Senate Inquiry into CASA.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justice Seeker
I follow with interest your comments
If you examine the CASA survey it is about travel between capital cities on major airlines, where the travelling public is on a big bus trip and feeling safe because they are at flight levels with people in nice uniforms.
That is the statistical relevance of the survey. It has no relevance to the higher risk areas of charter and low end public transport in older aircraft and different circumstances.
Perhaps this lack of relevance is of benefit to your approach - where have the accidents been in recent years - not the big buses.
I follow with interest your comments
If you examine the CASA survey it is about travel between capital cities on major airlines, where the travelling public is on a big bus trip and feeling safe because they are at flight levels with people in nice uniforms.
That is the statistical relevance of the survey. It has no relevance to the higher risk areas of charter and low end public transport in older aircraft and different circumstances.
Perhaps this lack of relevance is of benefit to your approach - where have the accidents been in recent years - not the big buses.
james.
I can't see any relevance of the CASA survey to their safety mandate. What would those surveyed know about CASA's functions and responsibilities - if they even know the Authority exists?
It is nothing more than a measure of CASA's spin doctors success.
I can't see any relevance of the CASA survey to their safety mandate. What would those surveyed know about CASA's functions and responsibilities - if they even know the Authority exists?
It is nothing more than a measure of CASA's spin doctors success.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Torres
We are in agreement on this matter.
But, it is the old story of statistics and the drunk and the lamp post.
One suspects the timing of this survey is designed for support, not illumination, and any comment made to media or enquiry should perhaps articulate exactly as you and I have said.
We are in agreement on this matter.
But, it is the old story of statistics and the drunk and the lamp post.
One suspects the timing of this survey is designed for support, not illumination, and any comment made to media or enquiry should perhaps articulate exactly as you and I have said.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On 29th May 2008 The Senate announces a formal inquiry into CASA with a submission date one Month later of 30th June 2008.
I have heard the Reporting date is one week later, 7th July?
Since then and co-inciding, is a blitz of operations in the North.
At 6.00pm on Friday evening (usual CASA tactics), Aerotropics get rolled by CASA.
CASA have been investigating Lip Air (T/A Aerotropics), since September 2007 according to their blurb.
It should be noted that after some 10 months of investigations, CASA choose to act now on the eve of the Inquiry closing to further input.
I make no comment on Lip Air or it's operations, it is covered on another thread, but find strange the sequence of events.
I have heard the Reporting date is one week later, 7th July?
Since then and co-inciding, is a blitz of operations in the North.
At 6.00pm on Friday evening (usual CASA tactics), Aerotropics get rolled by CASA.
CASA have been investigating Lip Air (T/A Aerotropics), since September 2007 according to their blurb.
It should be noted that after some 10 months of investigations, CASA choose to act now on the eve of the Inquiry closing to further input.
I make no comment on Lip Air or it's operations, it is covered on another thread, but find strange the sequence of events.
Last edited by Bob Murphie; 28th Jun 2008 at 05:30.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob
A strange coincidence indeed. They need something to show to the Senate inquiry (like the "unannounced" blitz in NT). What a cynical exercise. They wouldn't do anything for 12 months, and now suddenly on the eve of the Senate hearing, it becomes a critical safety concern to CASA.
Funny how none of the safety breaches surrounding QF warrant any action on the part of CASA, not even an infringement notice. Why is that?? Because QF is allowed to regulate itself........
On 29th May 2008 The Senate announces a formal inquiry into CASA with a submission date one Month later of 30th June 2008.
I have heard the Reporting date is one week later, 7th July?
Since then and co-inciding, is a blitz of operations in the North.
At 6.00pm on Friday evening (usual CASA tactics), Aerotropics get rolled by CASA.
CASA have been investigating Lip Air (T/A Aerotropics), since September 2007 according to their blurb.
It should be noted that after some 10 months of investigations, CASA choose to act now on the eve of the Inquiry closing to further input.
I make no comment on Lip Air or it's operations, it is covered on another thread, but find strange the sequence of events.
I have heard the Reporting date is one week later, 7th July?
Since then and co-inciding, is a blitz of operations in the North.
At 6.00pm on Friday evening (usual CASA tactics), Aerotropics get rolled by CASA.
CASA have been investigating Lip Air (T/A Aerotropics), since September 2007 according to their blurb.
It should be noted that after some 10 months of investigations, CASA choose to act now on the eve of the Inquiry closing to further input.
I make no comment on Lip Air or it's operations, it is covered on another thread, but find strange the sequence of events.
Funny how none of the safety breaches surrounding QF warrant any action on the part of CASA, not even an infringement notice. Why is that?? Because QF is allowed to regulate itself........
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NT;
This came across my desk this evening and I have not read it fully, nor fathom it at this stage.
Although it doesn't say as much in early reading I am prompted that there is an AAT stay in court under 30DC (?) until 21st July 2008.
Lip-Air Pty Limited v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] FCA 866 (5 June 2008)
This came across my desk this evening and I have not read it fully, nor fathom it at this stage.
