Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

Old 6th Apr 2013, 07:03
  #1421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
PM: Oleo, Stan was legless. We found a camel taxi which was prepared to take him home, sent Gobbles along to keep an eye; GD told him it was a magic carpet ride ('cos wuz furry and moved funny). Last seen heading roughly Southeast, bottle in one hand, cigar in t'other singing his version of the pirates song (full volume) which seemed entirely appropriate, but none the less truly remarkable, considering the state he was in.
Kharon, although I appreciate the attention I got with my send off last night. The fact that now all Ppruners know of my condition upon leaving bothers me as I'm the only one who can't remember. It does explain the headache and the sore throat.
Stan van de Wiel is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2013, 22:44
  #1422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
The Jekyll & Hyde syndrome – examined.

Phelan has recently posted a very interesting article, you may or may not (as pleases) agree with the context or the conclusion; but, for a quiet Sunday morning read it's hard to beat. For my two bob, the argument is hard to beat, anyway. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to ensure it is brought to the attention of our Wodger, just as food for thought. I think the article highlights the Jekyll & Hyde performance under discussion very well.

Be warned: the new website is not fully 'seen' by search engines; you may need to copy the link into the "paste & go" address bar of your browser. Publish and be Damned – Case Study | Pro Aviation. I'll try to get the PPRuNe link system to find it. But, worth a coffee?, I think so.....
Begins : "This analysis of the ten allegations against the operator demonstrates that the suspension of the AOC was not necessary “in the immediate interests of safety” without examining whether the unsubstantiated allegations had merit. In other words, had CASA been motivated to assure the operator was a compliant operator rather than a discredited operator, initiatives were available to its officials to achieve that assurance without exercising sanctions which had the inevitable outcome of closing down a commercial aviation operation at the peak of a business season. The allegations and an analysis of their validity and Civil Aviation Safety Authority responses are detailed below."
Concludes: "If the Civil Aviation Safety Authority became aware of any safety-related allegations against operators, scrutinised and evaluated them as to whether they would be sustainable in a court of law, and did not ground the aircraft concerned until the alleged errors were rectified; or did not have the matters rectified immediately, then the Civil Aviation Safety Authority must itself be guilty of negligence."

The question of whether the publication of unsubstantiated allegations constitutes a defamation never came before a court.

However the owner was charged in the Cairns District Court with the 10 alleged offences. He was found guilty on the dangerous goods charge and fined $600 for that offence, which is a minor technical one. Like most seaplane operators he made a practice of carrying a jerry can of two-stroke motor fuel in a locker in one of the aircraft’s floats in case a boat tending the aircraft ran out of fuel. The actual offence was carrying the fuel without having a supplement in its Operations Manual to describe the dangerous goods precautions taken. The other nine charges were dismissed.

Last edited by Kharon; 6th Apr 2013 at 22:56. Reason: Pondering recent meetings in FNQ - very interesting.
Kharon is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 02:25
  #1423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
I do find amusing the way in which the patent inconsistency in logic is dealt with.

CASA must prove its allegations in court!

OK then.

CASA (actually the CDDP) proves the charge of carriage of dangerous goods in court.

Whoops. Errrrm .... that's inconvenient.

So let's just call it "a minor technical" crime.

Of course, the people best able to judge the seriousness or otherwise of crimes are not judges ...

And are we sure the other charges were "dismissed"? There's a vast, vast difference between charges being "dismissed" (that is, found by the court not to have been proved) and charges being "discharged without conviction" (which can only occur if the charges are found by the court to have been proved first ). Perhaps the other charges were "dismissed", but I've seen enough of Mr Phelan's stories to remain ever-sceptical of their accuracy.

