering in the affirmative, could you quote your current medical status. If these polls work, I might call on your assistance on another topic. I will see what sort of response I get here. By the way, I am thick skinned so feel free to heap s$%t on me if you feel it appropriate.

Cheers All.
Haha, that funny. You’ll get closer to 100 percent disagreeing with that. There is nothing clear and concise about anything associated with CASA.

[Slatye]

As I found on the weekend...

What lights do you need on an aircraft for day VFR? How about night VFR or IFR?

What lights do 99% of GA aircraft have?

Now read CAR 196.

As far as we could figure out from CAR 196, all aircraft (excluding RA) must display (even in the middle of the day) the three navigation lights (red/white/green) and two red strobes (because a single fin-mounted strobe doesn't get you the required viewing angles). In the US (at least based on literature from Whelen) you can apparently use either a red or a white strobe, and of course many planes in Australia use this approach - white strobes on the wingtips meet the required viewing angles and can be neatly integrated into the navigation lights, negating the need for a red strobe (particularly under the fuselage). However, from CAR 196 these planes are not legal.

Quite apart from being confusing (is there actually a rule that you can't put diagrams in a legal document?) it'd be much simpler if we just followed the US approach - which appears to be what everyone actually does despite what CASA says.

[mostlytossas]

Unless this has just come into effect ,something doesn't sound correct here. As 90% of the single engine GA fleet wouldn't have 2 red strobes. What they have is usually 1 red beacon (a flashing red lamp not strobe) on the fin or top of the fuselage. Some aircraft also have white strobes on the wing tips but probably less than 50% in total. Plus ofcourse nav lights.

[jonkster]

my vote is: neither clear nor concise.

They have been re-writing the regulations to make them clearer and more concise for decades - a project that has always been 'soon to be completed' since the early 1990s. I think the last statement to the recent senate review was there was only 5% left to do.

In those decades the volume of regulations has been "concisified" into a plethora of extra documents, it went from CARs and CAOs into CARs, CAOs, CASRs, CAAPs, (many of which are now individually larger than the original documents they were meant to concisely replace) and they have also been simplified to the point where you need a PhD in law to understand if you have exceeded your flight and duty times.

Rather than do a survey, hand your lawyer friend copies of the CARs, CASRs, CAOs and AIPs - he/she may need a wheelbarrow - and ask them to quickly find, if under the law as it stands now, can a student pilot who last had a dual check 15 days ago, be sent solo? If they are struggling, guide them to CASR 61.115. Then when they think they have the answer, tell him them they also need to look up all the exemptions to the regulations that have had to be made when it was realised the changes were too hastily drawn up without an understanding of the implications and show them "Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 CASA EX46/18 — Dual Flight Checks before Solo Flights (Student Pilots) Exemption 2018". Then show them how many of these exemptions there are.

Then ask them: "how a humble flying instructor (without legal training) can keep on top of all these regulations and exemptions?"

CASA have a regulatory system that focuses on adding more and more convoluted regulation with a focus on forcing compliance and finding individual culpability and resultant punishment to improve safety.

Instructors are required (by CASA) to do Human Factors Training (under threat of $10k fine if not complying). That compulsory training strongly stresses the need to develop a safety culture that encourages self reporting of failures without fear of retribution, that fosters openness about safety failings to find underlying systemic issues and to continually enhance safety.

This seems to me to be ludicrous. CASA Left Hand: "Be open and honest and don't fear punishment for failure. That is the safety culture we want"
CASA Right hand: "If we find you didn't follow a regulation buried inches deep in volume 5 of the CASR, you will be fined and sanctioned"



rant over. Simple answer - count me in the 80%! :)

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Definitely NOT clear, and NOT CONCISE.

Just try to read any CASA do. and you'll soon give up from pure 'fatigue'...….

No CHEERS..Nope...NONE at ALL!!

[cogwheel]

Moat definitely NO

[drpixie]

No way clear, no way concise. How can 250 pages describing ONLY pilot licences plus 650 pages of associated "standards" be concise $#%@%$@!! That's just Part 61 for pilot licences - haven't got near an aircraft yet.

[thunderbird five]

Not clear, not concise. = FAILED.

[flywatcher]

I vote not clear and not concise

[Defenestrator]

There is nothing clear and concise about anything that CASA controls or has indeed touched. Medical status class 1 until our revered regulator works out how to take that away as well.

[Blueyonda]

I find the section that refers you to another section that refers you to another, in particular the CASR’s, leaves me thinking, “What was the the first bit about again.” That’s not clear or concise.

[miroho]

neither clear nor concise, complexity way past the fraudulent level......................

[Dexta]

The regulations are "Clear": Clearly we are all criminals! The regulations are concise as in 'to the point', the point being only Military and Airlines should be flying!

You know the regulations are completely incomprehensible when you ring CASA for an explanation and even the guy who wrote the original regulation cannot understand it! Their comment was "it was fine until it got sent to Legal" (this actually happened!!!!)

So, no, the current regulations are not clear and concise by any normal meaning of those words.

[Dark Knight]

I vote not clear and not concise

[LeadSled]

I vote not clear and not concise
As do I and anybody else who has had any but the most superficial experience of aviation law in Australia.

Advise your lawyer friend that the various aviation "laws" are on a par with the tax regulations for size and complexity, then refer him to the Rule of Law Institute of Australia to explain what that means.

Finally, advise him that the informal policy of CASA , not to be found in any mission statement, is that:" The aviation law is for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers**" ---- the present form and complexity, rigidity and prescription of the regulations never did and does not have anything to do with aviation "safety".

Tootle pip!!

** Statement to the Program Advisory Panel (PAP) of the CASA Review, by CASA lawyer giving testimony to the panel, around 1997.

[airag]

Definite no from me

[Okihara]

The poll results are as expected so far.

@Glen: I'm not sure how much (objective) weight asking ppruners will carry. Perhaps you should physically go to Aspeq test centres and ask candidates to the CPL air law (and those to the RPL and PPL tests too) the very same question. Ideally you'd have a form with relevant questions.

