CASA Chess Game
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sydney NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
preserving? privileges
On the subject of preserving privileges, etc, here is the latest CASA plan for removal of privileges:
Last Saturday, at a Warbirds meeting in Sydney, CASA revealed plans to do away with experimental certification for ex-military aircraft. In about six months, the CASA rep said, any warbirds with experimental certificates will have them cancelled and must re-certify in Limited, because, according to the secretary of AWAL, experimental warbirds are robbing the association of income, he called it “membership leakage”.
This comes on top of the recent CASA announcement to introduce tough new maintenance requirements for experimental home builts. But then, according to the CASA web-site, it looks like the same CASA person is responsible in both cases.
Last Saturday, at a Warbirds meeting in Sydney, CASA revealed plans to do away with experimental certification for ex-military aircraft. In about six months, the CASA rep said, any warbirds with experimental certificates will have them cancelled and must re-certify in Limited, because, according to the secretary of AWAL, experimental warbirds are robbing the association of income, he called it “membership leakage”.
This comes on top of the recent CASA announcement to introduce tough new maintenance requirements for experimental home builts. But then, according to the CASA web-site, it looks like the same CASA person is responsible in both cases.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knee jerking and tautology?
Why so much focus on warbirds and experimentals? I thought CASA's main perogative, there robust charter was to protect the travelling public who choose to fly not knowing the risks, e.g Domestic and International travel?
Most people, industry or not, know that there is an elevated or additional risk flying in a 50 year old warbird or in an experimental aircraft, so why the big changes to CASA's thinking?
Does this mean they are now interested also in the freight industry, all those large jets flying around daily? The same aircraft they weren't interested in before because technically they posed minimal risk to the public?
Or has something else triggered their newfound interest in tightening up the warbird/experimental element?
Watch out warbirders and experimentalists, the Stasi are coming to a field near you!
Most people, industry or not, know that there is an elevated or additional risk flying in a 50 year old warbird or in an experimental aircraft, so why the big changes to CASA's thinking?
Does this mean they are now interested also in the freight industry, all those large jets flying around daily? The same aircraft they weren't interested in before because technically they posed minimal risk to the public?
Or has something else triggered their newfound interest in tightening up the warbird/experimental element?
Watch out warbirders and experimentalists, the Stasi are coming to a field near you!
Blowie,
If you were there at the AWAL AGM, why not mention the interesting performance of the CASA person, when it was pointed out, by somebody with a knowledge of the actual legislation, that many Experimental ex-mil aircraft don't qualify for a Limited Cat. special C.of A.
If CASA want to hand over administration of some Experimental to AWAL, they can, it doesn't need the aircraft to be in Limited Cat.
Perhaps I should also point out that the Act specifically bars CASA from making regulations for commercial purposes.
Tootle pip!!
If you were there at the AWAL AGM, why not mention the interesting performance of the CASA person, when it was pointed out, by somebody with a knowledge of the actual legislation, that many Experimental ex-mil aircraft don't qualify for a Limited Cat. special C.of A.
If CASA want to hand over administration of some Experimental to AWAL, they can, it doesn't need the aircraft to be in Limited Cat.
Perhaps I should also point out that the Act specifically bars CASA from making regulations for commercial purposes.
Tootle pip!!
Perhaps I should also point out that the Act specifically bars CASA from making regulations for commercial purposes.
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
Expressed or implied, the concept of CASA making regulations for commercial purposes surely transgresses their charter?
I am aware of requests for documents under FOI's that are refused due "commercial in confidence". I assume these denials are for operations outside the sphere of CASA influence.
Or are they?
I am aware of requests for documents under FOI's that are refused due "commercial in confidence". I assume these denials are for operations outside the sphere of CASA influence.
Or are they?
“Specifically bars” means expressed, not implied; “Act” means the Act, not the ‘charter’.
This is the sort of confusion that arises when a misunderstood issue does the rounds of the rumour mill and comes out as received wisdom that is entirely wrong.
Here’s what really happened.
The obligation to have an AOC used to apply only to the flying or operation of an aircraft for such commercial purposes as were prescribed. The word “commercial” has been deleted from that section of the Act (section 27(9)).