That said, if the extracts of the correspondence from CASA to the operator are accurate, evidently someone in CASA (at least back then) didn't have a clue about what CAR 47 required (or, more accurately, didn't require) in the circumstances.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 03:59
  #1424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East of YRTI
Posts: 223
G & S

Or from the Mikado - "Defer, defer, to the noble lord, etc etc."

or

"The Lord High Executioner"
It just goes on and on.
Grrreat stuff !!!
kimwestt is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 09:26
  #1425 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 1,054
the operator claimed they couldn't workout a solution
If CASA keeps on saying "not compliant" without elaborating, to whom do you turn to to get it resolved.

It appears once individuals in CASA have determined a course of action, nothing will convince them otherwise, even if their peers have accepted it before.

There are more that one way of skinning a cat, but in aviation, it can only be CASA's way or you are out the door or before the AAT.

We really need a separation of issuance, compliance and policing.

If this is not attainable, an independent standards section within CASA staffed by a mix from industry and CASA that is directly accessible by industry and CASA without prejudice. Decisions made by the section to be published so industry and CASA staff have precedents on which decisions and interpretations can be made with some certainty.

Or is this a bridge to far?
601 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 09:38
  #1426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,261
Creampuffery and etc....

Actually Puffy FYI... CASA must provide a brief of evidence that will make their case "beyond reasonable doubt" in a court of law....and will all likelihood the result of a conviction.
The CDPP evaluate that brief and if its a "goer" they take it to court to do the prosecuton on CASA's behalf.

BUT...as in the case of J Quadrio CASA's dicky brief and "evidence" they supplied led the CDPP NOT to have a "go" in court on CASA's behalf.

No matter...with his licence suspended and not returned after a AAT hearing..thus he is seriously penalised ...no job, no income and NO CONVICTION in a court of law. !!!
How's that for JUSTAR$E...the CASA way !

I'm sure pruners are well aware of the distinction of 'case dismissed', or 'no conviction recorded'.

What do you say when CASA produces a brief of Class A BullSh*t to the CDPP..who decide to run with it because they do not know they have been presented with BS, as their aviation expertise does not run to having that knowlege.
CDPP accepts it because A... they believe it to be true, and B.. because they also consider they can obtain a conviction on the "evidence" provided by CASA.
When the CDPP was advised it was a load of bollocks and bs, they dropped it like the sh*tty stick that it was. (With a no cost claim proviso)
THEY didnt want to have to pay for CASA's "lemon"

So.. what happens in court. They certainly don't say to the Magistrate ..'This case will not proceed because we have countervailing evidence from the accused that leads us to believe that the brief is untrue therefore it is highly unlikely we will obtain a conviction as CASA seeks.'
It simply passes off as .. 'NO evidence tendered'. The charge is thus "struck out".
And everybody can just fcuk off home happy and off the hook.
Except for the victim. Justar$e is served. The CASA way.

Over the years Ive seen and heard so much bullsh*t come out of CASA and the mouths of some "staff" persons that I am HIGHLY SCEPTICAL.
Remember..whatever it takes...any old bullsh*t will do.
The CASA way
aroa is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 10:02
  #1427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Is the UN an avenue of consideration?

Aroa, I agree with your point. I also cannot accept (but understand it is allowed to occur) that a government organisation such as CASA is allowed to, on occasions, bankrupt an innocent person/company on the premise they did wrong when it is proven they didn't do wrong, they are innocent, yet they can still lose everything with no recourse?
I agree that this is horses#it, it is not democratic nor is it moral.
Now my question, or should I say a thought is this (and no I haven't been drinking VH-MOLE) "is there an avenue that Australians who are victims of this sort of process can appeal to such as the United Nations" when all else fails? Aren't the UN the champions of people's rights when the people are being screwed by their governments? Now that Australia has bought it's seat on the UN Counsel would this now mean Australia has a duty of care in cases such as Quadrio and others where compensation should, no MUST be provided when one is found innocent? Because currently CASA with the full backing of the Australian Government is allowe to act like a third world dictatorship. Aren't these very actions contravening human rights in a democratic society?