[glenb]

Thankyou so far, for your involvement. I can assure you that this will all be leading to something, so please keep the responses coming. Cheers. Glen

[VH DSJ]

Classic example is the lighting requirements for pilot activated lighting and the need for alternates under various circumstances. Who dreams up of this garbage? I've flown in the USA to airfields with pilot activate lighting and there's none of the complications that our system requires.

[zanthrus]

I no longer give a f#c$ about the new CASA regs. I have been flying over 30 years and the aircraft flies the same now as then. Teaching someone how to fly is the same. So I simply get on with the job the same as always and ignore most of the bull$hit.Tick the boxes on the new crap forms but do the job as before.

[thorn bird]

about as clear as mud. Absolutely, positively, without question, not concise.

[outnabout]

I have never known an industry to be so meticulous about regulating alcohol intake, whilst at the same time, being the cause of alcohol intake.

Clear and concise? I don't think so.

An acquaintance, who works for our Cherubs Against Sensible Aviation, has just purchased a share in a single engine piston......and is now learning first hand the delights of the regulations for maintenance. He is PPL, so won't learn the true joy of trying to run a (profitable) aviation business under the cumbersome weight of red tape.

[thorn bird]

excerpts from Australian flying magazine:

The Federal Government released their manifesto Planning for Australia's Future Population last week, a large part of which is effectively a policy of investing in the regions to restrict the relentless march of capital-city suburbia. It talks about new roads, new rail infrastructure and jobs growth among many things. Out of curiosity, I searched the document using the term "aviation" and got NO RESULTS FOUND. Searching again under "airports" found reference to Western Sydney, a rail connection to Tullamarine, and Hobart Airport. That's it. Our industry and community gets no other mention in this tome, which can be taken squarely as a pitch for votes in the May election. Such scant mention of aviation in a policy that boasts about "better connecting regional Australia" tells the aviation community exactly where we stand: nowhere. Despite the rhetoric of successive ministers it is clear the government believes aviation plays no part in the future of Australia other than as gateways to and from the capital cities. How can a serious government honestly believe it can connect regional cities by ignoring the most efficient way of doing it? It is a depressing norm that aviation always gets the rhetoric, but not the action. This time we've even been excluded from the rhetoric, an effect of not representing enough votes to make politicians sweat at night.

Quote:"..the industry decline co-incides with the death of the Department of Aviation.."


Perhaps the goverment would have done well to consider Ken Cannane's position on jobs in the regions. The head of AMROBA last week outlined how he believes regulation is stifling the industry's potential (http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/regulation-can-create-jobs-amroba)to generate jobs. His plan is allow small operators in flight training and maintenance to function without having to abide by the heavy regulations that load so much cost onto businesses without returning even a reasonable increase in safety. According to Cannane, the industry decline co-incides with the death of the Department of Aviation and the rise of the Civil Aviation Authority and the CARs in 1988. The CAA became CASA in 1996, which it does appear only exacerbated the problem. In short, not all the functions and responsibilities of the DoA were picked up by either CASA or Airservices Australia. One of these was simply looking after an industry that reported employs 200,000 people in this country. Cannane is a firm believer in the concept of independent flying instructors and LAMEs as a way of taking general aviation back to the regional airports and therefore catalysing the process that turns small into medium and results in the very jobs the government says it wants to generate.

[Duck Pilot]

Certainly no...

[Clinton McKenzie]

This is one of the key points I made in my submission to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review:The regulatory reform program has failed and, in its current structure, is beyond repair

In the unlikely event that the ‘new’ package of aviation safety rules is implemented (not merely “completed”) sometime, the package will still be a complicated, convoluted mish-mash which fails to achieve the aims of the reforms.

Despite 155 pages of regulations growing to 2,827 pages (so far) there is almost no practical consequence for the way aircraft are operated and maintained today compared with when the regulatory reform program commenced.

The volume and complexity of the rules, combined with the symbiotic nature of the regulatory regime, results in unnecessarily high risks of inconsistent interpretations of the rules as between individual staff of the regulator, and unnecessarily disruptive (and, in some cases, destructive) consequences for industry participants.

This is one of the comments I made in my submission to the ‘Discussion Paper’ on AVMED:I gave up reading the ever-growing pile of civil aviation laws in about the year 2000, when it became obvious to me that almost none of it made any practical operational difference compared with the rule set in force when I attained my pilot licence. I have subsequently successfully completed seven Flight Reviews, therefore demonstrating either that my judgment of the safety-relevance of the current regulatory mish-mash was correct or that the various Approved Testing Officers who conducted the reviews are as ‘dangerous’ as I am.

On any objective analysis, the answer is an emphatic ‘no’.

[Piston_Broke]

would be keen to try and get 100 hundred responses if possible. (It makes it much easier to work out the percentage)

State of the regs aside, how can you take 100 responses simply from PPRuNe members to be representative of the 30,000+ (?) licensed pilots in Australia???

[Lead Balloon]

CASA takes two tragic incidents during private community service flights and extrapolates that to make conclusions about the safety of CSFs generally.

Lies, damned lies and statistics...

[glenb]

Piston Broke, if I get 30,000 replies I would be ecstatic, and I will get the kids to run the percentages. If 30,000 pilots voted one way and all 900 CASA staff voted the other way. That would be 97% against 3%, if my maths is right. By the way, I reckon that about 850 of the CASA staff would be as fed up with it as much as we are, they have to work with the same rubbish as we do!!!

[RatsoreA]

CASA takes two tragic incidents during private community service flights and extrapolates that to make conclusions about the safety of CSFs generally.

Lies, damned lies and statistics...

It’s like that in more aspects of life than just aviation. Driving, firearms ownership, what free speech you decide to use on the internet. CASA are just keeping with the times.
Viva le revolution...

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I am staggered that there are (at 23.44 on 26/03) eleven people who voted YES??
Who are they ---- lawyers??
Or trolls??
Or smoking No.1 Good S---t.
There has to be some reason for such deviant behaviour.
Tootle pip!!

[hawk_eye]

Several years ago I was involved in writing a Part 142 Expositon for a medium sized flying school. There was much back and forth with the CASA FOI as I tried to meet each of the 450 tick box items he had to sign off before we gained approval.

