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
Proving difficult.
TB – Perhaps this is yet another prime example not of a rubbish regulation, but of subjective interpretation to support a personal whimsy. If you stretch back to Lockhart, the "may require " was translated differently and little, if any 'proving' was done, despite it being an RPT operation. There is a good argument for 'proving' flights; particularly when 'operational control' of tricky over flight clearance, awkward (hostile) alternates and off shore maintenance issues are involved. But there needs to be a cost/ safety benefit justification for the proposed 'junket'; if as you say, the only purpose is to establish that the crew can actually find the desired runway, parking spot, fuel truck and coffee shop in that order proves bugger all.
It's quite right that CASA should examine and test the support infrastructure. The next 'charter' could be to a different location, hopefully to a different one again after that; so do we now need a 'route proving' flight for every charter or simply an infrastructure audit to establish that a robust system of operational support, you know, the type Dom James should have had, exists. For my 30K, I know which I'd rather have.
It's quite right that CASA should examine and test the support infrastructure. The next 'charter' could be to a different location, hopefully to a different one again after that; so do we now need a 'route proving' flight for every charter or simply an infrastructure audit to establish that a robust system of operational support, you know, the type Dom James should have had, exists. For my 30K, I know which I'd rather have.
So we have a crew who, judging on the content of TB post, had extensive international experience, is subject to a "proving flight" audited by a person who has no experience outside of Oz and not type rated on the aircraft.
Can anyone explain to me what meaningful input to the application this flight would have had other than ticking a "may" box.
Can anyone explain to me what meaningful input to the application this flight would have had other than ticking a "may" box.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just having a quiet watch/listen to Sen, Xenophon on the ABC clip and I wonder; is there a glimmer of hope for the end of regulatory reform saga?. Just hearing someone discuss the problems on 'telly' cheers me up no end. Aye well, expect the worst and hope for the best seems apt.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we have a crew who, judging on the content of TB post, had extensive international experience, is subject to a "proving flight" audited by a person who has no experience outside of Oz and not type rated on the aircraft.
Cheers
I have my doubts that this actually happened.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the real problem 601 we just draw the artillery to close if we confirm things with the real truth Don't forget the youtube video of Quadrio Never produced to AAT but prosecute anyway
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
Having the Artillery close is a good thing. The Cavalry can get under the guns. We are just not using this to advantage and any opportunity lost in any battle will end up the same way. (Don't try this with direct fire and canister shot however).
Keep our friends close and our enemies closer.
Keep our friends close and our enemies closer.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 18th Jul 2013 at 01:50. Reason: assumption that readers don't understand how a howitzer works.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UITA and 601, just ignore the Troll (Owen/Blackhand). You two guys are amongst a number of individuals who have been bullied by the Regulator and lost out financially. A number of posters here have shared their experiences privately, that is information that Owen Blackhand will never be privileged to. More well known people such as Mr Green, Stan, Butson and Quadrio have more publicly shown their hands and the evidence is irrefutable. The only reason people still defend CAsA is because CAsA are protected by a system that never allows them to be found guilty.
Numerous senate inquiries have revealed CAsA's systematic buggery of select aviators/airlines/businesses, however as long as the protections remain in place and governments refuse to act then CAsA will remain free to apply their trade.
The ironic thing is that some of the victims of CAsA have lost millions in revenue, which in turn denies the Government precious taxes and income. Also the length that FF goes to just to pineapple somebody is also an exercise on which millions of taxpayer dollars are pissed mercilessly into the wind for no better reason than spite and incompetence. So CAsA as a government cost centre is a liability when it comes to precious Government revenue streams. The Government truly are di#kheads aren't they
Numerous senate inquiries have revealed CAsA's systematic buggery of select aviators/airlines/businesses, however as long as the protections remain in place and governments refuse to act then CAsA will remain free to apply their trade.
The ironic thing is that some of the victims of CAsA have lost millions in revenue, which in turn denies the Government precious taxes and income. Also the length that FF goes to just to pineapple somebody is also an exercise on which millions of taxpayer dollars are pissed mercilessly into the wind for no better reason than spite and incompetence. So CAsA as a government cost centre is a liability when it comes to precious Government revenue streams. The Government truly are di#kheads aren't they
Last edited by 004wercras; 18th Jul 2013 at 05:44.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Frank, not you old friend, I was referring to Owen Blackhand (I have corrected my previous post to clarify).