I know this proposal seems far fetched, I agree, but FFS Government departments in Australia are allowed to bully the innocent, bankrupt the innocent, betray the innocent.
Creampuff and co, you obviously know the more intricate legal aspects of CASA actions, have you pondered the above scenario re the UN?

Those who have never been destroyed by CASA will scoff at the mere suggestion, and that is fair enough. But if you haven't experienced their level of moral decay firsthand please don't respond with smartarse replies. Those who are innocent and have lost everything at the hands of this uncontained government wrecking ball have you also considered at some stage whether UN involvement is plausible, even possible, and worthy of consideration? Just curious.

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 7th Apr 2013 at 10:06.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 11:17
  #1428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
So: For whom will you all vote at the next election?

Dumb?

Or Dumber?

You’ll all shuffle off to the voting booth like beasts to the slaughter, and then wonder why GA continues to get slaughtered.

Just blame those lawyers in CASA for another decade, and something will change.

Fools.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 11:26
  #1429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Shirley, please don't tell me you are advocating public disobedience?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 12:19
  #1430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Kharon, interesting link to the Phelan article.
Section 28 has always been CASA's 'get out of jail free card' or 'ace up the sleeve'. If they are after your scalp and have no firm evidence against a regulation they can pull out section 28 which doesn't specify a rule or regulation. CASA can basically pull out a list of prior, sometimes unproven minor sins and say that under section 28 of the act we no longer have confidence in your ability to operate safely and are therefore removing your AOC or COA. It's happened more than once before I can assure you.

Again, we have a bureaucracy that has been legally granted and structured to have ultimate unaccountable power.This power in the hands of bullies, sociopaths, sycophants and other assorted nutjobs with tremendous egos and tiny penises is a recipe for disaster. The performance of the CASA over recent decades reflects an indulgence and addiction to this bottomless pit of power they have grown obese from feeding on.

"Aviation, what aviation?"
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 12:55
  #1431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
"History never repeats.."

Thank god we moved on from Gilbert and Sullivan!

So back (briefly) to Phelan’s ‘Publish and be damned – Case Study’, here’s a quote from that article;
“The allegations were based on information provided by three pilots who were all known to one another, working in unison, after one of them had been dismissed.

This analysis of the ten allegations against the operator demonstrates that the suspension of the AOC was not necessary “in the immediate interests of safety” without examining whether the unsubstantiated allegations had merit. In other words, had CASA been motivated to assure the operator was a compliant operator rather than a discredited operator, initiatives were available to its officials to achieve that assurance without exercising sanctions which had the inevitable outcome of closing down a commercial aviation operation at the peak of a business season.”

I’m with Oleo on this and agree to leave the legal shenanigans with Creamy and co. However the similarities to Barrier are quite striking and coupled with the apparent 180 with the FF handling of Pel-Air’s non-compliance issues, well the FF inconsistencies and double standards are gobsmackingly shocking!

So a couple of questions….

Were these alleged non-compliances justification (when compared to the Pel-Air ‘Special Audit’ findings) for grounding an operator?

Did Aquaflight or Barrier get offered a conference to map out a 'Management Action Plan' (like Pel-Air) to rectify non-compliance issues?

The following is quoted from the FF ‘Surveillance Procedures Manual’:
4.2.4 Special Audits

A Special Audit may be planned when:
  • An STI score indicates certificate/permission holder to be a high risk. Certificate/permission holders are prioritised according to their STI score
  • Follow up Safety Alerts and RCAs indicate that the certificate/permission holder is a potential safety risk.
  • Other information suggests the existence of an increased safety risk.
Note: The need for a Special Audit does not necessarily imply the organisation is unfit to hold a certificate/permission.
So going off the other 'due process' requirements of the SPM;
(a) Did either company have an STI weighted score of at least ‘7’?
(b) Or did any previous audits pick up any ‘potential safety’ risk issues that would warrant a ‘Special Audit’? If so why wasn’t a ‘Special Audit’ conducted?
(c) Or did Fort Fumble just rely solely on ‘hearsay evidence’ from current/former employees? (If in doubt always pick (c)!)