When the word ‘commercial’ was in section 27(9), it did not mean CASA was allowed to ‘make regulations for commercial purposes’. All it meant was that, out of the range of commercial purposes for which an aircraft might be flown or operated, the AOC requirement only applied to whichever subset of those purposes were prescribed. Now that the word has been deleted, it means that the AOC requirement may be applied to aircraft being flown or operated for any purpose, commercial or otherwise.
Note that deleting the word in fact broadened the potential scope of the AOC requirement, rather than limiting CASA in any way.
This is the sort of confusion that arises when a misunderstood issue does the rounds of the rumour mill and comes out as received wisdom that is entirely wrong.
Here’s what really happened.
The obligation to have an AOC used to apply only to the flying or operation of an aircraft for such commercial purposes as were prescribed. The word “commercial” has been deleted from that section of the Act (section 27(9)).
When the word ‘commercial’ was in section 27(9), it did not mean CASA was allowed to ‘make regulations for commercial purposes’. All it meant was that, out of the range of commercial purposes for which an aircraft might be flown or operated, the AOC requirement only applied to whichever subset of those purposes were prescribed. Now that the word has been deleted, it means that the AOC requirement may be applied to aircraft being flown or operated for any purpose, commercial or otherwise.
Note that deleting the word in fact broadened the potential scope of the AOC requirement, rather than limiting CASA in any way.
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
Can we therefor assume an operator with an AOC in the North West of Australia can have Her business wrecked by people in Canberra who were of the opinion that a Female was not a fit and proper person to carry out the duties of a chief pilot or business manager. Can we also assume this person could be expected to carry her own costs to attend Court cases in Adelaide at her own expenses for travel from The Ord River plus accommodation while CASA procrastinated and sought adjournments at their pleasure and probable amusement.
The system stinks Creampuff. And you know it!
PS. If you are reading this Maxine, PM me, I've lost your contact details. I'll understand if you don't bother, but a few of us are fighting on.
The system stinks Creampuff. And you know it!
PS. If you are reading this Maxine, PM me, I've lost your contact details. I'll understand if you don't bother, but a few of us are fighting on.
CASA deciding that someone is not a fit and proper person is not CASA "making regulations for commercial purposes".
The costs of and strategies available during litigation and merits review are unaffected by regulations made by CASA.
If the system 'stinks', it's because the organ grinders don't wash the monkeys.
The costs of and strategies available during litigation and merits review are unaffected by regulations made by CASA.
If the system 'stinks', it's because the organ grinders don't wash the monkeys.
"Perhaps I should also point out that the Act specifically bars CASA from making regulations for commercial purposes."
LeadSled, we're still eagerly awaiting your reply to Creampuff's question...
LeadSled, we're still eagerly awaiting your reply to Creampuff's question...
MLE,
Be patient, I have been a little busy this week.
Granted, the word "commercial" still appears, as in CAR 206, remnants, as our old mate Creamie knows the history. In fact, he may be able to elucidate (as opposed to hallucinate) on the subject of the history.
Around 1996, the then Government adopted a policy that said CASA was a safety regulator. As I recall in early 2000's, (2003?) the ACT was amended to remove a reference to commercial regulation. As will surprise nobody, the whole Act and regulations were not cleaned up.
Again, as I recall, the subject was dealt with in one of the S.12 directives (Minister's Charter Letter) around that time, giving rise to the amendment to the Act.
As for the amendment to the Act that I recall, I will go look, when I have time. Don't hold your breath.
Of course, the present management of CASA has dumped a lot of what Byron put in place, including the Classification of Activities, which was a risk based approach to regulation, a great pity, for a "classification" that is not ICAO compliant, is not risk based, and will do further damage to the remains of GA.
Once again, we are seeing the damage a "one size fits all" approach --- have you had a serious look at draft Part 135., and Part 145 systems costs attached to small aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
Be patient, I have been a little busy this week.
Granted, the word "commercial" still appears, as in CAR 206, remnants, as our old mate Creamie knows the history. In fact, he may be able to elucidate (as opposed to hallucinate) on the subject of the history.
