The Regulatory Reform Program will drift along forever
Justiceseeker.
I find the "Consultants" relationship with the Coroner contemptuous and a gross conflict of interest. It is obvious CASA obtained the outcome they paid for.
More power to you if you can achieve an official review of the entire sordid affair, although I suspect the Commonwealth and State Governments will view the Coronial Inquest as an end to the affair! It is now no longer a question of CASA's competence but also the bigger question of the integrity and independence of our Court system.
You have a lot of support out there!!!
I find the "Consultants" relationship with the Coroner contemptuous and a gross conflict of interest. It is obvious CASA obtained the outcome they paid for.
More power to you if you can achieve an official review of the entire sordid affair, although I suspect the Commonwealth and State Governments will view the Coronial Inquest as an end to the affair! It is now no longer a question of CASA's competence but also the bigger question of the integrity and independence of our Court system.
You have a lot of support out there!!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread drift?????
Triadic
This thread is to do with updating the rules so they work better. It is not limited to the manufacturing of legalese jargon. It is a discussion of the present rules, how they work (or don't work) and how they are interpreted. And the effect this has. Where and why they should be changed.
This thread has not drifted.
This thread is to do with updating the rules so they work better. It is not limited to the manufacturing of legalese jargon. It is a discussion of the present rules, how they work (or don't work) and how they are interpreted. And the effect this has. Where and why they should be changed.
This thread has not drifted.
Thread Starter
Some fairly serious allegations Justiceseeker/Mainframe/Torres. I assume you've put them to the Coroner's boss? If not, why not?
Bushy: the point of different between you and Triadic is about technical fact, not the content of rules.
Bushy: the point of different between you and Triadic is about technical fact, not the content of rules.
Creampuff. I don't think there is any doubt the Coroner could - and probably should - have inquired into other matters and possibly made different findings, however I suspect only a very bold or very stupid politician would inquire into a Coroner's Inquest finding, once the Coroner's Report has been published.
I'm sure you are far better versed in the legal process and know the players being discussed.
I'm sure you are far better versed in the legal process and know the players being discussed.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Known history of wing problems
Creampuff
i have great respect for your opinions, and it's good to see you active here again.
However I stated that this aircraft had a kinown history of wing problems, and it did. And it was given approval (in Australia) to carry what the makers considered a substantial overload.
This IS to do with the rules. It cannot be discounted as "thread drift"
In fact it seems to be an example of our regulator ignoring the rules, and authorising a 400 kg overload in an aircraft that had a history of known wing sructural problems.
i have great respect for your opinions, and it's good to see you active here again.
However I stated that this aircraft had a kinown history of wing problems, and it did. And it was given approval (in Australia) to carry what the makers considered a substantial overload.
This IS to do with the rules. It cannot be discounted as "thread drift"
In fact it seems to be an example of our regulator ignoring the rules, and authorising a 400 kg overload in an aircraft that had a history of known wing sructural problems.
Bushy
The current discussion involves the fatal crash of Fairchild Industries Metro SA227-DC VH-TFU at Lockhart River on May 7, 2005.
Are you suggesting that aircraft was operated at a MTOW in excess of the Manufacturer's approved MTOW?
I assumed earlier that you were referring to the Aero Commander Shrike 500 S which has a manufacturer's approved MTOW of 6,750 lb (3,060 kg), yet is "approved" to operate in Australia at MTOW up to 3,350 (?) kg, despite two in flight catastrophic failures in Australia and a number overseas.
"...I stated that this aircraft..."
Are you suggesting that aircraft was operated at a MTOW in excess of the Manufacturer's approved MTOW?
I assumed earlier that you were referring to the Aero Commander Shrike 500 S which has a manufacturer's approved MTOW of 6,750 lb (3,060 kg), yet is "approved" to operate in Australia at MTOW up to 3,350 (?) kg, despite two in flight catastrophic failures in Australia and a number overseas.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.rdcollins.com.au/index.htm
Didn't someone say he opened a Petrol Station ?.
With regards to the AC500/Aerocom, this aircrafts IFR weight restriction is a performance based figure, the increased VFR weight is based on the airframe and the lesser performance requirement.