When one piece of feedback came back to me stating that nowhere in the document had I mentioned that the Flying School’s facilities had ‘climate control’ I knew there was something grossly wrong with the system. The cost of that Part 142 Exposition (in addition to a Training Managanent System and Staff Training and Checking Manual that had to be written as well) I estimate would be somewhere in the vicinity of $50-75k. And that manual did nothing to improve safety - all it did was explain the procedures the flying school currently operated under. And I fear all it will have done is create additional burden every time the school has an audit.

A fun fact - the new manuals totalled about 30,000 words. That equates to about 1500 words for every aircraft the school had....for no discernible increase in safety 🙄

[thorn bird]

hawk_eye,

your post goes a long way to explaining why those little aero clubs
that used to be scattered around the "kickatinalong" towns who
perhaps, if they were lucky, trained a dozen pilots a year, are no
longer there.
I occasionally watch the odd Tube videos of pilots out and about
their country sides of their countries, having fun with their flying machines
doing all sorts of fun things that would simply not be allowed here, or be
made so expensive nobody would bother.
I believe that's a part of why the industry is so much in decline, the
regulator has taken the fun out of it.

[Sunfish]

Jobs, investment, growth. Just a memory.

[Okihara]

@Sunfish: congratulations on your 7000th post!

[Piston_Broke]

Piston Broke, if I get 30,000 replies I would be ecstatic, and I will get the kids to run the percentages. If 30,000 pilots voted one way and all 900 CASA staff voted the other way. That would be 97% against 3%, if my maths is right. By the way, I reckon that about 850 of the CASA staff would be as fed up with it as much as we are, they have to work with the same rubbish as we do!!!

Again, the state of the regulations aside:

You clearly won't get anywhere near 30,000 responses because only a small percentage of pilots and other licensed parties would be PPRuNe members.

As it is, the topic has had over 3000 views but only 152 have taken the poll. That in itself says something i.e. perhaps only those who have had issues or have an axe to grind have voted. Maybe you should have had a third option "Don't know or undecided" to cater for all those (I suspect the vast majority) who have had little or no involvement interpreting the regs..

The current 152 responses is only 0.5% of the 30,000, so you can hardly say that is a representative sample, and trying to extrapolate that to CASA employees is another matter.

FWIW a friend who works in the federal area of transport and security has said if you think the CASA regs are difficult to interpret, have a look at the various Acts and Regulations related to aviation and maritime transport and facilities security.

[zanthrus]

So the 2848 people who did not vote are the majority scared silly by CASA goons? Can't really blame them but as a Pilot group we all need to stand up to these idiots in Fort Fumble and just say no, NO, NO WAY IN HELL, F#CK NO!!!

[Pinky the pilot]

I am staggered that there are (at 23.44 on 26/03) eleven people who voted YES??
Who are they ---- lawyers??
Or trolls??
Or smoking No.1 Good S---t.
There has to be some reason for such deviant behaviour.

LeadSled;
As of now, 1614 CSuT on 27/3 there are sixteen who voted YES.
Re your question as to who they are, may I venture the opinion that they could possibly be CASA Lawyers smoking No.1 Good S--t.:E

That is the only reason I can think of anyway!:confused:

[Left 270]

I would bet my house those 16 did the poll on an iPhone and had finger trouble

[aroa]

NO writ large.

Only people like Carmody, Smart Aleck, P Gobsome, A Anustasi and few other criminal employees, who have had their arses covered by CAsA would posit that the Rotten Regulator is doing a good job.
Well, they think they are....while 'busy' faarking an industry with an ever continuing avalanche of strict liability criminal BS. And they even go beyond their legit safety remit, with regulations about commerce
IMHO Cretins Against Sensible Aviation are a national disgrace.

As others have said , just ignore all the crap as best you can and get on with it.
Its no safer now than it was 40 years ago, in spite of a fright train load of regulations and paperwork.
Jobs and Growth...yeah. THEIRS
Way passed the time for CAsA to be told to Foxtrot Oscar.
Oh for some political testicular fortitude, someone,? somewhere?....anyone ???
Keep banging that Judicial Inquiry drum.!

[Piston_Broke]

So the 2848 people who did not vote are the majority scared silly by CASA goons?
More likely, as I said:
Maybe you should have had a third option "Don't know or undecided" to cater for all those (I suspect the vast majority) who have had little or no involvement interpreting the regs..
As well as those who don't care.

[Slatye]

Unless this has just come into effect ,something doesn't sound correct here. As 90% of the single engine GA fleet wouldn't have 2 red strobes. What they have is usually 1 red beacon (a flashing red lamp not strobe) on the fin or top of the fuselage. Some aircraft also have white strobes on the wing tips but probably less than 50% in total. Plus ofcourse nav lights.Yes, that's what I thought. If this was the actual law, hardly anybody would ever pass a ramp check (and, since you can't even taxi without the required lights, I guess traffic would just stop. I hope the 737 behind me doesn't mind too much).

The CAR does say "unless CASA otherwise directs..." very frequently, so it's quite possible that elsewhere they do direct users to fit different lights. Where? How is anyone meant to find that? The only other place I can see that would be relevant is CAO 20.18 (minimum equipment), but that doesn't really say much (it says that IFR aircraft must have the equipment specified in CAR 196, but it doesn't say that VFR aircraft don't need to have that).

I also found it interesting that CASA explicitly says that anti-collision lights must be displayed in conditions of poor visibility. Piper (in the PA-28 POH) and Cessna (in the C172 POH) both state that the beacon should NOT be used in cloud...

I could find no mention of exterior lighting in the Bob Tait BAK and PPL books, nor in the Aviation Theory Centre IFR book (I checked in these on the basis that they might point me to the relevant CAR/CASR/CAO section). I wonder whether that means that they're as confused as I am.


It feels like it should be fairly straightforward for CASA to create a website/app where you put in your aircraft and route details (eg. "I have a Cessna 206, I want to fly it privately in IFR conditions from Bankstown to Camden with four people onboard") and it tells you exactly what you need. What equipment, what endorsements, what renewals and what timeframes those have, what medical certificate, how much excess fuel, etc - with references to the relevant sections of the official regulations. That would be clear and concise.

