Question for CASA?

[Pitch and Break]

Have recently heard CASA awarded an ATO'ship to a Qantas chap from down Wollongong way to include IFR, multi-engine and Instructor type stuff! I think there are quite a few CFI's out there who have been waiting for their chance to become full ATO's that have a right to ask this question of CASA.........WHY!?
This guy does not earn any significant part of his living from GA and has effectively taken a rather lucritive niche position without putting in the hard-yards like the rest of us! Certainly not a case of 'what you know' but 'who you know'.
Just Not Good Enough CASA!
:mad:
Update: Have learned that our newest independant ATO is bestest buddies with another ex-Navy type who happens to be an FOI at BK (also happened to be boss for a bit just recently).
Also learned that CASA are reviewing some of the more-questionable decisions/approvals/delegations emanating from this office of recent times. :( About time I say.:D

[Rich-Fine-Green]

If that's really true - there are going to be some really pissed off puppies.

Ol' mate held all ATO tickets until recently - until he moved to S/E Qld.

The CASA local office reason; "Too many ATO's australia wide".



:mad:

[THREEGREENS]

He is neither a CFI or CP yet has been awarded ATO delegations....this is in an area already well serviced with an abundance of roving ATOS.
Any CFI or CP in the Sydney Basin area who has been waiting for years for these delegations has every right to pursue CASA vigorously on this one.
Is it any wonder GA is slowly coming to a grinding halt in this country when even the regulator can't support the industry honestly and even-handedly?:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Pitch and Break]

Suggest your mate get on the phone to CASA and the Minister pronto.......the same excuse is being bandied around here in Sydney (and has been for years) and then out of the blue, they issue probably the first in a long while to some cl*wn not even working full-time in the industry. THREE GREENS sums it up nicely!:eek:

[Icarus2001]

I know of someone who went for independent ATO delegations after previously being a CFI/CP with the usual delegations who was told that they could not consider him as there were already "enough ATO's" and they had to consider not spreading testing work too thinly.

So this had nothing to do with ability.

The prospective ATO went to chat with a legal friend who suggested that the CASA field office was engaged in unfair restriction of trade and that he may well win in court but lose in the long run.

Since when is it up to CASA to decide if there are sufficient ATO's? Will they soon decide there are enough CPL holders? Great mine will be worth more. I understand that a delegation is different but the principle is the same. CASA's role is to approve or otherwise an applicant. The whole structure and attitude is flawed.

Roll on the CASR's which create pilot examiners.

[Launcher21]

Not bad for your first post, bin for you.

We play the issue not the man around here.

[Walking Eagle]

Mick Toller has openly stated that CASA is "doing a lot of flight checks."

The problem seems to be that then (about 2 years ago) and now, no reputable flight school can remember the last time anybody did one.

Not only that, but most schools are happy about that situation because they have no confidence that the whole process would benefit from the oversight of the quality of the kind of CASA people who would be likely to be involved.

CASA (to the best of anybody's knowledge) has NO guidelines for
a.) the conduct of flight tests by CASA officers,
b.) the oversight by CASA officers of flight tests from the back seat (and subsequent de-briefings and revies of assessment decisions.) OR
c.) the reassessment of a test candidate by a CASA test officer/FOI, following an ATO decision.

It is significant that a large number of former CASA FOIs are now doing something for a fee, that they never (or rarely) did on a salary; and that competent and highly experienced GA individuals are being told there's an over-supply and there's no room for them.

The worst affected are those competent and highly experienced GA people who will not pass a dud. As a result their business drops off, and eventually they're taken off the list.

If that's not corruption, there must be another name for it that I haven't heard.

[Wheeler]

Does this person intend to operate out of Wollongong? - Not suggesting there could be any possible connection with anything going on down there at all.

[Pitch and Break]

Wheeler, in answer to your questions;
YES, YES and YES.;)

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Launcher21: C'mon mate - that's not fair. Do you know the man?, Do you know directly about any specific cases? Do you really think he would risk his position by getting involved in an ATO issue?

The reality is that the top few floors of CASA are only concerned with the 'paying passenger'.

General Aviation - which is where ATO's are involved, is barely a blip on their (CASA bigwig's) radar.

The corruption or let's be nicer - 'jobs for the boys' can only exist on a much lower level in CASA.