Although it doesn't say as much in early reading I am prompted that there is an AAT stay in court under 30DC (?) until 21st July 2008.
Lip-Air Pty Limited v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] FCA 866 (5 June 2008)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob
I think what this is saying is that if CASA had suspended the AOC directly then there would have been an automatic stay. But rather than doing that, CASA cancelled the Chief pilot approval and check pilot approval, which had the indirect effect of suspending the AOC. But this tactic denied the operator the right to an automatic stay. The judge says that he believes this tactic is ultra vires when you look at the totality of the enforcement changes that were made in 2003 which were intended to make CASA decisions subject to effective review. On that basis he granted a stay of the CASA decision pending a hearing by the AAT to determine whether a stay should be granted (the point here is that although the Chief Pilot and check pilot decisions are not necessarily subject to an automatic stay, the AAT can grant a stay under its powers under the AAT Act -so the Federal Court stayed the decisions until the AAT could look at them and decide whether or not to grant a stay)
NT;
This came across my desk this evening and I have not read it fully, nor fathom it at this stage.
Although it doesn't say as much in early reading I am prompted that there is an AAT stay in court under 30DC (?) until 21st July 2008.
Lip-Air Pty Limited v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] FCA 866 (5 June 2008)
This came across my desk this evening and I have not read it fully, nor fathom it at this stage.
Although it doesn't say as much in early reading I am prompted that there is an AAT stay in court under 30DC (?) until 21st July 2008.
Lip-Air Pty Limited v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] FCA 866 (5 June 2008)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Coast
Age: 58
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ohh Dear
A few good conspiracy theories going here, makes you wonder really I mean if CASA was run by guys like YOU there would not be any of these problems, right !
and before you leap to the keyboards, NO I don't...
By the way, The CASA "Blitz" or as I have heard it called "The big day out" (out of what I don't know) but anyhow I digress, as it has been said earlier the goss is that it was planned mid 2007. Call it "timing" if you wish.
How many times have we posted about the LACK of CASA oversight, and now we have a go because they are. talk about twisting the story to suit your own purposes.
Anyone know just how many senate enquiries/white papers and/or reviews of gov departments and offices are on the go at the moment. Yes an interesting question, with a VERY interesting answer (both real and percived).
Any how times up, so all the best and lets ask the real question?
Who will be the most dissapointed by the enquiry report!
ER
A few good conspiracy theories going here, makes you wonder really I mean if CASA was run by guys like YOU there would not be any of these problems, right !
and before you leap to the keyboards, NO I don't...
By the way, The CASA "Blitz" or as I have heard it called "The big day out" (out of what I don't know) but anyhow I digress, as it has been said earlier the goss is that it was planned mid 2007. Call it "timing" if you wish.
How many times have we posted about the LACK of CASA oversight, and now we have a go because they are. talk about twisting the story to suit your own purposes.
Anyone know just how many senate enquiries/white papers and/or reviews of gov departments and offices are on the go at the moment. Yes an interesting question, with a VERY interesting answer (both real and percived).
Any how times up, so all the best and lets ask the real question?
Who will be the most dissapointed by the enquiry report!
ER
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EMB
I think you miss the whole point.
No one is querying the fact that CASA is taking action. The whole point is that CASA's action is timed to fit in with the Senate inquiry. Even the Lip Air suspension. The show cause was issued over 12 months ago - and nothing was done. Now on the eve of the inquiry CASA suddenly leaps into action.....
As for the blitz being planned in mid 2007 = perhaps ypu can enlighten us with some facts about this planning instead of just relying on the "goss". Whose "goss" is it? CASA's?
By the way, The CASA "Blitz" or as I have heard it called "The big day out" (out of what I don't know) but anyhow I digress, as it has been said earlier the goss is that it was planned mid 2007. Call it "timing" if you wish.
How many times have we posted about the LACK of CASA oversight, and now we have a go because they are. talk about twisting the story to suit your own purposes
How many times have we posted about the LACK of CASA oversight, and now we have a go because they are. talk about twisting the story to suit your own purposes
No one is querying the fact that CASA is taking action. The whole point is that CASA's action is timed to fit in with the Senate inquiry. Even the Lip Air suspension. The show cause was issued over 12 months ago - and nothing was done. Now on the eve of the inquiry CASA suddenly leaps into action.....
As for the blitz being planned in mid 2007 = perhaps ypu can enlighten us with some facts about this planning instead of just relying on the "goss". Whose "goss" is it? CASA's?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Coast
Age: 58
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's OK Clapton, I admit many of the posts on this thread are lost on me.
I was deliberatly unclear in raising the issue of the "Blitz" because I don't actualy know the FACTS. No surprise there, I mean this PPRUNE.
But of course, I suppose that you folks would be good enough to recipricate and produce the facts that CASA has timed the "Blitz" and the Aero tropics AOC thing to coincide with the enquiry.
Surely you will be able to show that there is some other agenda, or perhaps this is just SPECULATION like most of the posts here.
I suspect that you may be in the unimpressed group at the end of the enquiry.