There is an Australian operator that has a number of AC500's, they are operated at low levels, VFR at the "increased" weight in a high turbulent environment ( tree tops in hills ), some of these aircraft have upwards of 25,000 TT, the airframe is quite capable of the "extra" weight.
To the suggestions that the "extra" weight for the VFR operation being a CASA initiated increase is not true, i have a copy of the manufacturers manuals and its in there as well.
The aeroplane is not the issue.
Didn't someone say he opened a Petrol Station ?.
With regards to the AC500/Aerocom, this aircrafts IFR weight restriction is a performance based figure, the increased VFR weight is based on the airframe and the lesser performance requirement.
There is an Australian operator that has a number of AC500's, they are operated at low levels, VFR at the "increased" weight in a high turbulent environment ( tree tops in hills ), some of these aircraft have upwards of 25,000 TT, the airframe is quite capable of the "extra" weight.
To the suggestions that the "extra" weight for the VFR operation being a CASA initiated increase is not true, i have a copy of the manufacturers manuals and its in there as well.
The aeroplane is not the issue.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 28th Apr 2008 at 11:01.
Creamie, old mate!
As the head sharangue of the recently formed RSPCC, I demand a halt. It ain't fair to camels.
We should call an immediate halt, and adopt the Mongolian Rules, which looks suspiciously like the said Mongol Hordes have paid a recent visit to Wellington,NZ, to CAA at Lower Hutt, no less. Cunning lot, these Sons of Ghengis, smart, too!
Seriously, the EASA ED, Patrick Goudou, has eulogized the recently revamped Canadian rules, as suitable for all the rules EASA ain't yet got (terrible English, I know, but it will have to do).
Quote from Eric Sivel, of EASA: "EASA was impressed with the way Canada framed its rules, and the simplicity of the country's system" - Flight International, 22-28 April 2008, p.14, or on:
<www.flightglobal.com/easapowers>
As the Canadian lawyer who is largely responsible for what EASA seems to think is close to "world's best practice" (whatever that means), is currently a resident of Canberra --- maybe CASA could put his talents to good use.
Indeed, the CASA Head of Planning and Governance will only have to look into the next office.
Take, say, the CASA "EASA Like" maintenance rules project, why not cut out the middle man, and go direct to Canada, instead of the long way around, via the Atlantic, and save the cost of translating the Eurocrat version into Casteralian Rules??
Tootle pip!!
---Australia should produce a mess that looks like a freight train full of dog food that’s hit a herd of camels at high speed!
We should call an immediate halt, and adopt the Mongolian Rules, which looks suspiciously like the said Mongol Hordes have paid a recent visit to Wellington,NZ, to CAA at Lower Hutt, no less. Cunning lot, these Sons of Ghengis, smart, too!
Seriously, the EASA ED, Patrick Goudou, has eulogized the recently revamped Canadian rules, as suitable for all the rules EASA ain't yet got (terrible English, I know, but it will have to do).
Quote from Eric Sivel, of EASA: "EASA was impressed with the way Canada framed its rules, and the simplicity of the country's system" - Flight International, 22-28 April 2008, p.14, or on:
<www.flightglobal.com/easapowers>
As the Canadian lawyer who is largely responsible for what EASA seems to think is close to "world's best practice" (whatever that means), is currently a resident of Canberra --- maybe CASA could put his talents to good use.
Indeed, the CASA Head of Planning and Governance will only have to look into the next office.
Take, say, the CASA "EASA Like" maintenance rules project, why not cut out the middle man, and go direct to Canada, instead of the long way around, via the Atlantic, and save the cost of translating the Eurocrat version into Casteralian Rules??
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 28th Apr 2008 at 12:52.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff mon vieux.
I have been a little busy of late and to read Torres et al comments on the currently revealed background to the so called Inquest fills me with horror and dread.
Horror at what appears to be unbelievably cynical manipulation of the coronial results of a tragedy that happened under the "consultants" watch. I reads like one of Grishams novels with the exception that the bad guys win.
Dread that my current activities once more will involve negotiation with a system that only appeared to be fixed or at least on the way to be and the ubiquitous "ex CASA" consutants who continue to hold an unsupportable sway in the industry.
This travesty, at least as it is described, could only have taken place with either active "help" or at the very least blind eyed from the very highest levels.