There is one ex-CASA FOI that was Sydney based, left CASA under questionable circumstances and on the way out the door, wrote himself every approval he could think of. The man now earns quite a good living as a consultant & ATO.

I will never name the man - even in this forum. However, I'm sure a number of those reading this know who I'm talking about.

BTW; My friend, who was an ATO until he moved to QLD, has to wait 3-4 weeks for a local ATO to be available. Obviously Too many ATO's in QLD.

[imabell]

casa has always been jobs for the boys, nothings changed. i am going to err on the side of conservatism and self preservation and only and say that some very borderline events have occurred behind their doors.

as an ato it is possible to travel anywhere in australian territories and test pilots for licences and ratings, after all we are licenced under a federal system.

who removed that privilege from the ato who moved from sydney to queensland?

a high time helicopter instrument instructor, cfi, ato, own long time flying school, wanted to start an instrument training course in se qld and was denied.

ex employee of same company started a new flying school in another state and got instrument approval immediately.

it is at the whim of the local foi's.

i could tell you blokes some stories. (maybe i will). ..... oneday.


:eek:

[PLovett]

IMABELL

Just a thought and I might be wrong, often am:( , but I thought some ATOs were company specific and others were independent.

As a consquence, the fellow that moved to Q'ld may have lost his ATO privileges due to the fact that he had left the company for which he held an ATO.

I am sure there is someone out there who can clarify this point at least.:)

It doesn't surprise me that there is huge variance in the way the different CASA offices perform their functions. Too much is being left to the discretion of local FOIs who often as not appear to be holding grudges against particular operators and its not going to change until CASA is completely overhauled. Somehow, I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting.:mad: :mad:

[gaunty]

I smell a big fat rat.

It is significant that a large number of former CASA FOIs are now doing something for a fee, that they never (or rarely) did on a salary; and that competent and highly experienced GA individuals are being told there's an over-supply and there's no room for them.


Since when is it up to CASA to decide if there are sufficient ATO's? Will they soon decide there are enough CPL holders? Great mine will be worth more. I understand that a delegation is different but the principle is the same. CASA's role is to approve or otherwise an applicant. The whole structure and attitude is flawed.


CASA (to the best of anybody's knowledge) has NO guidelines for
a.) the conduct of flight tests by CASA officers,
b.) the oversight by CASA officers of flight tests from the back seat (and subsequent de-briefings and revies of assessment decisions.) OR
c.) the reassessment of a test candidate by a CASA test officer/FOI, following an ATO decision.


Why aren't we hearing the thundering of AOPAs VP Technical on this one.

It's a bloody disgrace.

[429 CJ]

I reckon Icarus, gaunty et al have hit the nail directly and firmly fair square on the head. More ATO's = More availablity (read not have to wait six weeks for an CIR test etc) = More competition for the available candidates = perhaps even cheaper testing in the future? (DO NOT read that I disagree with the pricing structure, but it only stands to reason, doesn't it)?

Might one sniff a scent of price fixing? :eek: :rolleyes:

I think perhaps a fitting line from a reasonably well known BBC drama...You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment......."

Transparency? ;)

[Creampuff]

Since when is it up to CASA to decide if there are sufficient ATO's?Since the Civil Aviation Regulations conferred on CASA alone the power to decide to whom, when, and on what conditions the requisite delegations will or will not be granted.

Will they soon decide there are enough CPL holders?They can’t. Unlike ATO delegations (the grant of which are at CASA’s discretion), a person is entitled to a CPL if and when she satisfies the criteria for the grant of the licence: CASA has no discretion.

CASA (to the best of anybody's knowledge) has NO guidelines for
a.) the conduct of flight tests by CASA officers,…It does. b.) the oversight by CASA officers of flight tests from the back seat (and subsequent de-briefings and revies of assessment decisions.)It does OR c.) the reassessment of a test candidate by a CASA test officer/FOI, following an ATO decision.It does.

But, as usual, it’s too busy managing crises to deal with the important stuff.

Why aren't we hearing the thundering of AOPAs VP Technical on this one.Because unless you really know what you’re talking about, it’s very difficult to articulate the precise circumstances in which an unconditional discretion may be invalidly or improperly exercised.

Bet get a lawyer son; better get a real good one.