Around 1996, the then Government adopted a policy that said CASA was a safety regulator. As I recall in early 2000's, (2003?) the ACT was amended to remove a reference to commercial regulation. As will surprise nobody, the whole Act and regulations were not cleaned up.
Again, as I recall, the subject was dealt with in one of the S.12 directives (Minister's Charter Letter) around that time, giving rise to the amendment to the Act.
As for the amendment to the Act that I recall, I will go look, when I have time. Don't hold your breath.
Of course, the present management of CASA has dumped a lot of what Byron put in place, including the Classification of Activities, which was a risk based approach to regulation, a great pity, for a "classification" that is not ICAO compliant, is not risk based, and will do further damage to the remains of GA.
Once again, we are seeing the damage a "one size fits all" approach --- have you had a serious look at draft Part 135., and Part 145 systems costs attached to small aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
That's OK LeadSled - it's that you're always so emphatic with most of your statements (unfortunately with an equally emphatic track record of not being able to substantiate most of them, but I digress...) so I thought this would be a quick and easy one for you this time around...
Cheers.
VH-MLE
Cheers.
VH-MLE
As I recall in early 2000's, (2003?) the ACT was amended to remove a reference to commercial regulation. … As for the amendment to the Act that I recall, I will go look, when I have time. Don't hold your breath.
The amendment was as I described above: All that happened was the word “commercial” was deleted from s 27(9), thus broadening the scope of operations for which an AOC may be required.
That change did the rounds of the rumour mill and came out, as usual, as ‘peace for our time!’
Hook, line and sinker…
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
Ceampuff;
Perhaps I am mistaken with the reference to "commercial" as in an "enterprise" with benefits, not an advertisement for washing detergent.
Let me put a hypothetical to you as I wouldn't want anybody accusing me of putting forth something that "may have occurred". It follows;
Northern Airline/ Charter/ SAR operator is targetted and eventually closed down.
Another less well equipped and less experienced operator is given all the approvals.
Turns out this operator has something unrelated and needed by some mob to help them with running a real big outfit.
Some may even say the real big outfit had CASA do a job on the Northern Airline. There was then a commercial benefit for the less experienced operator, the real big mob at the expense of the original.
Of cause when the less experienced operator prangs and when the dust settles he is given the boot by CASA to cover backsides all around.
Now this sort of thing is what I had in mind as CASA doing business for "commercial" reasons.
When an FOI request is denied due "commercial in confidence", this terminology adds even more confusion to my thinking.
Forgive me for my ignorance.
Perhaps I am mistaken with the reference to "commercial" as in an "enterprise" with benefits, not an advertisement for washing detergent.
Let me put a hypothetical to you as I wouldn't want anybody accusing me of putting forth something that "may have occurred". It follows;
Northern Airline/ Charter/ SAR operator is targetted and eventually closed down.
Another less well equipped and less experienced operator is given all the approvals.
Turns out this operator has something unrelated and needed by some mob to help them with running a real big outfit.
Some may even say the real big outfit had CASA do a job on the Northern Airline. There was then a commercial benefit for the less experienced operator, the real big mob at the expense of the original.
Of cause when the less experienced operator prangs and when the dust settles he is given the boot by CASA to cover backsides all around.
Now this sort of thing is what I had in mind as CASA doing business for "commercial" reasons.
When an FOI request is denied due "commercial in confidence", this terminology adds even more confusion to my thinking.
Forgive me for my ignorance.
If you are saying CASA made decisions purely for the purposes of giving one operator a commercial advantage over another, I say CASA is not allowed to do that.
But you must take care not to mix up cause and effect. Decisions on safety grounds almost invariably have commercial consequences.
Lots of information gathered by CASA for safety purposes is of commercial value to the persons (including commercial entities) to whom that information relates. For example, an operator may have gone to a lot of time and expense to develop an operations manual submitted to CASA to support an application for an AOC, along with financial viability information. CASA is obliged to treat that information as confidential, and is entitled not to disclose documents containing that information on the grounds that it is commercial in confidence, notwithstanding the documents may be within the scope of an FOI request. That’s unless there’s consent to disclosure.
But you must take care not to mix up cause and effect. Decisions on safety grounds almost invariably have commercial consequences.