Frank, you are part of the group of industry who have been pineappled by CAsA, you silly sausage! It is becoming a robust group, just like the CASAsexuals!!
Frank, you are part of the group of industry who have been pineappled by CAsA, you silly sausage! It is becoming a robust group, just like the CASAsexuals!!
Last edited by 004wercras; 18th Jul 2013 at 05:46. Reason: Fixed things up for my old mate Frank.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...0r016_Vol2.pdf
This is probably what happened, also affected a Single Engine turbine operator in similar fashion.
But that is the least of CAsA short comings.
This is probably what happened, also affected a Single Engine turbine operator in similar fashion.
But that is the least of CAsA short comings.
Thread Starter
Owen said:
That was in response to this “story” (thorn bird’s word):
601 said:
I don’t understand what the impediment is to naming the FOI and the operator.
For a start, if the facts asserted in the story are true, there is nothing defamatory of the FOI in question. If the story is true, why not name the FOI?
Secondly, if the facts asserted in the story are true, the nasty people in CASA already know who the operator is, and the nasty people in CASA already know that the operator has been telling the story. Therefore, not naming names isn’t protecting the operator from retribution from those nasty people in CASA.
So: Who was the FOI and who was the operator?
I have my doubts that this actually happened.
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?
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?
So we have a crew who, judging on the content of TB post, had extensive international experience, is subject to a "proving flight" audited by a person who has no experience outside of Oz and not type rated on the aircraft.
For a start, if the facts asserted in the story are true, there is nothing defamatory of the FOI in question. If the story is true, why not name the FOI?
Secondly, if the facts asserted in the story are true, the nasty people in CASA already know who the operator is, and the nasty people in CASA already know that the operator has been telling the story. Therefore, not naming names isn’t protecting the operator from retribution from those nasty people in CASA.
So: Who was the FOI and who was the operator?
Last edited by Creampuff; 18th Jul 2013 at 07:53.
Wonder who put in this FOI request?
History always repeats! (sorry Split Enz
)
From CAsA FOI disclosure log...hmm warning grab a coffee you'll need one!
Documents relating to the Report of Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce released in 2008
) From CAsA FOI disclosure log...hmm warning grab a coffee you'll need one!
Documents relating to the Report of Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce released in 2008
Thread Starter
From the document at the link in Sarcs' post:
I'm looking forward to 2011.
Oh, wait ... what year is it again?
It must be OLDP's fault.
Oh wait ... OLDP doesn't exist any more.
When CASA disintegrates, leaving behind 2,000 pages plus of regulatory Frankenstein, no one will be responsible.
I've seen it another thread, and my apologies for not attributing authorship: Australia. The only third world country in which you can drink the tap water.
CASA’s expectation is that all policy and regulatory development work will be completed in 2008, implementation of outstanding Parts will commence in mid-2008 and the programme will be fully implemented by 2011, subject to OLDP finalising drafting.
Oh, wait ... what year is it again?
It must be OLDP's fault.
Oh wait ... OLDP doesn't exist any more.
When CASA disintegrates, leaving behind 2,000 pages plus of regulatory Frankenstein, no one will be responsible.
I've seen it another thread, and my apologies for not attributing authorship: Australia. The only third world country in which you can drink the tap water.
004/#344
plaudits from me. Well described and stated.As a receiver of the CAsA pineapples, last one overseen by the bald eagle/sorry psychopath (IMO) who clearly states CAsA is a "safety" (sic..very sick) regulator , not a commercial regulator, so if some AWI, FOI or any other type of trough dweller causes you to lose a few mil$..its not in their abmit. Or quite frankly they couldnt give a non flying fcuk either..whatever.
CAsA damages the "common wealth" not just by dollar loses. Great expenditure in Centrelink and etc, to put people IN work ....and CAsA spends mega bucks putting people OUT of work.
All in the name of "safety", of course.
Just as well, otherwise we'd all be killed already by falling aeroplanes
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crocked up conspiracy?
004 -#2331 "Yes indeed, another Fort Fumble screw up. The incompetence of these buffoons knows no bounds. Phelan's article gets straight to the point - Fort Fumble incompetence or the systematic buggery of GA? Probably a bit of both I suspect."
LS_ To make it easier, some years ago, the then "appropriate person" in CASA produced a Legislative Instrument to automatically make all FAA ACs and the equivalent from other countries, approved data for the continuing airworthiness of the relevant aircraft. This meant that ACs didn't, any longer, have to be approved individually for each maintenance organisation. i.e. One smart bloke in CASA, with the right delegation, pulled the plug on the whole "approval" racket, including the costs, aggravation and delay inherent in almost any dealings with CASA.