[Pitch and Break]

Turns out our newest independant ATO has just started an organisation named CATS which sells his superior services and vast experience to the industry by way of consultancy, testing and training. Add to this his survey operation which he does a fair amount of flying for.......................when does he get time for QANTAS(?) and I thought there was some serious restrictions on what Qantas aircrew employees could do in their spare time, flying wise?
;) He and his FOI pal evidently both flew Trackers in the Navy both reaching the dizziing heights of Lieutenant.:p

[Malfunction Junction]

The FOI in question pushes work this guys way all the time (especially Operations Manual and AOC applications) despite the CASA requirements that they are to remain neutral at all times when dealing with the public especially in these matters.
I know first-hand of one instance when the FOI made it clear that an operations manual from any other organisation would receive far less favourable processing than one from his mates organisation stating that he was a CASA recommended and favoured organisation for these services!
:confused:
Tell me nothing is crook in the Bankstown Office?:mad:

[gaunty]

The FOI in question pushes work this guys way all the time (especially Operations Manual and AOC applications) despite the CASA requirements that they are to remain neutral at all times when dealing with the public especially in these matters.
I know first-hand of one instance when the FOI made it clear that an operations manual from any other organisation would receive far less favourable processing than one from his mates organisation stating that he was a CASA recommended and favoured organisation for these services!

May or may not be exactly the way it is conveyed but it sure seems to be the way it works in reality or at the very least is perceived to be.

Consultants??

I’ve said it before here and at the very highest levels, I’ll say it again and keep saying it.

There has to be something very wrong with our regulator and regulatory system that not only ”requires” or “encourages” their existence but also provides the environment for a plethora of strolling aviation consultants of no fixed percentage to wax fat on it.

Having said that I would hasten to exclude those whose consultancies “value add” to their clients business by the provision of “unique and expert” services that they could not reasonably be expected to carry in house.

Otherwise it’s just plain “cronyism” once removed and all that that brings.

What “unique and expert” services are or should be needed to write an Operations Manual or AOC application, which are NOT set out in the MAOC and other “guideline” publications..
Further my experience tells me that there is MUCH an applicant can and will learn about his own skills and abilities and his business in that process.
Some of the more perspicacious may in fact delay or shelve their plans on the basis of not being able to make it in any event.
NO I cant or shouldn’t do this is as valid an answer as YES I can, to a prospective applicant given the appropriate decision making information and tools.
Handing it over to a “consultant” for a quick and easy fix does not enhance that process or produce anything meaningful that the regulator can use to assess the applicants real skills and ability.
In fact I suspect it probably increases the risk of ultimate failure.
Throwing money at a problematical situation until you solve it is the road to ruin.

You would need the Wisdom of Solomon to separate which of the skills and abilities belong to the applicant and which belong to the consultant.
Unless the consultant becomes embedded in the organization the application is meaningless.
You could issue the AOC subject to this being so but hey, there we go again.
Otherwise why not just construct a bunch of templates in which you insert your name rank and serial number, registration of aircraft and attach a cheque to receive by return mail the AOC or HCAOC.
It s simple then every body wins and we can just get on with it. :eek:
We work they keep a watchful eye.:rolleyes:

I used to think that the justification for ALL of the sturm und drang that has consumed the last 15 or so years in the road to simplification and clarification would be simplification and clarification.

If you need to hire a consultant to work it out, then by any standard of evidence you can apply, we have failed.
ABYSMALLY :mad:

[Creampuff]

Now; now gaunty. It’s everyone’s constitutional right to lose money risking other people’s lives in aircraft.

But to return to the subject of this thread: has anyone put pen to paper to complain about this alleged corruption? The illiterate or lazy don’t even have to write – the Ombudsman accepts oral complaints.

If this is really happening, what are you doing to fix it?

[Pitch and Break]

Creampuff,

Not a real lot anyone can do especially by complaining to either CASA or the Ombudsman.....the reply will be the same suggesting sour grapes and the like. The regulator will back the FOI on this one because despite what we think, there is a little bit of cohesion in the CASA organisation - at least a bit more than we display in GA!
Best that I can suggest is that schools and organisations should boycott the services of this and other Independent ATOs who short-circuit the system and cost valuable jobs to those more deserving.:(

[CoodaShooda]

Pitch & Break
While it can be expected that any Government institution would close ranks and look after its own, other institutions such as the Ombudsman do take a more independent view.