Anyway enough of the thread drift…

Oleo said:
Sarcs, SAR's are usually kept out of reach, deep within the bowels of TRIM, and robustly locked away. Unless you have access to the CASA pony pooh TRIM system, or someone internal to FF leaks these reports to PAIN, or the Senators ask for copies of said reports, they will remain an integral part of the 'mystique of aviation', mysterious, hidden, guarded by Herr Skulls Rottweilers and not to be shown publicly.
Ah yes the ‘commercial in confidence’ thingy! So what or whom is the CIC clause really protecting?

Seems to me that in Pel-Air’s case they were quite willing to make certain parts of the Special Audit and the subsequent MAP progress available to the ATSB (and hence the public), which kind of makes good commercial sense if you’re wanting to regain the confidence of your current and future customers.

Note: Pel-Air would also have been asked (as per the FOI Act) and been in agreement for CAsA to release the Pel-Air ‘Special Audit Report’ and the 2008 ‘T&C Audit Report’, which were both FOI requests for documents and subsequently published on the FF FOI disclosure log.

Meanwhile Fort Fumble seemed pretty keen to shelf-ware the SAR/FRMS SAR etc, even at the risk of breaching section 24 of the TSI Act...go figure??

The amount of damning information revealed in this inquiry tests the veracity and also suggests a preconceived ‘outcome bias’ by Fort Fumble in the surveillance and enforcement process of the Pel-Air operation.

This alone should have all operators/pilots, which have ended up on the wrong side of the ledger of a FF enforcement action, reaching for their copies of the FF SAR or Part IIIA investigation reports, licence suspension letters etc (if those operators/pilots haven’t got a copy put in a FOI request for them, as the Pel-Air situation sets the precedent that you should be privy to those reports).

Oh well all ‘passing strange’…now back to my Sundy night in front of the box like a fellow 'fool' contemplating the 'dumb' and 'dumber' implications of the world's longest election campaign (outside of the US) and what it all might mean??

"History never repeats
I tell myself before I go to sleep
Don't say the words you might regret
I've lost before you know I can't forget"

Split Enz 1981

Last edited by Sarcs; 7th Apr 2013 at 13:21. Reason: sorry Oleo bit slow off the mark..oh well it is a Sundy!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 13:23
  #1432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
CASA (actually the CDDP) proves the charge of carriage of dangerous goods in court.
Talking about carriage of dangerous goods, who were these brave lads who refused to fly the cargo and reported the same. Good thing they didn't do the flight(s) or CAsA would have them up on charges!!!

But if the flights couldn't happen because of refusal by the pilots (commendable) how can the company be at fault for an act that couldn't have taken place? Or we're there Drones involved? The thick plottens!

Oh for those safe empty skies.
Stan van de Wiel is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 15:50
  #1433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Unhappy S24 of the TSIA 03

Well folks, I'm a bit confused about the constant references to s24 of the TSIA 03.

I think someone intimated that the Chief Commissioner, by keeping his pennies in his purse and reducing the scope of the investigation to nothing useful, somehow breached a section of the Act that he is required to administer. So where does the line exist between his statutory agency management responsibilities and conducting open-ended investigations?

In a technical sense, can he authorise his own behaviour under paragraph 24(1)(d), thus rendering the allegation moot?

As for CASA (or anyone else for that matter), can they be guilty of an offence under subsection 24(1) by not volunteering information that may in hindsight be relevant? If the ATSB does not request certain information because they don't care, what duty of disclosure exists?

Presumably, the ATSB is the normal complainant of record for breaches of the TSIA 03. I wonder who might charge the Chief Commissioner with a breach of his "own" Act?

Creamie, are you able to help me out here?