His successor renewed the instrument several times. Now, under the present crew, the automatic approval of documents such as AC 43.13A & B is back to case by case approval ---- what a great make work exercise. $$$$$$
His successor renewed the instrument several times. Now, under the present crew, the automatic approval of documents such as AC 43.13A & B is back to case by case approval ---- what a great make work exercise. $$$$$$
004 -#2331 "CAO 100.5 and its replacement wording are close indeed. It would seem the 'massagers of all rules aviation' have excelled themselves yet again by creating confusion and uncertainty across the sector."
CP - # 9 "In any event, is anyone able to point to any airworthiness problem that has resulted from maintaining an aircraft in accordance the schedule of maintenance at Schedule 5 of the CARs?"
Oh, I forgot the Kiwi's did this, how many years and millions of dollars ago now ?
Last edited by Kharon; 30th Jul 2013 at 19:47.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kharon, perhaps the other bald eagle, Boyd, will re-activate team ASOP to complete the task?
After all, they spent what I heard was millions over 2 years on some 30 projects of which none were actually completed, at all. Mr Skull recalls that quite well, as he quickly shut it down when he came onboard almost 5 years ago.
At the expense of being tautological and acting like some ill of society, I once again remind the viewers that despite the CAsA rhetoric, the foolish letters by Teflon Tony that are included in the annual reports which include his 'expectations' of CAsA, and despite the even more pooh laden drivel that the Board publish annually, CAsA remain free from any form of accountability whatsoever.....Sure they cop the occasional grilling at budget estimates, even some robust questioning at the Senate inquiries, but to date this is all lip service. They simply roll out the old chess game, spin some dials, add a layer of veneer and hey presto......magic.....nothing wrong here good sirs!
They can waste money, bully industry, misuse their authority, fail to deliver and then spin, obsfucate and duck and weave because '''''''' they can. Don't have to answer to anybody for anything. Sweet, very sweet. How do we get jobs like that?
The best bit is that the executives continue to Hoover up bonuses and giant salaries although producing jack ****! Reg reform = 25 years and $200 million and is not completed, a failure. And the muppets get bonuses for this???
Bring on a senate inquiry into regulatory reform. Bring on the astute Fawcett, the testicularly strong Xenophon and the delectable number crunching Nash. Hand them the keys to open the iron ring, give them tractors, bobcats and earthmoving equipment to dig through the web of mystique, the layers of deception, the mounds of steaming guano that clogs the bowels of CAsA just like a German clogged up from eating copious amounts of Camembert cheese, sauerkraut, shenkin and stout!
After all, they spent what I heard was millions over 2 years on some 30 projects of which none were actually completed, at all. Mr Skull recalls that quite well, as he quickly shut it down when he came onboard almost 5 years ago.
At the expense of being tautological and acting like some ill of society, I once again remind the viewers that despite the CAsA rhetoric, the foolish letters by Teflon Tony that are included in the annual reports which include his 'expectations' of CAsA, and despite the even more pooh laden drivel that the Board publish annually, CAsA remain free from any form of accountability whatsoever.....Sure they cop the occasional grilling at budget estimates, even some robust questioning at the Senate inquiries, but to date this is all lip service. They simply roll out the old chess game, spin some dials, add a layer of veneer and hey presto......magic.....nothing wrong here good sirs!
They can waste money, bully industry, misuse their authority, fail to deliver and then spin, obsfucate and duck and weave because '''''''' they can. Don't have to answer to anybody for anything. Sweet, very sweet. How do we get jobs like that?
The best bit is that the executives continue to Hoover up bonuses and giant salaries although producing jack ****! Reg reform = 25 years and $200 million and is not completed, a failure. And the muppets get bonuses for this???
Bring on a senate inquiry into regulatory reform. Bring on the astute Fawcett, the testicularly strong Xenophon and the delectable number crunching Nash. Hand them the keys to open the iron ring, give them tractors, bobcats and earthmoving equipment to dig through the web of mystique, the layers of deception, the mounds of steaming guano that clogs the bowels of CAsA just like a German clogged up from eating copious amounts of Camembert cheese, sauerkraut, shenkin and stout!
Last edited by 004wercras; 31st Jul 2013 at 04:17.