Creampuff could have also suggested placing information (not conjecture) with the federal police (official corruption), the ACCC (third party forcing?), State Consumer Affairs (ditto), your local MP, the Shadow Minister, the Minister himself and your State MP. (In the latter case State labour Governments are usually only too happy to sink the boot into Liberal Commonwealth governments. ;) )

Much better to have a group raising similar allegations, as this is harder for the agency to refute.

And,of course, if you get nowhere with the 'official channels', there's alway TV current affairs shows.

Regrettably, it takes a lot of time, money and stamina to pursue Government corruption and (with apologies to Sir Humphrey) there's always the dunghill factor to consider....
"What do you get when you clean up a dunghill? You're left with nothing but you're covered in dung."

This is possibly why good men stay quiet and corruption flourishes.

:mad:

[snarek]

Give the guy a chance

Just recently Woomera banned a certain WA guy for ringing my employer and trying to cause trouble. A few years back Mr Munro instgated a Ministerial against me to, in my opinion, shut me up. All that was frivolous, hurtful and unnecessary.

Now you guys sure seem to have a gripe, so I have taken the content of this post up with Mick Toller. He was aware of the allegations and is looking into the matter. He said he will let me know.

Until then how about we give this unfortunately very identifiable, ex-Pusser, Leut, Grumman pilot a fair go.

I think innocent until proven guilty should apply, even here!!!!

[Pitch and Break]

Snarek,

Please forgive me for sounding just a bit cynical, but would you care to explain just why should we give this chap a chance?
For several years, the ATO scheme in this country has been in disarray and uncertainty. Many professional, long-standing CFI's and the likes have worked their butts off in GA and the cream for them is to eventually become Independent ATO's with both the prestige and recognition associated with that role. They have been denied ATO'ships for several years now with CASA claiming
a: The scheme is to be done away with,
b: There are too many already,
c: No more will be issued until such time as the way-ahead is clear.
etc etc etc
Now out of the blue, a Qantas Captain working part-time in GA walks straight into an ATO'ship others more qualified and suitable have waited for for years probably because of a friendship - give us a break?:mad:
Fortunately, the 'old-boys-club' doesn't cut the mustard out here in the big, wide world ( not any longer anyway!);)

[ulm]

Probably because he deserves the same 'innocent until proven guilty' treatment we all expect.

However if this is true, then do him. He must go. Simple really.

I think snarek has gone the right way, ask the question in the right place. In the interim I suggest you guys who are hurting over this put your money where your mouth is. Get the evidence, name names and put your names to the letter. Then send in to snarek (just spell the name backwards and look on the AOPA page).

No one can take up something like this based on an allegation on an anaymous forum.

Chuck

[snarek]

Oh I understand the cynicism all right. One FOI just shut my favourite areo club down for a month because he wouldn't let them have an interim CFI. There was a very well qualified CFI available to do it, the club was allowed an interim a year ago, the club has a Grade 2 who is up to Grade 1 standard (just no CFI to sign him off). Just not this time.

Regulation by whim and fancy must stop!!!!

But, in this case just as in your FOI case, the other side of the story must be heard. In the Bankstown case I will wait for what Mr Toller has to say. If you let me know who you are by PPRUNE message I will tell you what is said and will respond on your behalf maintaining your anonimity.

If in the interim you wish to do as ULM suggests, which would be very useful, then send it to me at PO Box 3060 Belconnen ACT 2617.

I do need to know who is making the claims and who they are made against. I will not pass the names of the alledgers on without their permission. But if there is a case, to prosecute it you must come out.

AK

[Pitch and Break]

Snarek and Ulm,
I do not agree totally. Most of us have jobs to protect in this industry and to name ourselves in an issue of conflict with CASA would be (and often is) commercial suicide.
I have brought the matter to the attention of the right people through this forum and it should be investigated. Others have also highlighted problems and I think that is enough. Nobody in their right mind is going to expose themselves to the possible retributions that could be metered out by our friendly FOI?
I for one do not want to take any more risk than is absolutely necesssary to have the facts aired. If the regulator decides to do nothing, then I might consider another tac..................advise I have is the Regulator will be doing something about this case, thankfully for all.;)

[601]

Gaunty

Otherwise why not just construct a bunch of templates in which you insert your name rank and serial number, registration of aircraft and attach a cheque to receive by return mail the AOC or HCAOC.


http://aoconline.icemedia.com.au


In the end there will only be one consultant remaining - CASA

[gaunty]

601

Thanks I was aware of that project and it is about time.