Stay Alive,

Last edited by 4dogs; 7th Apr 2013 at 15:51.
4dogs is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 21:42
  #1434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,609
The "donate" button at the new website doesn't work.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 21:57
  #1435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Sti process

Sarcs,

An STI score indicates certificate/permission holder to be a high risk. Certificate/permission holders are prioritised according to their STI score
Is the Sti process the 20 questions telephone survey? I had heard that is how some offices carried out the process?! But I thought it was supposed to be done on site.

Getting close to 300k views on this thread.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 22:30
  #1436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Of questionable interest

Interesting questions 4 Dogs – and, no doubt there is at least; a new swimming pool (or two), a Childs education and a shopping trip to Europe each, for the bevy of lawyers needed to untangle the legal spaghetti created by this mess. CASA have had some 20 years to perfect regulations and policy, drafted solely to suit their purpose.

Sarcs has spotted the more pragmatic; earthbound arguments discussed by the Phelan in the article. The solutions on offer and proposed for resolving the Operator's issues have not been generally utilised, ask any one of half a dozen closed down operators. The exception which proves the rule is Pel Air.

Esoteric, perceived breaches of the TSIA may well be fascinating and 'technically' the ATSB/CASA team may be pure as the driven snow; their problem is not one of legality but of credibility. Tiger – grounded by some very thin administrative 'policy' issues at a critical juncture. Airtex – eradicated for lesser alleged 'crimes'; Barrier – facing euthanasia same - same story; the list goes on. Point is, the soft, proactive options available were not ever utilised, with the one stand out exception, Pel Air.

CASA Bankstown management is famed for a 'no prisoners' attitude; mothers use the BK Chronicles to scare naughty children. Some of the written statements made to justify a tenuous position, or when utilising a thin grasp on the extremes of operational law to enforce an argument are the stuff of legend. The management of the Pel Air investigation has the infamous "Wabitt" paw marks all over it and all of the usual ruthless management 'style'; it 'did' for DJ. Yet suddenly, in the midst of slaughter, soft options abound, management plans are offered and accepted at the drop of a hat and a record time is set for a return to full service operations, over a Christmas period!! Suddenly soft options for everyone is the mantra, except DJ. Maybe it was just the Christmas spirit, but I doubt it. Many operators and pilots would very much appreciate a softer option or two and only be held up eight days while they 'reinvent' their act and are gently placed back on the road to recovery with a pat on the head from a benign, honest, helpful, cooperative, administrator.. Fat chance – right.

Last edited by Kharon; 7th Apr 2013 at 22:55. Reason: Who are you and what have you done with Creamy?????
Kharon is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 22:56
  #1437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,609
"Scores" or box ticking is an old consultants trick often made up to achieve a desired result, done it myself.

The "STI" (what does that mean?) is meaningless in a Court of Law, or anywhere else for that matter, unless and until the regulator can produce a peer reviewed scientific study, backed by serious statisitcal research which proves conclusively that there is a direct causal link between the STI score of an organisation and the probability of a safety incident or accident involving that organisation. I assume CASA has published such a study.

It isn't rocket science, the medical industry has developed dozens of such "scores" that are used to predict outcomes and hence treatment regimens - for example, my partners cancer was scored as "3C" on the Duke University scorecard which meant that she was having Six months on a prescribed Chemotherapy regimen on the basis that a study of some 5000 patients indicated with a high level of statistical accuracy that such a regimen would produce best results for that severity indicator.

Without that, scores are just mumbo jumbo and a good QC will tear the "system" to shreds in a few minutes if it ever went to court.

Last edited by Sunfish; 7th Apr 2013 at 22:59.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 23:14
  #1438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Sunfish, nice post. You understand risk assessment.

Sti - safety trend indicator.