Lots of information gathered by CASA for safety purposes is of commercial value to the persons (including commercial entities) to whom that information relates. For example, an operator may have gone to a lot of time and expense to develop an operations manual submitted to CASA to support an application for an AOC, along with financial viability information. CASA is obliged to treat that information as confidential, and is entitled not to disclose documents containing that information on the grounds that it is commercial in confidence, notwithstanding the documents may be within the scope of an FOI request. That’s unless there’s consent to disclosure.
Creampuff,
Thanks for that, I am sure that is what I had in mind.
The Classification of Activities (originally Classification of Operations) was intended to be the policy that guided how CASA would apply a level of regulatory intervention commensurate with the risk and consequences of an operation, an entirely rational approach to the allocation of limited resources.
-MLE, please take note.
Tootle pip!!
Thanks for that, I am sure that is what I had in mind.
The Classification of Activities (originally Classification of Operations) was intended to be the policy that guided how CASA would apply a level of regulatory intervention commensurate with the risk and consequences of an operation, an entirely rational approach to the allocation of limited resources.
-MLE, please take note.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sydney NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled
You’re quite right LeadSled, experimental aircraft shouldn’t have to re-certify in Limited, nevertheless, that was the CASA announcement;
There’s another reg (CAR 262AN) that says Limited aircraft have to operate under someone like AWAL unless CASA says otherwise, so I guess they think the only way to force those experimental aircraft into AWAL admin is to force them into Limited cat. Might work for some.
CASA can say they don’t have the resources to administer these aircraft so their motivation is therefore ‘safety’ not ‘commercial’. Safety sounds better, anyway.
There’s a few Limited aircraft floating around that CASA exempted from 262AN years ago. At the meeting, CASA and AWAL said they would also be forced onto AWAL’s books. Wonder if the owners know yet? I bet they'll be pleased to know that they will be much safer that way.
If CASA want to hand over administration of some Experimental to AWAL, they can, it doesn't need the aircraft to be in Limited Cat.
There’s another reg (CAR 262AN) that says Limited aircraft have to operate under someone like AWAL unless CASA says otherwise, so I guess they think the only way to force those experimental aircraft into AWAL admin is to force them into Limited cat. Might work for some.
Perhaps I should also point out that the Act specifically bars CASA from making regulations for commercial purposes.
There’s a few Limited aircraft floating around that CASA exempted from 262AN years ago. At the meeting, CASA and AWAL said they would also be forced onto AWAL’s books. Wonder if the owners know yet? I bet they'll be pleased to know that they will be much safer that way.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original Intent R 206
The clever intellect at CASA way back in the days of the AyaToller identified a major safety issue with Charter Flights this lead to the prompt (14 years) implementation of 135 which has the purpose of removing such dubious or is it proven operations (commercial) from the Australian skies. Bruce Byron at least started it off again, but for some yet Unidentified reason the whole procedure stagnated, but now at least we are winning, bugger the poor passengers who were forced to fly with all those substandard operators for those years, but then in the end the sacrifice will be worth it? Unfortunately the scope of flights will have been severely reduced - unlimited landing sites to a couple of 100 - but imagine the safety now available, especially to those who no longer use Charter.
In 1998 at John Anderson's 2nd reading of the Bill, he happened to mention the intent to remove commercial from legislation. CASA was to concentrate on Safety. R206 happened to use the word commercial in classifying various modes of flight offered to the public. Was The minister's intention to just remove the word or was it for CASA to regulate safety. Why has it taken so long to invoke the Minister's orders. Refer to 2(b) and (c)
The ministers speech is recorded in Hansard - I have it on another computer will let you find it for yourselves.
Safe skies are empty skies!
In 1998 at John Anderson's 2nd reading of the Bill, he happened to mention the intent to remove commercial from legislation. CASA was to concentrate on Safety. R206 happened to use the word commercial in classifying various modes of flight offered to the public. Was The minister's intention to just remove the word or was it for CASA to regulate safety. Why has it taken so long to invoke the Minister's orders. Refer to 2(b) and (c)
ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 13
Material that is part of an Act
************ (1)* All material from and including the first section of an Act to the end of:
******************** (a)* if there are no Schedules to the Act--the last section of the Act; or
******************** (b)* if there are one or more Schedules to the Act--the last Schedule to the Act;
is part of the Act.
