The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a neat parallel Leadie; I keep comparing the Gillard antics to the stellar McComic efforts: the similarities are so amazing, they always make me smile. Every time I see one of Pickering's cartoons I wish I had a similar talent, our bloke is natural for cartoon stardom. Heigh ho.
Anyway – he's a gonner now; the thing really concerns me is what he's leaving behind, in terms of crew. All the indications are that between the Golden West Mafia (Iron Ring Society) and the hand picked team of 'orrible little men (OLM) the legacy operation will learn from past errors and make sure they are never caught with their collective britches down. The selection of the next DAS needs to be a most a 'democratic', crystal clear process and we really do need the best man for the job. I can only hope that a from top down reform really happens. (Dream on – right). We are only a half way decent junior minister and DAS away from a workable situation, IF the rats nest left behind is exorcised. But it's a messy job....
Anyway – he's a gonner now; the thing really concerns me is what he's leaving behind, in terms of crew. All the indications are that between the Golden West Mafia (Iron Ring Society) and the hand picked team of 'orrible little men (OLM) the legacy operation will learn from past errors and make sure they are never caught with their collective britches down. The selection of the next DAS needs to be a most a 'democratic', crystal clear process and we really do need the best man for the job. I can only hope that a from top down reform really happens. (Dream on – right). We are only a half way decent junior minister and DAS away from a workable situation, IF the rats nest left behind is exorcised. But it's a messy job....
Last edited by Kharon; 28th Jun 2013 at 20:58.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On track to somewhere good!
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Organisation Structure !!!
An organisation structure is of secondary importance to sound and thoughtful leadership (not just management). A good leader should not have to automatically restructure to be effective. Is it any wonder that CASA is in a perpetual state of flux, change weariness, confusion and generally (and specifically) lacks direction! This mess is top driven and manifests itself in CASA's performance.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is interesting in the last decade is this - Byron was not a people person. If you put him on the spot, say took him into a room full of trainees or something like that, on a whim, he would freak out and get very uncomfortable. He couldn't handle it.
The Skull, although different to Byron is also a 'non-people person', he actually doesn't like other humans, sticks to himself etc. his public comments about critics or other humans in general who don't support his views are also testament to what he thinks of others in society.
Those sorts of leadership styles will obviously have an effect on an organisation.
The Skull, although different to Byron is also a 'non-people person', he actually doesn't like other humans, sticks to himself etc. his public comments about critics or other humans in general who don't support his views are also testament to what he thinks of others in society.
Those sorts of leadership styles will obviously have an effect on an organisation.
Reorganising is an old panacea. Usually nothing in the strategy changes. My guess is Mc. C is way out of his depth because his comments represent " institutional reality", not industry reality, which became patently obvious at the AMROBA meeting.
To put it another way, Mr. Skull has no effing idea and his loyal staff intend to keep him that way. I also wonder if he has any business qualifications because MBA rule 1 is to conduct frequent reality checks to ensure you are not being snowed by your subordinates.
To put it another way, Mr. Skull has no effing idea and his loyal staff intend to keep him that way. I also wonder if he has any business qualifications because MBA rule 1 is to conduct frequent reality checks to ensure you are not being snowed by your subordinates.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would doubt very much if he has an MBA. He has however been described by others (this is not my interpretation) as a highly intelligent psychopath. He ended up at an airline where his real 'inner skill' was nurtured, exploited and encouraged - CX. CX is one of the most ruthless, bombastic, bullying and intimidating airlines one could work for in senior management ranks. The fact that he became part of CX's star chamber gives testimony in my opinion to what kind of a person he really is. That is my opinion and I will leave it at that.
Those of you who are prone to reading, learning, examining, and are studious in plotting your way through historical events and analysing all the data (sounds like I am describing Sarcs
) would do well to make Mr Skull a topic for your next project or thesis!
At the end of the day CAsA as it stands is the furtherest thing from a generative culture you could possibly ever see. Pathological is their ranking, full stop.
Again, if one has enough contacts and is a bit of a Sarcs by nature, you can eventually connect all the dots and start to see why the organisation is the way it is. Often we reference a 'starting point', a 'how do we fix this monster'. Well the starting point is to go straight for the beasts heart with an ice pick, take out the 'iron ring', take to it like a hammer to a piece of porcelain and you have your starting point.