Casa was supposed to be moving to risk based audits. To do that you'd require good risk assessment. I think there is more to it than the sti.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 23:31
  #1439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Just a brief update to my thoughts previously of the UN. After talking to a few of the Bar Room Barristers it was mentioned that in cases such as Quadrio, if a complete injustice is unearthed is an appeal to the European Union plausible? As Australia is not a member I am guessing there is no scope for someone to appeal to the EU. However as has been mentioned endlessly for many years now, there are many innocent Australian people who have been victimised by our own government departments. This has to be a breach of human rights and civil liberties, surely? Again, appealing to the UN or EU could be a last stop effort to attain justice when all else fails? It is a disgrace that we should have to even contemplate such measures however the draconian non democratic approach that Auatralian government has taken on certain issues does make one start to think.

Then again, we have given $5 billion to the EU's lacky the IMF to support the bailout of corrupt countries whose incompetence, wreckless spending and malfeasance has contributed to their parlous positions. There must be some sort of connection we can call upon?

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 7th Apr 2013 at 23:36.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 23:32
  #1440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,609
One wonders about the regulations sometimes and I wonder if one can be forgiven for thinking that they are designed to produce uncertainty? If that is the case, then an awful lot of responsibility falls on the head of individual CASA staff to "interpret" what they mean.

By way of example, an aquaintance attended NATFLY recently and received the usual ramp check by CASA which appears common at all aviation events - which is the reason I never attend them by air.

This resulted in a discussion with the CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) when my acquaintance politely asked the simple question: "Why will not CASA issue a simple plain English list of the minimum regulatory requirements for the legal execution of a single piston engine aircraft VFR flight?

The FOI's response was that "all aircraft are different" and that therefore it was "too complicated" to construct such a list.

One has to wonder about this. PPRuNe and other websites are chock full of threads asking this very question in a variety of ways.

For example, a pilot is required by regulation to avail himself of the current weather forecast for his destination and perhaps alternates. Compliance with this will vary between carrying up to half a dozen pages of weather forecasts and NOTAMS, downloading such data via NAIPS onto an electronic device to a few cryptic notes on the back of a map if the pilot obtained his forecast by radio or telephoone as he is legally allowed. Yet where is there a simple statement of what is always acceptable to CASA?

Similarly we are required to have performed a "weight and balance" computation before flight using the aircrafts prescribed loading system computation method. There are a good dozen computer applications that will perform this calculation for you and record the result, but as CASA correctly points out, none of these applications are certified by the aircrafts manufacturer and are therefore technically illegal to use as a record of having performed the calculation.

So what if I simply perform the calculation electronically and write down the results? Is that legal? What if I do it all manually if I make an arithmetic mistake? Is that safer?

What evidence does CASA want to see? A written computation for every flight? If so, I am in error when I tour because I do the numbers to ensure that we are well within the weight and balance envelope with full fuel and all our possessions and gear and provided we don't add anything, I don't do it again for the remainder of the trip (since there is no zero fuel weights, etc. involved) is that strictly legal? Should I just xerox copies of it and change the date and destination each leg? Do I need to do the calculation again after a quick fuel and loo stop in Echuca on our way to our final destination? Again, what is incontrovertibly acceptable to all CASA FOIs?

Then allegedly there is a requirement for fuel log. My calculation is usually the back of a NAIPS fflight plan form. Is that enough? Can I do that electronically?

Then there is the question of certified gear. I have yet to see a certified Cessna tie down net on any aircraft I've hired. How should I then comply with the sensible requirement to restrain baggage? My solution has been to either use rope or a couple of Tie down ratchet systems from Bunnings, but is this legal? What is worse? Unrestrained baggage or fitting an aircraft with an unapproved part - to whit, a pice of rope?

The list of such anomalies and uncertainties appears to me and others as endless and I don't believe I see any evidence that the situation is going to change any time soon.

What concerns me is that pilots are spending too much time and effort on legal niceties instead of what really matters - robust safety practices, and that must be of concern to all of us. Being legal isn't the same as being safe.

Last edited by Sunfish; 7th Apr 2013 at 23:40.
Sunfish is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.