Edit - Just to clear up one bit though
"just before you jump to the keyboards, NO I don't.."
does that make it clear enough.
Tell you what I would be very interested in though.
Maybe you guys could help to make sense out of the Ministers press release of last week. I mean if thats the gov standard, what hope is there for departments trying to operate under them!
Not to mention the confusion it creates to operators like us.
I was deliberatly unclear in raising the issue of the "Blitz" because I don't actualy know the FACTS. No surprise there, I mean this PPRUNE.
But of course, I suppose that you folks would be good enough to recipricate and produce the facts that CASA has timed the "Blitz" and the Aero tropics AOC thing to coincide with the enquiry.
Surely you will be able to show that there is some other agenda, or perhaps this is just SPECULATION like most of the posts here.
I suspect that you may be in the unimpressed group at the end of the enquiry.
Edit - Just to clear up one bit though
"just before you jump to the keyboards, NO I don't.."
does that make it clear enough.
Tell you what I would be very interested in though.
Maybe you guys could help to make sense out of the Ministers press release of last week. I mean if thats the gov standard, what hope is there for departments trying to operate under them!
Not to mention the confusion it creates to operators like us.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob
What appears to have happened here is that rather than suspending the AOC , CASA cancelled the Chief/Check Pilot approval approval - which effectively meant that the AOC was suspended because you can't operate without a chief pilot. However, as the Court pointed out, if CASA had suspended the AOC then that decision would have been automatically stayed. But rather than doing this, CASA tried to circumvent the automatic stay by cancelling the Chief Pilot approval (as a back door means of suspending the AOC) as such decisions are not technically subject to the automatic stay - although the AAT can grant a stay on application under its general powers.,
The court said that CASA's approach was ultra vires because the changes to the Act which were made in 2003 were inteneded to provide a comprehesive and effectiove review of CASA decisions. So CASA can't try to avoid the automatic stay by using this sort of tactic.
On this basis the Court stayed the decision until the AAT had a chance to look at the matter and decide if the Chief/Check pilot decision should be stayed by the AAT under the AAT's general power.
NT;
This came across my desk this evening and I have not read it fully, nor fathom it at this stage.
Although it doesn't say as much in early reading I am prompted that there is an AAT stay in court under 30DC (?) until 21st July 2008.
Lip-Air Pty Limited v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] FCA 866 (5 June 2008)
This came across my desk this evening and I have not read it fully, nor fathom it at this stage.
Although it doesn't say as much in early reading I am prompted that there is an AAT stay in court under 30DC (?) until 21st July 2008.
Lip-Air Pty Limited v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] FCA 866 (5 June 2008)
The court said that CASA's approach was ultra vires because the changes to the Act which were made in 2003 were inteneded to provide a comprehesive and effectiove review of CASA decisions. So CASA can't try to avoid the automatic stay by using this sort of tactic.
On this basis the Court stayed the decision until the AAT had a chance to look at the matter and decide if the Chief/Check pilot decision should be stayed by the AAT under the AAT's general power.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The court said that CASA's approach was ultra vires because the changes to the Act which were made in 2003 were inteneded to provide a comprehesive and effectiove review of CASA decisions. So CASA can't try to avoid the automatic stay by using this sort of tactic.
Hearing starts tomorrow (2 July 08) at 0900 EST. Webcast here: Parliament of Australia: Live Broadcasting
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enquiries are what Politicians call for when they have no idea what's going on. Control of the Senate changes as of today. Senate enquiry. Yeah right.
EMB120ER CASA 'Blitz-es' would be happening all the time or at least they would be according to CASA. The 'announcement' of this one at this time in the north, is pure spindoctor stuff designed for public consumption.
No submissions because those in the industry know that nothing will change
EMB120ER CASA 'Blitz-es' would be happening all the time or at least they would be according to CASA. The 'announcement' of this one at this time in the north, is pure spindoctor stuff designed for public consumption.
No submissions because those in the industry know that nothing will change
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have just been to the Senate Committee page showing submissions - there are 7 on display (if one counts CASA - not on display - that makes 8).
Where is everyone?
Where is everyone?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clapton & Creampuff
Thank you for that information. Thinking overnight, perhaps some submissions may request non-publication. Do we know if they list the submitter by name but no corresponding paper?
One is keen to read the CASA submission.
It also seems strange having some submissions publicised BEFORE the date for submission closes as it enables CASA to review them and gird its loins.
Thank you for that information. Thinking overnight, perhaps some submissions may request non-publication. Do we know if they list the submitter by name but no corresponding paper?
One is keen to read the CASA submission.
It also seems strange having some submissions publicised BEFORE the date for submission closes as it enables CASA to review them and gird its loins.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More rubbery rules?
Why bother publishing a list if only selected submnissions are listed. This sort of behaviour is what the problems really are. Maybe Paul Keating's "banana republic" remark was correct.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy
I hear what you are saying but knowing how aviation and CASA payback works there might well be good reason for some who submit to request their submission - and name - be kept silent.
I hear what you are saying but knowing how aviation and CASA payback works there might well be good reason for some who submit to request their submission - and name - be kept silent.