In the first instance I was not prepared to support a Royal Commission/Judicial Enquiry into the whole reeking cesspool in the interests of moving forward and away from that period in Australian aviation, CASA having already "got on with it" and some evidence that the culprits had been removed, retired, resigned or run away to hide in places unreachable.
In many ways the chronic pilot shortage appears to have been the ultimate remedy for the mess, in that dodgy bros aviation pty ltd are no longer able to survive in the new regime having to actually pay pilots for their services, nothing at all to do with the safety regime.
But it is Queensland I suppose.
Not any more.
Where's Erica Brokovich, or the inestimable Chris Masters when you need them.
It's a pity Marn didn't make it to the Transport Ministry and I haven't got set with the new guys yet simply because I haven't had the time. If there ever was an opportunity for Labor to set their stamp on the industry this would be at the top of the list. They could bag a minimum of 4 or 5 heads with a single shot. But I forget this was a Queensland coronial and it is a labor state that gave us Jo, Russ and Terry so perhaps I shouldn't hold my breath.
Now I really hesitate for invoke the name but if Dick wanted to do something useful for aviation this would be a good start. It would take some courage and principle and maybe setting adrift some cronies but hey it would be way worthwhile to restore some credibility in places it is sorely needed.
Or do we just whistle away on PPRuNE making each other feel better for the rhetoric we share.
I have recently spent a fascinating day in a museum commemorating the Westward Expansion in the US, God it was inspiring, and the vision of the characters involved was equally awesome. It made me wonder what has happened to our mutual society, its common venality and where have the characters who were capable of inspiring others gone.
I have been a little busy of late and to read Torres et al comments on the currently revealed background to the so called Inquest fills me with horror and dread.
Horror at what appears to be unbelievably cynical manipulation of the coronial results of a tragedy that happened under the "consultants" watch. I reads like one of Grishams novels with the exception that the bad guys win.
Dread that my current activities once more will involve negotiation with a system that only appeared to be fixed or at least on the way to be and the ubiquitous "ex CASA" consutants who continue to hold an unsupportable sway in the industry.
This travesty, at least as it is described, could only have taken place with either active "help" or at the very least blind eyed from the very highest levels.
In the first instance I was not prepared to support a Royal Commission/Judicial Enquiry into the whole reeking cesspool in the interests of moving forward and away from that period in Australian aviation, CASA having already "got on with it" and some evidence that the culprits had been removed, retired, resigned or run away to hide in places unreachable.
In many ways the chronic pilot shortage appears to have been the ultimate remedy for the mess, in that dodgy bros aviation pty ltd are no longer able to survive in the new regime having to actually pay pilots for their services, nothing at all to do with the safety regime.
But it is Queensland I suppose.
Not any more.
Where's Erica Brokovich, or the inestimable Chris Masters when you need them.
It's a pity Marn didn't make it to the Transport Ministry and I haven't got set with the new guys yet simply because I haven't had the time. If there ever was an opportunity for Labor to set their stamp on the industry this would be at the top of the list. They could bag a minimum of 4 or 5 heads with a single shot. But I forget this was a Queensland coronial and it is a labor state that gave us Jo, Russ and Terry so perhaps I shouldn't hold my breath.
Now I really hesitate for invoke the name but if Dick wanted to do something useful for aviation this would be a good start. It would take some courage and principle and maybe setting adrift some cronies but hey it would be way worthwhile to restore some credibility in places it is sorely needed.
Or do we just whistle away on PPRuNE making each other feel better for the rhetoric we share.
I have recently spent a fascinating day in a museum commemorating the Westward Expansion in the US, God it was inspiring, and the vision of the characters involved was equally awesome. It made me wonder what has happened to our mutual society, its common venality and where have the characters who were capable of inspiring others gone.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres
Yes, I was referring to the Aero Commander. Some say it was ok. Some say it was not ok.
The point is , I find it difficult to respect our regulator, and the system will not work properly until the regulator earns the respect of the industry.
As I said, it appears that the purpose of our regulator is to protect governments from legal liability.
The point is , I find it difficult to respect our regulator, and the system will not work properly until the regulator earns the respect of the industry.
As I said, it appears that the purpose of our regulator is to protect governments from legal liability.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I dont suppose that it had anything to do with the fact that the DCA or whatever they were called at the time has just bought a slew of them. If I recall correctly the increased MTOW simply soaked up what had been a healthy OEI performance margin towards the legal or certification minimum. 