[zanthrus]

Piston_Broke, I would suggest that the reason many people just don't care is they see no hope for the future of aviation on Australia. Understandable that they feel that way as I do at times. However they need to suck it up and take a stand against CASA idiots or the future they fear will become self evident.

[gerry111]

Piston_Broke, I would suggest that the reason many people just don't care is they see no hope for the future of aviation on Australia. Understandable that they feel that way as I do at times. However they need to suck it up and take a stand against CASA idiots or the future they fear will become self evident.

Sadly just so true.

Tho' at least one person here on PPRuNe is doing just that. I refer to the thread: "CASA Avmed - In my opinion, a biased, intellectually dishonest regulator."

[michigan j]

Who is voting yes? I honestly want to know why you think these are clear and concise.

[cooperplace]

don't forget that CASA loves strict liability; god knows what this does for an open culture

[ClippedWing]

Regarding the issue of strict liability, does any other country apply it to aviation as Australia does?

I have done a quick Google search for it and Australia seems to be the only one doing so. So much for aligning our regulations with current world or best practice. I came across an article in the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy's winter 1997 titled "Maintaining Air Safety at Less Cost: A Plan for Replacing FAA Safety Regulations with Strict Liability", from which I have excerpted the following:

Additionally, strict liability contravenes attribution theory. Pilot negligence rules should provide realistic and achievable goals within the locus of control of pilots. In contrast, strict liability targets individuals regardless of whether the blameworthy agents were within the loci of control of those individuals. Hence, strict liability offers no incentives to eliminate negligent conduct.
To summarize, aviation strict liability is not a viable legal principle. From any viewpoint, general aviation is no longer an uncommon and hazardous activity. State common law recognizes this fact, but statutory strict liability does not. Furthermore, strict liability contributes nothing to the quest for greater safety, but tends the other way, to keep aviation dangerous. Hence, it is an antiquated doctrine that needs a funeral.

There you have it: CASA's new (antiquated) regulatory framework.

[JoJoe]

No, neither clear nor concise. Example, no definition of "the safety of air navigation" so CASA can impose unlimited restrictions in the name of 'safety'.

[jonkster]

141.200 Part 141 operators—instructors—training in human factors principles and non‑technical skills

(1) A Part 141 operator commits an offence if:

(a) an instructor for the operator conducts authorised Part 141 flight training for the operator; and

(b) the instructor does not meet the requirements in the operator’s operations manual about training in human factors principles and non‑technical skills.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability


142.335 Part 142 operators—instructors and examiners—training in human factors principles and non‑technical skills

(1) A Part 142 operator commits an offence if:

(a) an instructor or examiner for the operator conducts an authorised Part 142 activity for the operator; and

(b) the instructor or examiner does not meet the requirements in the operator’s exposition about training in human factors principles and non‑technical skills.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.



The HF training I recently did stressed the importance of fostering a safety culture, one that was not about attribution of blame, not about punishment for deficiencies and one where people were not frightened to raise issues fearing retribution.

Pity CASA don't subscribe to the culture they want us to comply with.

[prettybloodyhot]

Re an option for “Don’t know / Unsure”; I would be willing to wager that this is where most GA and many commercial pilots sit.
After all, why would we ever delve into the reg’s unless we really had to? Only when you get stuck into the issue in some detail (sitting an air law exam at any level, figuring out what you can or cannot do as an operator, instructor etc) do you realise just how incredibly convoluted, inconsistent and obtusely shambolic it all is.

Our regulations are absolutely not clear and are manifestly not concise.

[Sandy Reith]

The ‘yes’ voters could only vote yes for ‘clear and concise’ for the following reasons:-
1. They have no standard reference point or historical knowledge to compare therefore their vote is meaningless.
2. They have a vested interest therefore their vote is meaningless.
3. They pressed the wrong button therefore their vote is meaningless.
4. They are mischievous or dull and therefore their vote is meaningless.
5. They always say yes to everything hoping that something might fall into their laps that they don’t have to pay for, therefore their vote is meaningless.
The attached illustrations convey some of the Government’s written intentions via the vehicle of the day (CAA & CASA). Its obvious that there was never any honest attempt to make good on the promises. Today CASA has still not finished rewriting the rules, a task more than thirty years on, probably the longest running make work program in Commonwealth history. CASA as an independent corporation is a model of governance that is incapable of administering aviation in a rational manner, let alone write intelligible rules. The current rules, inappropriately migrated into the criminal code and made strict liability, are a horrendous and incomprehensible mis mash and have smashed a perfectly good industry with great losses of jobs and services.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1413x983/36e9fb34_f42d_4cc1_ba2c_c53677c02b6a_1e2439c75b82aa2372cc9a4 80681964cd02747cd.jpeg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1460x2000/its_your_aviation_industry_2003_1_b99465c735c3ec3b65673392d9 54cec853333afb.jpeg

[zanthrus]

Ripley had the right idea on how to deal with CASA.

Nuke the entire site from orbit.

[Sandy Reith]

Consider that CASA disappears, all employees are paid out with lots of golden handshakes.
Yes of course some government agency has to provide ‘rules of the air.’ Aruba in the Caribbean has about 100 pages to deal with that and ICAO will provide lots of detail where needed particularly for international operations. Our current Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Act (thnx ref LS) with New Zealand (only covers airlines at present) could be expanded to cover GA and therefore there could be an option to take on board the NZ rules.
Or we could have rules of the air in a similar fashion to that of road rules. Common usage would in practice deal with the immediate needs of the industry. In other words the industry would continue in much the same way as now. All operators would need to follow equipment manufacturers recommendations or face common law sanction.
As one well known lawyer and pilot told me about aviation law is that criminal acts are across the board. I took his comments to mean that any obviously dangerous, wilful or negligent acts in any field are illegal and therefore most of the excruciatingly complex regulations that CASA has migrated, inappropriately, to the criminal code (strict liability, also inappropriate) are not necessary.
The insurance companies would fill in a lot of the gaps. In France much of the building code is provided by insurance companies which is logical because they have a vested interest in the safety of the buildings that they insure. Now I hear some saying that certain individuals and companies will go without insurance. My view is that its easy these days to enquire of any service providers, such as flying schools or airlines if they are insured. If there is no answer then your choice is informed.
What we could say, without a doubt, there would be an expansion in GA in most if its forms, particularly in training and aircraft building. New aircraft, with few exceptions, would only be successfull if they were safe, and meeting known standards for the obvious reasons, including the ability to be insured.
Finally I would contend, with benefit of many years of GA business, that the public are very much alive to the risks of GA flying and will choose very carefully. Today’s world is different, information is ubiquitous and available instantaneously.
As others have noted, CASA goes to inordinate lengths in it’s human factors instructor training, on pain of criminal charge (massive penalty) if not complied with, to emphasise open acknowledgement of mistakes in the laudable effort to create continued improvement. However, as is easy to see, this is a construct that cannot work. The fear of a criminal conviction which may cruel one’s career, and prevent travel to many countries, is virtually a guarantee that CASA’s intent is simply a torpedo with an irreversible hard wired navigation system to return it to the tube from whence it came.

[buckshot1777]

For many in this community nothing is clear and concise - including their own arguments.You got that right :)

Sadly the poll really is meaningless.

This is an international forum, anyone can join whether involved in the aviation industry or not, and it would seem people are able to vote multiple times and I'm not sure one even has to be logged in.

Having worked with statistics and evaluation of same, careful attention need to be given to the questions asked as someone mentioned previously, and in particular control exercised over the voting process so that the correct audience are being polled.

A stroll through the Comlaw site will show the CASA's regs are really no worse or better than others. Perhaps the OP's "young lawyer" is a recently minted graduate.

[5th officer]

The only thing that is Clear and Concise is that CASA have failed consistently and will continue to do so??

[ChoppaGirl]

I have a CPL (H) and am in the middle of a law degree. In light of the Rossair accident, I was very interested to read new legislation released by CASA but I must admit it took a while to work out what they were really trying to say. My vote is an emphatic no. Here is the link to the legislation update. See what you think? Was it OK for a CASA FOI to be checking the Chief Pilot who was checking the pilot on an induction flight???

https://l.messenger.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislation.gov.au%2FDetails%2FF20 18L01096%3Futm_source%3Dphplist1593%26utm_medium%3Demail%26u tm_content%3DHTML%26utm_campaign%3DExemption%2520allows%2520 flight%2520examiners%2520and%2520instructors%2520to%2520cond uct%2520tests%252C%2520checks%2520and%2520training%2520from% 2520a%2520non-control%2520seat&h=AT2jeFCnGiOA0LRvb3j2g4fxw45s2jb0ueYqgqS3PnMuZvzdxehXRRXYcN NcXlkakKNwXvFaM4ykCkRqPm5PdfID-Ey9d29vwcZXav69-gIEDcw4xxEmz6FP6GgPH8to93psiFNgBQ2vsHU4GTw

[Mach E Avelli]

NO, NO, HELL NO.
Ask three CASA FOIs the same question and you get three different answers. Lack of training, lack of standardisation. Not their fault.
Deal with head office CASA in Canberra, then one of their capital city offices; you get two different demands for the same application or approval. Very much their fault.
Among the FOIs there are a few good people in CASA, but sadly they are stymied by overall organisational dysfunction. Team Leaders (or whatever they call them these days) live in their own silos and, like politicians, are all about covering their own sad arses.
USELESS.

[zanthrus]

Mach E Avelli Let me buy you as beer, again sometime.

[tail wheel]

They have been re-writing the regulations to make them clearer and more concise for decades - a project that has always been 'soon to be completed' since the early 1990s. I think the last statement to the recent senate review was there was only 5% left to do.

Began in September 1988. 30 years in September this year. The same regulatory rewrite took Canada and New Zealand five years. So far the CASA regulatory rewrite has cost Australia something north of $500 million. 5% is not correct.

In those famous words from the then CASA Director in the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 February 2005 .......

Senator MARK BISHOP—Now that [the Regulatory Reform Program] has been refocused away from a timely conclusion, what is the new completion date and how is it proposed to stop it drifting along forever?

Mr Byron—We do not have a firm completion date at this stage, but we should be able to generate that fairly soon. Mr Gemmell mentioned the refocus, I suppose, that I imposed on the organisation in late 2003-04 on getting the rules right and getting the quality. I found it necessary late last year to articulate in a bit more detail some guiding principles about how I wanted that done and who I wanted to be involved in the process.

I have issued some guiding principles on the formulation of new regulations and, if necessary, manuals of standards that accompany them. I have, I suppose, imposed on the system an additional layer of consultation, to assure me that the final draft rules that I send to the minister for consideration by the parliament are the right ones and that they address very carefully risks that are real and necessary issues that must be picked up by regulations. I felt it was necessary to do that to make sure that I have the right rules. I am not going to put my signature to anything that I do not think adequately addresses safety issues.

Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?

Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.

The Neverending Story.......... It is a job to retirement for too many public servants for this story to ever end.

[Mach E Avelli]

Back when I were but a boy, the old DCA was known as the Department of Constant Aggravation. They placed some extra demands on operators even then, like requiring every light aircraft to have a Flight Manual done to their format. A manufacturer POH was not good enough. Also their own P charts to add fudge factors to takeoff and landing numbers.
But, we could live with them.
FOIs were active in doing ramp checks and would jump aboard occasionally to run surveillance on flying activities. If you were caught a bit overloaded (as we often were) you would be hauled in for tea and bickies then sent on your way.
Once I landed an Aztec on a dirt road out in the scrub because I was caught short by the previous night’s curry. A diligent Flight Service Officer working HF radio figured out that I was nowhere near any airstrip and dobbed me in.
Hauled in for more tea and bickies. The FOI held my licence over a shredder while asking me several questions on what constituted an Authorised Landing Area.
At least they had a sense of humour.

[Sandy Reith]

tail wheel;
The Neverending Story.......... It is a job to retirement for too many public servants for this story to ever end.
This is true because CASA is incapable of producing, let alone finishing a rational and fit for purpose set of rules or administering same.

The reason being that the model and legislative structure is wrong. Thirty one years of abject failure is proof enough. The all too numerous clashes, the universal distrust, the examples legion of CASA errors, waste and mismanagement and it’s hubris are historical facts. It seemed like a good idea at the time to create the independent corporate regulator outside the APS, and remote from the Minister, and it still does, for those that the system benefits. Namely for the feather bedded bureaucracy and, crucially, for the Minister by relieving him of direct responsibility. It is Parliament that can and should effect change.

We have to persuade MPs that change is required. Lambasting and calling out the leadership of CASA is legitimate where they have not served well but they are not the main game. Ring write or otherwise contact your federal MP and State Senators for action to stimulate jobs and growth. Join a political party and put in the hard yards. Channeling the anger and frustration into political action can produce results, even MacDonaught is making a small amendment to the Act which would not have happened without Ben Morgan and AOPA’s Tamworth and Wagga Wagga GA meetings.

[thorn bird]

I think there was already a Poll done back in 2012 on Prune.

[glenb]

So why don't AOPA, RAAA, AFAP, an independent politician or some industry body take the lead on this. Ben Morgan specifically, as you have access to a very diverse membership. CASA are required as one of their FUNCTIONS to develop appropriate, clear, and concise aviation safety standards, and that failure by CASA is in fact the ROOT CAUSE of Industry's woes.

Surely it cant be this simple, although I would like to think it is. Simply ask in the appropriate judicial forum, or put to the Minister in Parliament.

Simply contend that no-one in CASA is prepared to stand up in court under oath, and state affirmative to the following question, ( or reworded)

Do you acknowledge in your role as (CEO,/Chairperson, etc) that the Civil Aviation Act requires CASA as one of its core functions "(c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards" , and under oath do you believe that CASA has achieved that!



A Straw Poll on PPRuNe indicating about a 90% to 10% split may not carry much weight, but it certainly does indicate that something is substantially wrong, and that's why it is important that you vote in this poll if you are involved in Industry on either side of the fence. A properly conducted poll by one of our Industry groups or a couple of them might actually have some clout. Finally all those businesses and individuals might have something to hold CASA to account for. I appreciate that this isn't the poll to be waving around in a courtroom, but please someone get something going. Ben Morgan, go for it!!! Please


Part II—Establishment, functions etc. of CASA Establishment of CASA
(1) An authority called the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is established by this subsection.

((2) CASA:
(a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession;
(b) shall have a seal; and
(c) may sue and be sued in its corporate name.Note:

The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 applies to the CASA. That Act deals with matters relating to corporate Commonwealth entities, including reporting and the use and management of public resources.

(3) All courts, judges and persons acting judicially shall take judicial notice of the imprint of the seal of CASA appearing on a document and shall presume that the document was duly sealed.

9 CASA’s functions

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;

by means that include the following:

(c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;
(d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards;
(da) administering Part IV (about drug and alcohol management plans and testing);
(e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;
(f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety‑related decisions taken by industry management at all levels for their impact on aviation safety;
(g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to identify safety‑related trends and risk factors and to promote the development and improvement of the system; (
h) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety developments.

(2) CASA also has the following safety‑related functions:

(a) encouraging a greater acceptance by the aviation industry of its obligation to maintain high standards of aviation safety, through:
(i) comprehensive safety education and training programs; and
(ii) accurate and timely aviation safety advice; and
(iii) fostering an awareness in industry management, and within the community generally, of the importance of aviation safety and compliance with relevant legislation;

(b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.

[CaptainMidnight]

I'm wondering if perhaps the reality is 80%+ of pilots would have little to no involvement or familiarity with the Act, CASR, MOS etc.since gaining their licence, and instead their daily Bible is the AIP suite or Jepps.

I know the only time I looked at CASR in about the last 5 years was when there was a thread here about drones and Part 101.

[Sandy Reith]

I'm wondering if perhaps the reality is 80%+ of pilots would have little to no involvement or familiarity with the Act, CASR, MOS etc.since gaining their licence, and instead their daily Bible is the AIP suite or Jepps.

I know the only time I looked at CASR in about the last 5 years was when there was a thread here about drones and Part 101.
In the same vein most people have no cause to know the criminal code or all the remainder of the whole body of law. Cap’nM is quite right, you learn the basics and expect to stay within the law by behaving in a responsible manner. Flying or otherwise. Changing attitudes and changing practices for betterment can meet resistance but if properly explained and with education then we can maintain a happy and productive society. Unfortunately CASA has seen fit to continually push well past the practical, prudent, safe or efficient means to accomplish the aims of the Act. This flies in the face of the reasonable aspirations and freedoms we expect to enjoy as Australians.

This is the message that that must be conveyed to our MPs.

[Dexta]

Surely it cant be this simple, although I would like to think it is. Simply ask in the appropriate judicial forum, or put to the Minister in Parliament.

Most likely because the Minister will go straight to CASA as they are the Authority and ask the legal team there if the regulations are clear and concise. The answer of course be "Of course they are Minister, but maybe with some extra funding we could have a look over them just to make sure, should only take us 5-10 years, because you cannot put a price on safety."

[Sunfish]

Dexta is right. The Minister needs to say “I am inclined towards a rewrite of the Act along New Zealand lines together with a requirement to apply evidenced based risk management and the fostering of the aviation industry’. “By the way, I am under pressure from Cabinet to require the Auditor General to conduct a performance audit of your activities.”

[tail wheel]

The biggest issue for the future is that at some point the regularly rewrite will be seen for what it is, an expensive failure and the next rewrite will begin.......

Australian Foreign Aid funded implementation of the New Zealand Regulations in Papua New Guinea. Perhaps nick a set of NZ Regs, Fifty Bucks for some Whiteout and a few reams of paper and in a week or two we could have a new set of Regs that actually works, funded by skimming off the surplus staff and Clayton's Lawyers from CASA.