Those of you who are prone to reading, learning, examining, and are studious in plotting your way through historical events and analysing all the data (sounds like I am describing Sarcs
) would do well to make Mr Skull a topic for your next project or thesis!At the end of the day CAsA as it stands is the furtherest thing from a generative culture you could possibly ever see. Pathological is their ranking, full stop.
Again, if one has enough contacts and is a bit of a Sarcs by nature, you can eventually connect all the dots and start to see why the organisation is the way it is. Often we reference a 'starting point', a 'how do we fix this monster'. Well the starting point is to go straight for the beasts heart with an ice pick, take out the 'iron ring', take to it like a hammer to a piece of porcelain and you have your starting point.
Thread Starter
The camel sprouts another ‘interim’ hump: CHARPTER
In light of the implications of the Caper decision for some charter operators, CASA will consider applications for authorisation to conduct RPT operations, subject to approvals and/or exemptions of the kind mentioned above, where the aircraft involved have a seating capacity of not more than 9 seats and a Maximum Take-off weight (MTOW) of not more than 8,618 kg. With a view to the expected adoption of Part 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Australian air transport operations-small aeroplanes), which is slated to come into effect toward the end of 2014, CASA will give especial consideration to applications for interim RPT authorisations, subject to conditions effectively reflecting compliance with the requirements that will govern operations under proposed Part 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR).2 Proposed CASR Part 135 will enhance passenger safety by specifying requirements for small aeroplanes engaged in passenger carrying operations- primarily those engaged in what is today classified as charter operations- that are similar to those governing RPT operations.
Charter operators considering applying for an AOC authorising RPT operations in circumstances of the kind mentioned above should carefully consider:
• all relevant requirements under the regulations currently governing RPT operations, from full compliance with which they would need to seek an exemption or from which an approval to deviate would be necessary;
• what they would be required to do in order to meet standards corresponding to those specified in proposed CASR Part 135; and
• the benefits, as well as the demands, involved in moving to comply with those standards in advance of their adoption in the legislation, as conditions on an authorisation to conduct RPT operations that might be available in the interim.
Charter operators considering applying for an AOC authorising RPT operations in circumstances of the kind mentioned above should carefully consider:
• all relevant requirements under the regulations currently governing RPT operations, from full compliance with which they would need to seek an exemption or from which an approval to deviate would be necessary;
• what they would be required to do in order to meet standards corresponding to those specified in proposed CASR Part 135; and
• the benefits, as well as the demands, involved in moving to comply with those standards in advance of their adoption in the legislation, as conditions on an authorisation to conduct RPT operations that might be available in the interim.
And we’ve heard it all before: “The expected adoption” of something. “Is slated to come into effect toward the end of 2014.”
Betcha it doesn’t.
Last edited by Creampuff; 29th Jun 2013 at 05:42.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the starting point is to go straight for the beasts heart with an ice pick, take out the 'iron ring'
The heart and brain being worthless, can we get some bids on the rest?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UITA, thanks for the photograph of the CAsA Board! It reminds me of Gobbledocks work, I miss it. Ever since he left Australia to enjoy the scenery in Montreal the robust picture posts have dried up. Styx Houseboat has also been without a helmsman so I wish he would come home soon, in maybe the position of an independent Senator?
Frank, I see that you have no bids to date? That should tell you something?? However I am willing to offer $0.30 for the lot of them, but with one request, and that is they come cryogenically sealed in esky size packages for my winter camping and fishing trip across the top end, which starts shortly. I anticipate there use in catching shark, Barra and the odd rogue croc.
Frank, I see that you have no bids to date? That should tell you something?? However I am willing to offer $0.30 for the lot of them, but with one request, and that is they come cryogenically sealed in esky size packages for my winter camping and fishing trip across the top end, which starts shortly. I anticipate there use in catching shark, Barra and the odd rogue croc.
Last edited by 004wercras; 29th Jun 2013 at 22:33.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a crock.
CP - It's back to the future of course.