And if you were fool enough, try and dick around with the manufacturers numbers now and see how you get on.
And if you were fool enough, try and dick around with the manufacturers numbers now and see how you get on.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Towards a National Aviation Policy statement
To all correspondents on this thread:
The Department has just issued this document on its website. There is a section on safety regulation and regulatory reform. Item 4 reads "How can the Government and Industry esure CASA completes its long running regulatory reform process as soon as possible ....etc,etc.
Pse respond to this chance to have an input and bring it to the attention of your leaders.
The Department has just issued this document on its website. There is a section on safety regulation and regulatory reform. Item 4 reads "How can the Government and Industry esure CASA completes its long running regulatory reform process as soon as possible ....etc,etc.
Pse respond to this chance to have an input and bring it to the attention of your leaders.
Gaunty. I don't thnk DCA ever had Shrike 500S's. They had the earlier model with geared engines and the turbine G1000.
I seem to recall HC Sleigh Aviation arranged the higher MTOW weight with DCA for a specific, early (1970's?) surveillance or SAR task.
4Greens, can you post a link? All I can find on the CASA web site is the 2007 page "Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce".
I seem to recall HC Sleigh Aviation arranged the higher MTOW weight with DCA for a specific, early (1970's?) surveillance or SAR task.
4Greens, can you post a link? All I can find on the CASA web site is the 2007 page "Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce".
Thread Starter
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats right they weren't Shrike (500S) too long ago, I think they were 680Es
Brilliant performer on one engine which, if I recall correctly, is where they squeezed the MTOW from.
Brilliant performer on one engine which, if I recall correctly, is where they squeezed the MTOW from.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How has micro-economic reform impacted on general aviation businesses and what strategies need to be put in place to ensure that access to airport infrastructure does not impede industry viability and growth?
Do the needs of general aviation operators warrant any changes to airport regulatory and planning arrangements?
How can general aviation operators, particularly small businesses, establish viable business models that allow them to take advantage of current buoyant conditions in the aviation market? In particular, how do these businesses meet the increased cost of skilled labour and improve recruitment and retention of their skilled workforce?
If the consumer is not prepared to pay the piper they'll lose the service. Thats the way it actuallly works in real life. Not backwards from what the operator thinks the consumer will pay, it is clear that paradigm has brought them to where they now are.
[QUOTE]
What role should all levels of government have in protecting secondary airport infrastructure and in providing for new infrastructure?
[QUOTE]
How can the general aviation industry provide the necessary investment to renew the ageing aircraft fleet?
). This industry is NO different from any other, it is NOT a means of indulging someones aviation fantasies or hobby. It should not have any special treatment. If remote or difficult areas need support that must come from very specific, direct and measurable subsidy to the regular busines model. Government used to do it that way until the genius operators convinced the Govt that they could do it cheaper than the incumbent and without subsidy, yeah right.
Is there a role for governments?
Are additional measures required to ensure the continued safe operation of ageing aircraft?
Next question.?
Thread Starter
How about this one, that goes right to the heart of the subject matter of this thread:
Answer: If the new government has to ask that question, it continues to be part of the problem, not the solution.
I am appalled that CASA will now have yet another excuse for not completing the regulatory 'reform' process. Naturally it will have to wait for the 'Green Paper' to be finalised, so that it knows what to do during this lap around the merry-go-round. Perhaps some more 'CEO Directives', and training in what they mean, will be in order. Of course, the end date of the process will have to be 're-established'.
I note that the Department's description of the process contains precisely the sort of spin-doctored, passive-voice weasel-words as CASA has used to avoid meeting any 'deadlines':
Who anticipates that, and who cares what they anticipate?
For heaven's sake: Set a deadline for the achievement of an outcome.
Have the integrity to make, and to take responsibility for making, a decision.
Govern! (if you can remember how.)
How can the Australian Government and industry ensure CASA completes its longrunning regulatory reform process as soon as possible, to give clarity to industry and to clear the way for new approaches to meeting the regulatory challenge?
I am appalled that CASA will now have yet another excuse for not completing the regulatory 'reform' process. Naturally it will have to wait for the 'Green Paper' to be finalised, so that it knows what to do during this lap around the merry-go-round. Perhaps some more 'CEO Directives', and training in what they mean, will be in order. Of course, the end date of the process will have to be 're-established'.
I note that the Department's description of the process contains precisely the sort of spin-doctored, passive-voice weasel-words as CASA has used to avoid meeting any 'deadlines':
It is anticipated that the Green Paper will be released for industry comment in the latter half of 2008.
For heaven's sake: Set a deadline for the achievement of an outcome.
Have the integrity to make, and to take responsibility for making, a decision.
Govern! (if you can remember how.)
I like Gaunty's idea of bringing the GA Business Model back into fiscal reality.
Issues:
Issues:
- Transition plan? I don't think the economy is ready to accept it cold turkey
- Concensus? How do we get it done industry-wide? That is, one in, all in.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peuce
Thanks for that and I know you know its not an idea, it is cold hard reality.
Cold turkey yup.
Otherwise who is subsidising the industry, errm actually the consumer.
The US airline industry is finding out the hard way that the "miracle" of deregulation has had a very deep and painful downside, couple of weeks ago when I was there 4, yes FOUR airlines hit the wall and they weren't johnnys come lately. And all the rest are teetering on the brink, trying to stay alive against the LCCs that are mostly underwater also. It's insane. The consumer is now complaining because their "favourite airline" read cheapest and financialy unviable, is gone or going with their (not much of it either) money. Their "right" to subeconomic fares is being taken away. Scuse me.
Thats why the sane folks there are now looking very hard at going back to the old regulated regime. Cant get there fast enough I say if the general condition of the dear old American DC9/MD80 that conveyed me I distinctly remember travelling on when she was girl and I a yoof, well over 450 moons ago.
Cost more fine by me. I step off a slip of a girl 777 that has carried me half way around the world onto a clunker that was new when my eldest was born.
Whats the sense in that?
Thanks for that and I know you know its not an idea, it is cold hard reality.
Cold turkey yup.
Otherwise who is subsidising the industry, errm actually the consumer.
The US airline industry is finding out the hard way that the "miracle" of deregulation has had a very deep and painful downside, couple of weeks ago when I was there 4, yes FOUR airlines hit the wall and they weren't johnnys come lately. And all the rest are teetering on the brink, trying to stay alive against the LCCs that are mostly underwater also. It's insane. The consumer is now complaining because their "favourite airline" read cheapest and financialy unviable, is gone or going with their (not much of it either) money. Their "right" to subeconomic fares is being taken away. Scuse me.
Thats why the sane folks there are now looking very hard at going back to the old regulated regime. Cant get there fast enough I say if the general condition of the dear old American DC9/MD80 that conveyed me I distinctly remember travelling on when she was girl and I a yoof, well over 450 moons ago.
Cost more fine by me. I step off a slip of a girl 777 that has carried me half way around the world onto a clunker that was new when my eldest was born.
Whats the sense in that?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somehow this thread has drifted massively so in an attempt to get it back on some sort of track let me ask a question.
Should we go down the FAA route (a similar approach to our beloved enzed cousins) in the knowledge that much of the FAA approach has been advisory, or do we go down the European route which is more regulatory, which as we all know is deeply entrenched in our culture?
For my part the current rewrite is a farce that should be humanely put down and out of its misery. Commonwealth legislative drafting is a joke at the best of times, for proof just try reading the Social Security Act or
Taxation Act. I for one would rather the advisory route. I am sick to death of the "we are the government and we know better so do as we say" approach. We should be mature enough to make the right choices by now, especially in aviation where immature choices can have fatal results.
Should we go down the FAA route (a similar approach to our beloved enzed cousins) in the knowledge that much of the FAA approach has been advisory, or do we go down the European route which is more regulatory, which as we all know is deeply entrenched in our culture?
For my part the current rewrite is a farce that should be humanely put down and out of its misery. Commonwealth legislative drafting is a joke at the best of times, for proof just try reading the Social Security Act or
Taxation Act. I for one would rather the advisory route. I am sick to death of the "we are the government and we know better so do as we say" approach. We should be mature enough to make the right choices by now, especially in aviation where immature choices can have fatal results.
Last edited by PLovett; 1st May 2008 at 11:06.