I would like to think that I may have had some influence on it's inception, some time back, in concept in any event.

It will only work though, if it is sufficiently "friendly" to not require the use of the ubiquitous "consultant" to complete succesfully.

In the end there will only be one consultant remaining - CASA

Yup, but now I'm going to go full circle and say I'm not at all sure how I feel about that at the moment.:rolleyes:

Delicious irony isn't it.

Was it Malcolm in the Middle who said,
Life wasn't meant to be easy. :D ?

[ulm]

P & B

If CASA have you so cowed that you are afraid to openly complain, then they win. :(

Gaunty. Have you asked AOPA to support the AOC on line thingy???

Chuck

[601]

Who in CASA has the job of writing the Operations Manual for the aoconline?

Will he/she have to submit it to all the FOIs and AWIs throughout the country to get individual interperation on the CARs and CAOs.

Or are they going to go through all the OM they have from all the operators and then get input from all the FOIs and AWIs.

After the industry has been told that an operator should write their own OM, are we now expected to accept that one fits all?

Why not put an OM in the CARs as a schedule.

Then we could do away with the rewrite of the CARs because all we would have to do is operate in accordance with our CASA supplied OM.

[gaunty]

601

.Why not put an OM in the CARs as a schedule.

Then we could do away with the rewrite of the CARs because all we would have to do is operate in accordance with our CASA supplied OM.

Oh dear, a heretic in our midst, that is much too rational and logical to ever get up.:D

Besides it's too much like the dreaded simpleton FAA system.

They used to burn people like you at the stake after tearing off their fingernails one by one, and damning your chidren forever to servitude:p :eek: http://community.airattack.co.uk/images/smilies/flaming.gif

Sir Humphrey is spinning in his grave as we speak.

Creampuff where are you when we need you.:D :D

[601]

Gaunty

I like to be at a BBQ every now and then, but not the centre of attention!

[Creampuff]

I suppose in theory you could have a default ops manual, a la Schedule 5 for maintenance of class B aircraft and the default constitution for corporations in the corporations law.

A few impediments though.

First, it would make the rules thicker. Although I don’t see that as a problem in principle, there are many who equate less with good and more with bad. Ain’t humans strange animals?

Secondly, I and some others subscribe to the quaint view that those who want a licence to risk fare paying passengers’ lives in aircraft should demonstrate an understanding of the rules that apply to the activity and explain the way in which they (the licence holder) propose to comply with those rules. A compliance statement and operations manual is one means by which to go some way of doing both.

But neither document means anything if the applicant has merely copied or bought them from someone else. It’s no different from copying or buying someone else’s exam summary. Having the documents does not, as if by osmosis, impart the knowledge or experience. It works the other way ‘round: if you’ve got sufficient knowledge and experience, it’s easy to produce the documents.

The analogy is in my view a good one. If you know the subject, you pass the exam. You learn the subject by summarising it. If you have summarised properly, the summary becomes superfluous. The document is the by-product of a learning process, not knowledge.

Thirdly, the older and wiser will tell you that every operator has unique local circumstances that should be dealt with uniquely in their operations manual. An operator of a flying school on the coast in the higher latitudes needs to manage different risks than a charter operator in the desert. (I suppose the ‘default’ manual could have a tailor-able section. )

But, if we are going to have a ‘default’ ops manual and similar ‘off-the-shelf’ documents such as organisational structures and duty statements, then the sole criterion for gaining an AOC will be $$$$. It will be no different from incorporating a company: fill out the application form, and pay the incorporation fee.

Wasn’t someone suggesting a limitation on the number of operators, not open slather?

[THREEGREENS]

Could someone please fill me in.......what eventually happened to the bloke who got the Independant ATO'ship and his FOI mate?:o

[gaunty]

But do you want open slather

I suppose in theory you could have a default ops manual, a la Schedule 5 for maintenance of class B aircraft and the default constitution for corporations in the corporations law.

A few impediments though.

First, it would make the rules thicker. Although I don’t see that as a problem in principle, there are many who equate less with good and more with bad. Ain’t humans strange animals?

Secondly, I and some others subscribe to the quaint view that those who want a licence to risk fare paying passengers’ lives in aircraft should demonstrate an understanding of the rules that apply to the activity and explain the way in which they (the licence holder) propose to comply with those rules. A compliance statement and operations manual is one means by which to go some way of doing both.