************ (2)* The following are also part of an Act:
******************** (a)* the long title of the Act;
******************** (b)* any Preamble to the Act;
******************** (c)* the enacting words for the Act;
******************** (d)* any heading to a Chapter, Part, Division or Subdivision appearing before the first section of the Act.
Material that is part of an Act
************ (1)* All material from and including the first section of an Act to the end of:
******************** (a)* if there are no Schedules to the Act--the last section of the Act; or
******************** (b)* if there are one or more Schedules to the Act--the last Schedule to the Act;
is part of the Act.
************ (2)* The following are also part of an Act:
******************** (a)* the long title of the Act;
******************** (b)* any Preamble to the Act;
******************** (c)* the enacting words for the Act;
******************** (d)* any heading to a Chapter, Part, Division or Subdivision appearing before the first section of the Act.
Safe skies are empty skies!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Anderson - Second Reading 1998
Just to help Stan:
and a worthwhile read:
To Hell with the rules! – aviationadvertiser.com.au
On December 9, 1998, John Anderson, then Minister for Transport and Regional Services, told the House in a second reading speech:
In July 1996 the government announced that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, would conduct a complete review of the civil aviation legislation in Australia, with the objectives of harmonising it with international standards of safety regulation and making it shorter, simpler and easier to use and understand. This was also an election commitment in the government’s “Soaring into tomorrow” aviation policy statement. The Morris Plane safe report and the Seaview commission of inquiry both supported the need for a review of Australian regulations and standards.
The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the findings of the review and provides for the introduction of a new set of regulations which are harmonised with civil aviation laws internationally……….The amendments proposed in this bill will facilitate the long awaited introduction of a regulatory regime for the Australian aviation industry which is not only harmonised with international practice but clear, concise and outcome focused. The government’s commitment to deliver this objective has been realised.
In July 1996 the government announced that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, would conduct a complete review of the civil aviation legislation in Australia, with the objectives of harmonising it with international standards of safety regulation and making it shorter, simpler and easier to use and understand. This was also an election commitment in the government’s “Soaring into tomorrow” aviation policy statement. The Morris Plane safe report and the Seaview commission of inquiry both supported the need for a review of Australian regulations and standards.
The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the findings of the review and provides for the introduction of a new set of regulations which are harmonised with civil aviation laws internationally……….The amendments proposed in this bill will facilitate the long awaited introduction of a regulatory regime for the Australian aviation industry which is not only harmonised with international practice but clear, concise and outcome focused. The government’s commitment to deliver this objective has been realised.
To Hell with the rules! – aviationadvertiser.com.au
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GAOB policy
CP for a moment there I was believing your approach to comment to be favoring impartiality but goes to show how wrong one can be. The CASA indoctrination may nev wash off. It's difficult to unlearn, old habits et al.
1/ Interesting question! Yes you and I know that, but does CASA.
2/ I believe that there would be many cases out there where CASA operatives have assisted mates to the commercial detriment of another by using some spurious excuse for prosecution. I can identify one FOI who approached students and suggested they go to another school! No safety issues!
As to it being the sole purpose? Hard to prove without ALL the facts. I think Ord River Air Charter may be one such case. When my matter is published you may change your mind on intent. apart from the Clinton McKenzie policy document there was no basis for prosecution, internal emails will reveal all! So that will be your one event I can prove. Just be patient
Creampuff
*
CASA’s job has always been to regulate for safety.
When, precisely, has CASA ever made a decision based only on the commercial consequences of the decision?
*
CASA’s job has always been to regulate for safety.
When, precisely, has CASA ever made a decision based only on the commercial consequences of the decision?
2/ I believe that there would be many cases out there where CASA operatives have assisted mates to the commercial detriment of another by using some spurious excuse for prosecution. I can identify one FOI who approached students and suggested they go to another school! No safety issues!
As to it being the sole purpose? Hard to prove without ALL the facts. I think Ord River Air Charter may be one such case. When my matter is published you may change your mind on intent. apart from the Clinton McKenzie policy document there was no basis for prosecution, internal emails will reveal all! So that will be your one event I can prove. Just be patient