And we can put it all down to harmonization in the Trans Tasman Treaty, so no loss of face! :}

[Sandy Reith]

The biggest issue for the future is that at some point the regularly rewrite will be seen for what it is, an expensive failure and the next rewrite will begin.......

Australian Foreign Aid funded implementation of the New Zealand Regulations in Papua New Guinea. Perhaps nick a set of NZ Regs, Fifty Bucks for some Whiteout and a few reams of paper and in a week or two we could have a new set of Regs that actually works, funded by skimming off the surplus staff and Clayton's Lawyers from CASA.

And we can put it all down to harmonization in the Trans Tasman Treaty, so no loss of face! :}

Possibly no immediate need for action on the part of Australian legislation to change if the TTMRT was used for GA because there would probably be a pretty quick migration to the NZ regime.
In the same manner when Joh Bjelke-Petersen Premier of QLD did away with death duties all the other States followed suite with alacrity, for the obvious reasons.
Although I hear that there are a GA group in NZ by the initials of GAA who aren’t too happy with their CAA. Something to study but I’m sure they are having a much better time than our GA industry.
As the saying goes; “ The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. “

[thorn bird]

Strange you should bring the GAA up Sandy, I've also heard stories that
the NZ CAA is drifting back into its old Authoritarian ways. If its true its very
sad, considering the incredible effort they made and their success at true reform.
Sociopathy is such an insidious disease, very like a cancer, leave a shred
of it behind and it grows back with increased ferocity. Perhaps when they
cleaned out the CAA way back, they were not severe enough with their surgery.
Any Kiwis on here that could enlighten us?

[aroa]

All this, to CAsA is like water off a ducks back. Frankly, they DO NOT give a rats arse about what the industry and its aviation inhabitants have to say or think.

They are the "experts", we are the plebs that must be saved from ourselves, and only they can save the world from falling aeroplanes...AND they dont have to make rule that, or explain themselves in simple terms.
Its all about baffle 'em with BS..it works with most people. AND politicians and Ministers.

And when you have people like Smart Aleck leading the legal charge with voluminous verbal vomitus, we're fcuked. And CAsA's 'law of rules" supercedes the Rule of Law.

#65...how well do you know the criminal code.
A bit The AFP found that 3 AWI had breached the Criminal Code 1914 Sec 45 1 perjury and 31 1 conspiracy, and obviously collaborated in the making of their statements.
This verified my allegations of the same.
Net result after CAsA has squandered 300K plus....SFA. No court case, no prosecutions.
CAsA protects their own,,, whatever it takes.
And since there is NO interested Minister or Oversighting body into CAsA 's bureaucratic buggery, we are where we are today.
Sadly swirling clockwise down the southern hemisphere gurgler.
Only we the Av-people can prevent oblivion.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
And to any newcomers who doubt what aroa said above about the case to which he refers, he is spot on.

Indeed, one of the documents I have seen is minutes of a CASA management meeting in Townsville, the subject the above case.

The meeting more or less concluded that, in future, CASA persons would have to be more careful to not get caught with their pants down, and advice to the direct participants to that effect.

In short, not the slightest recognition and acknowledgement, let alone repentance, for serious breaches of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, plus, of course, breaches of various public service codes of conduct, and CASA implementation of same.

All largely, but not only, a product of S.9A(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

Tootle pip!

[aroa]

Minutes of the TVL management meeting...I'll have to go CAsA NON fOI on that...!!
But it gets better. On reminding the sole remaining AWI employee (J Retski CNS) of his perfidy, all I get is an obscene and bash threatening phone call from Mr Retski.
Hope to have a court house meet up shortly on that
CAsA just converts this criminal act into a 'code breach' ( which is constructive fraud in itself.. a crime is a crime.) and does a sh*tewash (worse than a whitewash) " investigation" by an HR lady.!!
Details of all this came not from CAsA NON FOI ( advised I would get nothing from the reports) but later from OAIC.
CAsA in amongst many of their BS motherhood statements claim.." We have robust systems in place for accountability and transparency" Ha ha faaarking ha to that ! What a load of arrant nonsense..!!
So there we have it
Rot right to the very top, and I have the proving docs. But for a corrupt and free range agency it all means nought when they can spruik to those that might matter Ministers and etc. serious BS and the all embracing buzz word "safety"..

[Lead Balloon]

For those who have given a genuine vote that the current aviation safety standards are “clear and concise”, I genuinely fret for you.

For those who’ve compared other complex legislative regimes with those of the aviation regulatory regime, I’d like to know what those other regimes are. There are, of course, many complex legislative regimes, but I’m not aware of any that have two sets of regulations spaced over a decade that have no coherent or logical explanation as to why one subject matter is dealt with in one set of regulations than the other (because the explanation is that there is no coherent or logical explanation other than incompetence), the amalgamation of which does not provide a complete insight into what the rules are, because the only way to obtain a complete insight is to refer to thousands of pages of CAOs, exemptions, directions, approvals, permissions, manuals of standards and other forests of paper.

I’d also note that the existence of other, more complex, regulatory regimes may be an indication of a systemic malaise rather than a reasonable excuse for the complexity of the aviation regulatory regime. The empty rhetoric of governments is simplification; the actions are ever-more complexity.

[Sunfish]

Let’s not lose sight of the real issue - aviation safety. The current Act and rules, in my opinion, work against the achievement of good safety outcomes because the underlying assumption is wrong. That assumption is that LEGAL compliance = safety. This is false because rules and regulations, written by humans, naturally contain errors and cannot possibly cater by definition with all circumstances that can give rise to an accident. This truism however, is anamantha to lawyers.

The result is a confusing mish mash of draconian and contradictory regulation, capriciously enforced. The outcome is pilots and engineers focused on doing what is legal, not what is right and totally failing to create a safe flying environment.

By way of example, In the Three incidents I participated in as a student, all of which have worthwhile (but not new) safety lessons*, not one of them was written up, as far as I can tell, as a cautionary tale. the focus instead was on ensuring that CASA either didn’t find out or was put off the scent in order to ensure that the school wasn’t penalized for “something”. Multiply this by the thousands and you have an unsafe culture.

Whats worse is RPT. CASA have no ability to regulate the major airlines. The size and scope of the technology was beyond then by the early 1980’s in my memory. We are thus reliant for RPT safety on the common sense and good intentions of the airlines and manufacturers because the combination : Modern technology + complex and contradictory and capricious CASA rules cannot possibly produce a safe outcome.

To put that another way, there is nothing in CASA, not people, rules or enforcement that could have stopped the Lion Air or Ethiopian accidents from happening right here.

The real defences against accidents are common sense and experience, two things CASA seems at pains to destroy.

* Lessons:

- don’t use rags to block holes in aircraft engines during maintenance.
- don’t do touch and go STOL training, make each STOL landing a full stop.
- Teach students what “pilot induced oscillation” means, how it happens and what it does.

[Sandy Reith]

Sunfish, quote:-

- don’t use rags to block holes in aircraft engines during maintenance.
- don’t do touch and go STOL training, make each STOL landing a full stop.
- Teach students what “pilot induced oscillation” means, how it happens and what it does.

Very good examples of practices that could lead to an a accident or unsafe condition, and clear examples of the futility of CASA’s regime of criminal acts of strict liability.

What CASA and government have missed by a mile is just that none of such ill advised actions (in context) as Sunfish has illustrated here were wilful or otherwise with criminal intent. This is obvious, take the ‘rag in engine hole,’ this would be to prevent something from entering unseen, perhaps during some considerable time lapse (waiting for parts?) between closely working on that aircraft. The answer to that one could be that it becomes a practice to tie a string from the rag to the prop. In the same vein I learnt to loop a cord around my props from each nacelle plug, those plugs to prevent birds from nesting over the back cylinders. These days of instant communication means that there’s the possibility of exchange of information between aviation personnel. This is not possible with the present CASA regime and therefore Sunfish’s contention about CASA and it’s unsafe methodology is timely and more appropriate than ever before.

This leads conclusively to the understanding that CASA is not conforming to the Act in regard to it’s obligations to promoting safety of flight, it’s regulation of the industry is unsafe.

[triadic]

In the light of the above two posts - an old one but very valid:

You can be 100% compliant and not be safe, you can be as safe as possible and not compliant

Note: it is not possible to guarantee 100% safe! Pitty CASA does not seem to realise this!

[Sunfish]

With reference to the Forsyth review and the general feeling that there is no progress towards coherent safety culture in Australia the next stages of decline are:

1. Official corruption appears - the ideal breeding ground for corruption is a complex contradictory regulatory environment with onerous and expensive compliance costs and draconian penalties for non compliance, including loss of investment.

The corruption first appears as offers solicited or unsolicited, by an official to “help” by doing something as simple as filling in a form. I still recall my bewilderement in Germany when customs officers recoiled in horror when I asked them to do this for me - anti corruption rules were the reason.

Pretty soon the lower levels are “helping” smooth the way for “friends”. The level of “help” gradually increases as the “helpers” are seen to get away with it.

The next stage is when the kickbacks up the tree start. At this point we find that getting “help” from”friends” is no longer optional. Unless you pay, you get nothing. The boss is watching and wants his cut.

2. Return on investment is required. Now that the industry, or some of it, is paying, two things happen. Those with morals ethics and standards leave the industry. Those left - willing to pay for play, demand some return on their investment. This takes the form of relaxation of technical standards and other cost saving measures. Maintenance suffers for example but the regulator does nothing. Whistleblowers get fired because the regulator rats on them.

3. At some point we have a major accident. The regulator and company conspire to deflect responsibility elsewhere. Finally there is one too many accidents. The public demand accountability they get a royal commission. We go back to square 1. and the process starts again.

[Sandy Reith]

Sunfish, right on the money and why the law should not be easily interpreted in a myriad different ways. Much like land zoning which is based on opinions, changeable opinions. So called ‘planning’ encourages corruption of which there have been plenty of examples in Australia. For anyone interested in this area Australia was possibly the richest country in the world before this new level of government control over private land use. For interest sake there is one modern first world city that has no land zoning. Its grown from four million to six million in the last twenty or so years and residential housing is half price, or better, than Melb or SY. Mortgage load is of course way lower, this is a rich city that was Earth base to put people on the moon. Just one example of a society that finds success without our idea that Government knows best. It called free enterprise but surprisingly many Australians don’t seem to understand the mechanism of free market economics, coupled with laws that protect fair exchange. This might seem like banging a different drum but the principles are the same; just look at the consequences of rule by opinion and subjective judgment by those who stand to gain by the system.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
In the mid-1990s the CASA CEO/Director of Aviation Safety was Leroy Keith, ex-FAA and a highly competent bureaucrat.
Similar to previous posts, Leroy continually told his troops that "A compliant organisation is not necessarily safe, a non-compliant organisation is not necessarily unsafe".
This, and Leroy's general approach to fostering aviation was absolute anathema to what we now call "the iron ring" at CASA, and said group conspired against him, successfully, to force his resignation.
If Leroy has remained, the rules re-write would have been completed in the original time frame --- 3 years.
Instead, all we achieved was Parts 21 to 35, over huge internal resistance and guerilla warfare within CASA.
Tootle pip!!

[Lead Balloon]

Folks,
In the mid-1990s the CASA CEO/Director of Aviation Safety was Leroy Keith, ex-FAA and a highly competent bureaucrat.
Similar to previous posts, Leroy continually told his troops that "A compliant organisation is not necessarily safe, a non-compliant organisation is not necessarily unsafe".
This, and Leroy's general approach to fostering aviation was absolute anathema to what we now call "the iron ring" at CASA, and said group conspired against him, successfully, to force his resignation.
If Leroy has remained, the rules re-write would have been completed in the original time frame --- 3 years.
Instead, all we achieved was Parts 21 to 35, over huge internal resistance and guerilla warfare within CASA.
Tootle pip!!
Didn’t Dick Smith whinge incessantly about Leroy Keith having no ‘hands on’ aviation operational experience, eventually leading to Leroy leaving?