But neither document means anything if the applicant has merely copied or bought them from someone else. It’s no different from copying or buying someone else’s exam summary. Having the documents does not, as if by osmosis, impart the knowledge or experience. .........

eeeeerm....................... hang on somebody already said that. Don't you just hate it when that happens:D :D :cool:

[Creampuff]

Gaunty: I concur entirely!

Snarek: You are probably unaware of the futility of your (albeit well-intentioned) strategy. Mr Toller is the only individual on the planet who can make someone an ATO. It was Mr Toller who decided to make this person an ATO! I’ll bet you pennies to the Brooklyn Bridge that after reviewing the matter, he decides that his decision was OK.

[Pitch and Break]

Have heard that this particular approval/delegation has either been revoked or is to be revoked soon but I bet a dime to a $ that it will be reissued once all the heat dies down - any takers?

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Creampuff;

Mr Toller may well 'sign off' an ATO but seriously - do you think he would personally review every candidate?.

He would be only acting on the advice of people lower in the chain to have already done just that.

Mr Toller did not decide to make the man an ATO - that was already done for him. And as with most CEO's in any walk of life, Mr Toller has a certain amount of trust in the people lower down, who in this case, placed the candidate's application in front of him (with a big tick and smiley face).

Pitch & Break; Maybe - when he leaves Qantas and is ready to contribute to G.A. rather than be a leach.

As for ol' mate in SE QLD; It looks like there is now a possible ATO slot available. :rolleyes:

[Creampuff]

Mr Toller is ultimately responsible for the decision.

The key point is that, even assuming Mr Toller made this person an ATO by simply 'pencil whipping' a recommendation that had been put on the pile in his in tray, Mr Toller's still responsible for the decision. He will look very silly if he now says, in effect, that he doesn't really pay much attention to the relative merits of the people to whom he delegates extraordinarily important powers under the CARs.

[Pitch and Break]

R-F-G,
On the issue of Qantas; I thought they had a policy about their pilots doing 'other' flying? As I understand it, there are restrictions on how many hours they can fly 'off the job' annually and a strict policy on just what sort of flying they can do? Anyone know the current policy?:cool:

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Creampuff;

I guess the proposed new rules may limit the FOIs and the local offices somewhat.

As I understand it, the new proposals may allow suitably qualified Instructors to undertake a specific course that would allow them to become independant FOIs.

The same rules also propose tests being 'farmed out' on request so candidates and schools may not have a choice on the testing officer.

P & B;

Not sure on the rule either, but I do know of one or two QF drivers that fly G.A. charter when not on duty with QF.

[Creampuff]

Yes – I hear the fabulous “new rules” will even clean my shirts whiter and brighter.

I also hear they’re “half way through” the reform process, which began about ten or so years ago.

Good news is that they've just advertised a 100k a year job for a lawyer to get it all fixed - about time, too.

[Rich-Fine-Green]

I actually don't think we neeed to change the current rules.

I don't think there is too much wrong with the current system.

I would just like to see all of the local CASA offices have a uniform interpretation of the rules rather than a 'seperate' set of rules once you change regions.

[Pitch and Break]

It's a small victory, but a victory none-the-less!
The FOI in question has been banned from administering any paperwork from his old service buddies - now that's a step in the right direction eh?:)

[Pitch and Break]

It appears I was spot-on with my previous post claiming CASA would wait until the dust settled and then reinstate this clown as an independant ATO. That is apparently just what has happened so anybody out there who has been waiting for years for an Indepent ATO approval has every right to be upset and disgusted in our regulator and its band of merry men posing as fair-minded and even-handed industry administrators. (No damned wonder they receive so much unrelenting flack from almost all quaters on an almost hourly basis).Some good news though; a few who did have their ATO approvals removed recently have had them reinstated as a result of the publication of the situation on this forum. Maybe the pen IS mightier than the sword afterall?;)

[ulm]

P & B

The mongrell is the FOI, not the guy from the Gong. I have met him since this post started via a friend (he ferried a plane for her), he is a decent bloke.

What is wrong is CASA regulating the indutry financially by limiting ATOs. If they are qualified they should get it. CASA have no mandate whatsoever to regulate anything financial at all. If they do, complain to the ACCC and a smany media outlets as you can.

