CASA Chess Game
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
a central group to manage ICAO and publish standards and update rules or guidance as appropriate, a licensing section, a registration section, an educational and training section, and safety research. That is it.
Time to excise the bureaucratic cancer and start anew I say.
NZ or PNG CAA can run the show while they work that out.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA should be abolished
What an enlightened piece of writing grip-pipe! This sort op thinking can move us out of the antiquated ways of the past. Wouldn't everybody in aviation feel liberated if the useless incompetent obstructive monstrosity that CASA has become would cease to exist.
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
The "midnight foil fairy" from the bottom from of the garden may be looking for a job soon. Everybody would follow him just out of curiosity.
Moderator
Thread Starter
A further improvement would be a complete, simple and cohesive set of Civil Aviation Regulations.
The review of the CARs has so far taken almost 22 years....
The review of the CARs has so far taken almost 22 years....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will they?
It appears to me that CASA is a law unto themselves and only follow the directions of the Minister or their Director when they feel like it. They appear to be a beaurocracy that no-one has any control of.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Well I remember Laurie Gruzman QC!
I'm sure CASA's problem is the same problem industry has - no clear, concise regulations.
I'm sure CASA's problem is the same problem industry has - no clear, concise regulations.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grip-pipe You wrote:
"My source tells me that the Industry Complaints Commissioner left to reinvigorate and pursue a legal career as a Barrister in NSW, and intends to practice in criminal law, aviation law and administrative law and on that basis has nothing public to offer at the moment. I believe he is quietly helping out a couple of our older drivers who have fallen foul of CASA and their employers."
It would be a bit hard for him to practise as a barrister or solicitor (or any other form of law - including giving legal advice) when he doesn't have a law degree. Perhaps he should do some proper legal studies first and get a law degree.
See the following exchange in the Senate:
Senator HEFFERNAN
"My source tells me that the Industry Complaints Commissioner left to reinvigorate and pursue a legal career as a Barrister in NSW, and intends to practice in criminal law, aviation law and administrative law and on that basis has nothing public to offer at the moment. I believe he is quietly helping out a couple of our older drivers who have fallen foul of CASA and their employers."
It would be a bit hard for him to practise as a barrister or solicitor (or any other form of law - including giving legal advice) when he doesn't have a law degree. Perhaps he should do some proper legal studies first and get a law degree.
See the following exchange in the Senate:
Senator HEFFERNAN
—Are you a lawyer?
Mr Hart
—No, I am not a practising lawyer.
Senator HEFFERNAN
—So why do you say the law? What bit of the law are you in—bush
law? Or are you an articled clerk?
Mr Hart
Mr Hart
—No. I studied initially in the bush and at the University of New England.
Senator HEFFERNAN
—You did not complete your exams?
Mr Hart—I have not completed them, no.
From what I understand his "legal studies" were minimal. So how can he be pursuing a career as a Barrister
Mr Hart—I have not completed them, no.
From what I understand his "legal studies" were minimal. So how can he be pursuing a career as a Barrister
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
I've held off this thread to se what popped up and am a bit disappointed to see it go without comment on Laurie Gruzman QC who I shared my early days of flying at the old Aviation Centre/ Business Aviation/ Nesbo Aviation, Marion St Bankstown, + something to do with Bristol Sycamore helicopters/ and of course the PADS system developed by Laurie. Plus of course the lost souls of Gerrie Grandt, Ray McLean and a plethora of others either with us or departed.
You may remember Laurie as the defending lawyer in the Alexander and Thomas Barton matter.
He is best remembered and preferably forgotten by the powers who annoyed him to death because of PADS. (Precision aerial dropping system), that set the benchmark for modern day air sea rescue.
I sincerely hope someone with the guts can come on here and accurately denounce the Bureaucratic $hit he went through so others may benefit by both from his insight and awareness that the same $hit is still going on today.
Different players, different advisors, same chess game, same attitude.
You may remember Laurie as the defending lawyer in the Alexander and Thomas Barton matter.
He is best remembered and preferably forgotten by the powers who annoyed him to death because of PADS. (Precision aerial dropping system), that set the benchmark for modern day air sea rescue.
I sincerely hope someone with the guts can come on here and accurately denounce the Bureaucratic $hit he went through so others may benefit by both from his insight and awareness that the same $hit is still going on today.
Different players, different advisors, same chess game, same attitude.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank,
It's second hand, but I understand that PADS was looked at by the military; specifically their research and development unit (ARDU). I just happen to have a relative who knew these guys because they were kind enough to assist (in their own time) with getting a particular sort of sporty homebuilt flyable.
Word was that PADS, as assessed by these guys, was dangerous. It's a long time back, but I seem to remember it went to the way that the tether was deployed and the risk of it getting sucked back.
I do not claim to be an authority, but I gather that despite the publicity at the time (including airtime on TV), PADS was not all it was cracked up to be.
It's second hand, but I understand that PADS was looked at by the military; specifically their research and development unit (ARDU). I just happen to have a relative who knew these guys because they were kind enough to assist (in their own time) with getting a particular sort of sporty homebuilt flyable.
Word was that PADS, as assessed by these guys, was dangerous. It's a long time back, but I seem to remember it went to the way that the tether was deployed and the risk of it getting sucked back.
I do not claim to be an authority, but I gather that despite the publicity at the time (including airtime on TV), PADS was not all it was cracked up to be.
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
Yes, it's a story in its own right, probably worth investigating because the basic concept was sound. Drag a rope over the target and drop the gear.
I think there were incidents of life threatening nature around Merimbula at the time that could have been addressed but powers to be stopped it.
Similar thing happened when a twin engine helicopter couldn't be found and a circling F27 had to leave left some poor sod to drown in Bass Strait. There were a stack of single engine machines ready, available, and willing to help.
Perhaps someone else can shed some light.
The end result of these examples is that instead of "fostering" to help improve the basic principles the "regulator" just worked on what was in black and white and people died.
No flexibility, no common sense, no duty of care above beyond the dogmatic written word of the day. Remember the definition of a "MERCY FLIGHT"- Pull that one today and see what happens.
Stupidity still happens and in logarithmatically increasing proportions perpetrated by mindless narrow minded overpaid dimwits.
I think there were incidents of life threatening nature around Merimbula at the time that could have been addressed but powers to be stopped it.
Similar thing happened when a twin engine helicopter couldn't be found and a circling F27 had to leave left some poor sod to drown in Bass Strait. There were a stack of single engine machines ready, available, and willing to help.
Perhaps someone else can shed some light.
The end result of these examples is that instead of "fostering" to help improve the basic principles the "regulator" just worked on what was in black and white and people died.
No flexibility, no common sense, no duty of care above beyond the dogmatic written word of the day. Remember the definition of a "MERCY FLIGHT"- Pull that one today and see what happens.
Stupidity still happens and in logarithmatically increasing proportions perpetrated by mindless narrow minded overpaid dimwits.
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
And the Victa unable to get a subsidy sold to NZ and then the manufactured product purchased back as the CT4. That made economic sense.
Why is it so hard to have this as part of the CASA mission statement in light of historical mistakes that we are doomed to have repeated.
"TO FOSTER AND ENCOURAGE CIVIL AVIATION".
Getting CASA to
will never happen because it will require them to do some actual work. They would rather simply hide behind a mish-mash of many outdated and irrelevant regulations than actually do something constructive. These are the same regulations that they have been fafing about with for more that 20 years.
Again I say we need an effective regulator, not the dysfunctional shambles we have at present, the leaders of which have a concerning "management" history.
CC
TO FOSTER AND ENCOURAGE CIVIL AVIATION
Again I say we need an effective regulator, not the dysfunctional shambles we have at present, the leaders of which have a concerning "management" history.
CC
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
Out of interest I "googled" the following;
Mission Statement Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand.
To manage safety and security risks in New Zealand through the implementation of efficient oversight, regulatory, and promotional action.
CAA UK.
To provide the best practice regulation and expert advice that are independent and enable civil aviation to best meet the needs of its users and society in a safe and sustainable manner.
We will achieve our mission and values by (among other things), fostering a culture where safety is paramount.
FAA US.
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Our vision is to improve the safety and efficiency of flight. We are responsive to our customers and are accountable to the taxpayer and the flying public.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia.
Does not appear to have a mission statement, but does have a Charter extracted as follows;
The purpose of this Charter is to describe to the public and the aviation community, the service experience that can be expected in dealing with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and its staff.
We have a responsibility to inform people about their rights and responsibilities, including the right to expect high standards of service and behaviour from CASA officers.
We believe that people who are better informed and have a clearer understanding of legislative requirements are better able to comply with the rules and regulations in the maintenance of air safety. This in turn will enhance aviation safety levels in Australia.
The CASA Service Charter sets out our feedback process, so that you can let us know how well we are implementing our Service levels and how we can improve our service to you.
The Charter also sets out our Complaints Handling procedure so that you can let us know if you are dissatisfied with the standards of service you have received or are unhappy with a decision made by CASA staff. We believe that it is in everybody’s interests to resolve complaints efficiently and effectively.
Reports on our performance against this Service Charter will be included in our Annual Report.
This Charter forms part of CASA’s strategic planning and reporting system, which is based on the Corporate Plan. It has been developed in accordance with the Whole of Government approach detailed in the Department of Finance and Administration publication ‘Client Service Charter Principles’. It has been prepared in consultation with staff, other relevant agencies and a broad cross section of the aviation community.
We will seek stakeholders’ views on the Charter’s effectiveness on a regular basis and use this information to improve our services.
Mission Statement Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand.
To manage safety and security risks in New Zealand through the implementation of efficient oversight, regulatory, and promotional action.
CAA UK.
To provide the best practice regulation and expert advice that are independent and enable civil aviation to best meet the needs of its users and society in a safe and sustainable manner.
We will achieve our mission and values by (among other things), fostering a culture where safety is paramount.
FAA US.
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Our vision is to improve the safety and efficiency of flight. We are responsive to our customers and are accountable to the taxpayer and the flying public.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia.
Does not appear to have a mission statement, but does have a Charter extracted as follows;
The purpose of this Charter is to describe to the public and the aviation community, the service experience that can be expected in dealing with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and its staff.
We have a responsibility to inform people about their rights and responsibilities, including the right to expect high standards of service and behaviour from CASA officers.
We believe that people who are better informed and have a clearer understanding of legislative requirements are better able to comply with the rules and regulations in the maintenance of air safety. This in turn will enhance aviation safety levels in Australia.
The CASA Service Charter sets out our feedback process, so that you can let us know how well we are implementing our Service levels and how we can improve our service to you.
The Charter also sets out our Complaints Handling procedure so that you can let us know if you are dissatisfied with the standards of service you have received or are unhappy with a decision made by CASA staff. We believe that it is in everybody’s interests to resolve complaints efficiently and effectively.
Reports on our performance against this Service Charter will be included in our Annual Report.
This Charter forms part of CASA’s strategic planning and reporting system, which is based on the Corporate Plan. It has been developed in accordance with the Whole of Government approach detailed in the Department of Finance and Administration publication ‘Client Service Charter Principles’. It has been prepared in consultation with staff, other relevant agencies and a broad cross section of the aviation community.
We will seek stakeholders’ views on the Charter’s effectiveness on a regular basis and use this information to improve our services.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank,
I'm not an making excuses for CASA, but your statement that CASA:
is incorrect.
CASA's mission statement is at Civil Aviation Safety Authority - About CASA as follows:
Whether CASA's achieving (or is in fact actually capable of achieving) that mission seems to be the main issue here I think. 
I'm not an making excuses for CASA, but your statement that CASA:
Does not appear to have a mission statement...
CASA's mission statement is at Civil Aviation Safety Authority - About CASA as follows:
To enhance and promote aviation safety through effective safety regulation and by encouraging industry to deliver high standards of safety