004 : not sure that even the crocs would eat anything that putrid, then there is the problem of baiting the hooks, which would mean wearing a full protection suit, gloves, goggles, air supply, the works; and then there's still the OH&S storm troops to deal with. Prawns are better, (unless you can find a kid to troll behind your chopper, remember that one?.)...
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kharon, towing people behind a chopper is a robust idea, and I know it has certainly been done before. Hell I remember the 70's when even Skippy the bush kangaroo had a PPL! How the world has changed.
The new golden rule though is 'no video cameras allowed'. That way when those pesky Inspectors spend their days drinking coffee and regulating by means of watching Poohtube there is no evidence
Now, me thinks today is a superb day over the top end to fire up the R44, flick the cap of a Crownie and down that bad boy while hovering above a croc nest (Calm down calm down all you stiffs, tis just a joke!)
The new golden rule though is 'no video cameras allowed'. That way when those pesky Inspectors spend their days drinking coffee and regulating by means of watching Poohtube there is no evidence
Now, me thinks today is a superb day over the top end to fire up the R44, flick the cap of a Crownie and down that bad boy while hovering above a croc nest
(Calm down calm down all you stiffs, tis just a joke!)
Last edited by 004wercras; 29th Jun 2013 at 22:42.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No wukkers
004 – "That way when those pesky Inspectors spend their days drinking coffee and regulating by means of watching Poohtube there is no evidence'.
Last edited by Kharon; 30th Jun 2013 at 20:17. Reason: Invasion of privacy – wuzzat????
From Creampuff, where did you get this???????????????????????
I'm sorry, but if this is from an official ly published CASA document, then I think ts an open invitation to official corruption and I think it should be either withdrawn and the person who wrote it "counselled". I have never seen such utter garbage masquerading as an official position statement, if that it is indeed what it is.
It is axiomatic in the Weberian Bureaucratic model that operates at a Federal Level and in all States of Australia that:
1. The authorities and responsibilities of all public service postions are clearly and rigidly defined in writing and published.
2. The procedures required to be followed in decision making associated with each authority specified in (1) are clearly and rigidly defined in writing and published.
3. Any compliance requirements for an applicant requesting a decision under (1) making use oof the procedure prescribed in (2) are clearly and rigidly defined in writing and published.
The use of nominatives (words with indefinite meanings) is prohibited, as are words that imply administrative discretion where none is intended or vice versa - as some judges learn the hard way when their rulings are appealed. Indeed if administrative discretion is EVER allowed, then it too is subject to limitations and the reasons for the decision must be published and be challengeable.
WIth reference to the publication and the words bolded:
Implications of the Caper Decision for "some".....What implications, Why? and exactly for whom?
CASA will "consider".... Exactly who will consider? Exactly what written and published procedure will be followed in making the determination? What are the published requirements that an operator must meet in order to gaurantee favourable consideration?
authorisation......subject to approvals and exemptions.....Exactly what are the approvals and exemptions available? What procedure is required to decide an approval or exemption? Who decides? What are the published criteria that must be met to ensure receipt of both?
"Expected" adoption of "slated" regulations? Are you for real? Get your Ministers approval for a Grandfather clause in the regulations or eff off! Otherwise operators are wearing the risks.
CASA will give "especial consideration"........subject to conditions "effectivly" reflecting...
Again what is the procedure in writing? What are the published criteria? What does "effectively" mean? This statement is tantamount to stating that approva is entirely at the whim of the public servant concerned. This is an open invitation to official corruption and it must not be permitted.
"operations ... primarily those engaged"...... No CASA! If you are going to have a classification scheme that categorises operations then it must be published, transparent and simple for an operator to determine what category they are - and the requirements of that category must applyevenly across all operators in Australia.
"relevent requirements....seek an exemption or deviation" Again what are the clearly published relevant requirements? What are the published rigid procedures for determining the issue of an exemption or deviation? What are the critieria the applicant must meet to guarantee redeipt of a deviation or exemption.
To put that last bit another way, whichever **** wrote "seek" should get a boot up the arse. You "request" an exemption or deviation, " Seek " implies capriciousness and uncertainty. The applicable public servant reaches for his table of conditions, determines which boxes get ticked on the approval form by reference to your operation and the published criteria and if all boxes are ticked then you get your deviation or exemption, period. There is no ******* discretion.
"What they would be required to do...." Under what law and regulation? Required by whom? Where is the published list defining the requirements?
"Authorisation........... that might be available" Available from whom? How "might" such authorisation be available? By the payment of $100,000 in small unmarked bills? If the author knows that there is another route to approval then ******* spell it out, explain and contrast the pros and cons of each method and invite a potential applicant to decide.
I'm sorry, but this sort of vapid CASA bull**** makes my blood boil and it is an open invitation to official corruption.
In light of the implications of the Caper decision for some charter operators, CASA will consider applications for authorisation to conduct RPT operations, subject to approvals and/or exemptions of the kind mentioned above, where the aircraft involved have a seating capacity of not more than 9 seats and a Maximum Take-off weight (MTOW) of not more than 8,618 kg. With a view to the expected adoption of Part 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Australian air transport operations-small aeroplanes), which is slated to come into effect toward the end of 2014, CASA will give especial consideration to applications for interim RPT authorisations, subject to conditions effectively reflecting compliance with the requirements that will govern operations under proposed Part 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR).2 Proposed CASR Part 135 will enhance passenger safety by specifying requirements for small aeroplanes engaged in passenger carrying operations- primarily those engaged in what is today classified as charter operations- that are similar to those governing RPT operations.
Charter operators considering applying for an AOC authorising RPT operations in circumstances of the kind mentioned above should carefully consider:
• all relevant requirements under the regulations currently governing RPT operations, from full compliance with which they would need to seek an exemption or from which an approval to deviate would be necessary;
• what they would be required to do in order to meet standards corresponding to those specified in proposed CASR Part 135; and
• the benefits, as well as the demands, involved in moving to comply with those standards in advance of their adoption in the legislation, as conditions on an authorisation to conduct RPT operations that might be available in the interim.
Charter operators considering applying for an AOC authorising RPT operations in circumstances of the kind mentioned above should carefully consider:
• all relevant requirements under the regulations currently governing RPT operations, from full compliance with which they would need to seek an exemption or from which an approval to deviate would be necessary;
• what they would be required to do in order to meet standards corresponding to those specified in proposed CASR Part 135; and
• the benefits, as well as the demands, involved in moving to comply with those standards in advance of their adoption in the legislation, as conditions on an authorisation to conduct RPT operations that might be available in the interim.
It is axiomatic in the Weberian Bureaucratic model that operates at a Federal Level and in all States of Australia that:
1. The authorities and responsibilities of all public service postions are clearly and rigidly defined in writing and published.
2. The procedures required to be followed in decision making associated with each authority specified in (1) are clearly and rigidly defined in writing and published.
3. Any compliance requirements for an applicant requesting a decision under (1) making use oof the procedure prescribed in (2) are clearly and rigidly defined in writing and published.
The use of nominatives (words with indefinite meanings) is prohibited, as are words that imply administrative discretion where none is intended or vice versa - as some judges learn the hard way when their rulings are appealed. Indeed if administrative discretion is EVER allowed, then it too is subject to limitations and the reasons for the decision must be published and be challengeable.
WIth reference to the publication and the words bolded:
Implications of the Caper Decision for "some".....What implications, Why? and exactly for whom?
CASA will "consider".... Exactly who will consider? Exactly what written and published procedure will be followed in making the determination? What are the published requirements that an operator must meet in order to gaurantee favourable consideration?
authorisation......subject to approvals and exemptions.....Exactly what are the approvals and exemptions available? What procedure is required to decide an approval or exemption? Who decides? What are the published criteria that must be met to ensure receipt of both?
"Expected" adoption of "slated" regulations? Are you for real? Get your Ministers approval for a Grandfather clause in the regulations or eff off! Otherwise operators are wearing the risks.
CASA will give "especial consideration"........subject to conditions "effectivly" reflecting...
Again what is the procedure in writing? What are the published criteria? What does "effectively" mean? This statement is tantamount to stating that approva is entirely at the whim of the public servant concerned. This is an open invitation to official corruption and it must not be permitted.
"operations ... primarily those engaged"...... No CASA! If you are going to have a classification scheme that categorises operations then it must be published, transparent and simple for an operator to determine what category they are - and the requirements of that category must applyevenly across all operators in Australia.
"relevent requirements....seek an exemption or deviation" Again what are the clearly published relevant requirements? What are the published rigid procedures for determining the issue of an exemption or deviation? What are the critieria the applicant must meet to guarantee redeipt of a deviation or exemption.
To put that last bit another way, whichever **** wrote "seek" should get a boot up the arse. You "request" an exemption or deviation, " Seek " implies capriciousness and uncertainty. The applicable public servant reaches for his table of conditions, determines which boxes get ticked on the approval form by reference to your operation and the published criteria and if all boxes are ticked then you get your deviation or exemption, period. There is no ******* discretion.
"What they would be required to do...." Under what law and regulation? Required by whom? Where is the published list defining the requirements?
"Authorisation........... that might be available" Available from whom? How "might" such authorisation be available? By the payment of $100,000 in small unmarked bills? If the author knows that there is another route to approval then ******* spell it out, explain and contrast the pros and cons of each method and invite a potential applicant to decide.
I'm sorry, but this sort of vapid CASA bull**** makes my blood boil and it is an open invitation to official corruption.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, once again.
Sunny you first class specimen of all good things. Saved me a long (very similar post). In short CASA have finally dared publish a veiled hint of what the 'industry' has to put up with and it is a crock. I reckon Wodger wrote it, on a special willing accomplice deal, strictly never to be revealed except to the GWM/IRS for the purposes of prying some dosh out of the DOiT purse. But then, some bozzo, no doubt with the best intentions, stuffed up and published it.....
They're kidding right? – Nope welcome to Aviation Aussie style......
Taxi to the ferry??? – here's a voucher, don't worry about the receipt....
They're kidding right? – Nope welcome to Aviation Aussie style......
Taxi to the ferry??? – here's a voucher, don't worry about the receipt....
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Tasmania
Age: 69
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Creampuff, where did you get this???????????????????????
with the relevant links
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard another rumor of CAsA "skullduggery" and perhaps a classic example of why the industry will be dragged into oblivion by cr..p regulation.
The story goes:
A company wins a contract and needs "international" added to their AOC, they need things done as quickly as possible and cant afford time to haggle or complain.
FOI doing the approval decides he needs to do a "Proving" flight under some regulation that says "May" not "Must", to assess the international part of the operation.
This in a light jet, over a route around six hours long, most of which will be conducted in Australian airspace the last thirty minutes or so in international airspace. The operation is airwork, not charter.
The crews for this operation have a combined total of around 50,000 hours of international experience in fairly large machinery all over the world.
Our FOI has never operated outside Australia, is not even type rated on the aircraft and has a...shall we say "colorful" background in GA.
This operator is obliged to fork out around thirty grand so this nupty can sit in the back of an empty aircraft and assess what?
Meanwhile NZ and the many who have adopted their regulations power ahead. Looking at the new part 61, wonder how long it will be before virgin is offering licence package tours to NZ, as they did in UK to Florida.
Should be a money spinner, its half the price for a licence in NZ compared to Australia.
The story goes:
A company wins a contract and needs "international" added to their AOC, they need things done as quickly as possible and cant afford time to haggle or complain.
FOI doing the approval decides he needs to do a "Proving" flight under some regulation that says "May" not "Must", to assess the international part of the operation.
This in a light jet, over a route around six hours long, most of which will be conducted in Australian airspace the last thirty minutes or so in international airspace. The operation is airwork, not charter.
The crews for this operation have a combined total of around 50,000 hours of international experience in fairly large machinery all over the world.
Our FOI has never operated outside Australia, is not even type rated on the aircraft and has a...shall we say "colorful" background in GA.
This operator is obliged to fork out around thirty grand so this nupty can sit in the back of an empty aircraft and assess what?
Meanwhile NZ and the many who have adopted their regulations power ahead. Looking at the new part 61, wonder how long it will be before virgin is offering licence package tours to NZ, as they did in UK to Florida.
Should be a money spinner, its half the price for a licence in NZ compared to Australia.
Last edited by thorn bird; 8th Jul 2013 at 08:03.