Chuck

[Pitch and Break]

Chuck,

I agree with you wholeheartedly but........ Yes, the regulator let everyone down on this issue in the first place by claiming, quite wrongly so it seems now, that they dictated just who and when Independent ATO's would be appointed. So there is no confusion here, this is the way the system has worked for the past 7-8 years and a lot of good people with considerable experience AND A COMMITMENT TO GA have been denied this last tick-in-the-box.
CASA got it wrong this time though because (1) the buddy/buddy system was used to short circuit the system that we have all been subjected to for years (rightly or wrongly) and (2) this chap is with Qantas and is not a longstanding member of the GA fraternity with heaps of GA experience to pass on to others through the ATO system. Not suggesting this chap is not a nice guy, as you put it, but it is just plain wrong when this type of crap happens.:mad: I certainly do not apologise for bringing the issue up in the first place because as I said in the previous thread, some good has become of it with some approvals issued which were previously denied or cancelled.:)
Ashton's recently advertised for clowns for their circus; perhaps someone should pass on them the CASA URL?;)

[Chimbu chuckles]

I look at it a bit differently.

The entire (non airline) ATO system should be scrapped and CASA funded sufficiently to carry out real industry oversight.

It goes without saying that one set of standards be applied country wide. What that standard should be is an entirely different topic...and we don't have it yet, or have lost it along the way.

As far as Ops Manuals are concerned.

I have written one for a corporate jet international EMES operation which CASA was happy to approve almost without comment.

I didn't write it with a set of CAOs/CARs on my lap or copy an 'off the shelf' 'Standard' one.

It took the best part of 9 months(in between flying the line, being CP, Checking & Training company pilots and being a Dad:D) and simply dictated how the company pilots would fly our company aircraft from woe to go in normal and abnormal circumstances, plus sections on Special Airport Procedures, Performance, Limitations and Administration.

It was my first effort, which is probably why it took a while, the next should only take 3 months:D

In ensuring that everybody flew the aeroplane the RIGHT way I automatically satisfied the CAOs/CARs.

It was merely the distilation of all my experience....90% of which was in airlines of one kind or another ranging from Talair to Air Niugini and NJS.

I didn't invent any new wheels...it was the best of what I had seen work well, applied selectively, and research on topics like 'Jet upset' to ensure I had the best/most up to date information available.

And of course a lot of time in the Dassault Manuals for the aircraft specific stuff.

Not to mention time spent picking the brains of people more experienced and knowledgeable than me...thanks Gumby:D.

So many in our industry spend SO much effort slamming CASA at every opportunity. Yes there are some real losers working for CASA...but they are few...there are LOTS more losers out in the industry...believe me when I say I'm the current expert on dealing with pig ignorant incompetence and dishonesty in this industry.

As people who know me will attest, when CASA is wrong I TELL them in person...but I know from dealing with them a LOT that what we need is a REAL CASA...a DCA...not the watered down, cash strapped, underfunded excuse that succesive Govts have handed us and that many good people labour in.

Chuck.

[4dogs]

Folks,

The Operations Manual development concept so aptly described by Creampuff and epitomised by Chuckles is really the one true path to competent aviation operations. Those who promote the cause of generic Ops Manuals are either totally indigent intellectually or merely aviation dreamtime snake oil salesmen and charlatans who have no understanding of good management or the philosophy encapsulated in s28BE of the Act.

Any consultant worth his/her salt does not provide the final result but rather the means and the direction to undertake the journey. It is actually about mentoring and nurturing, not plagiarism and wholesale reproduction of pulp fiction.

Oh, and by the way Creampuff, as great a fan of you and your ilk as I am, CASA buying another lawyer will not fix anything unless they buy a competent regulator to provide the policy for the lawyer to legislate.

[Pitch and Break]

Just like I said initially, CASA went quiet on the issue of this independent ATO approval and now he's at it again. This clown from Qantas is stutting his stuff as an independent ATO testing pilots whilst he has only limited experience as a CFI, slightly more experience as a CP and very little experience as a GA pilot.
Anyone in need of a quicky-flight test (although you can expect to be slugged for the experience) should have a hunt around the Wollongong area.:(
Anyone who has been knocked back for an independent ATO approval in the past 2 years needs to read this thread and make another application to CASA. If someone totally divorced from the industry can get one issued, then there is hope for anyone.:mad: