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

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

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

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Old 14th Feb 2014, 05:43
  #341 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17

I agree with your comments about the AAAA submission. It's very perceptive and accurate.

However, I'm not sure about your comment that:

"The fundamental constraint that ‘outsiders’ overlook is that the CASA Board can’t make or unmake decisions to e.g. refuse, suspend or revoke an AOC. The CASA Board can’t direct a delegate to make or not make a regulatory decision."

I think it's true that the Board can't direct delegates how to exercise their delegated powers. But I think that the Board can probably issue, suspend, revoke AOCs etc. This is because such regulatory powers (and most powers) are given to "CASA".

Subsection 53(3) of the Civil Aviation Act unambiguously states that -

"(3) All acts and things done in the name of, or on behalf of, CASA by the Board are taken to have been done by CASA."

So if the Board issued an AOC (or refused to issue or revoked an AOC) in the name of, or on behalf of CASA, then that would be a lawful exercise of CASA's power. However, no doubt the Board would not want to actually exercise any regulatory powers for fear of getting it wrong and being accountable.

This is the same sort of power that the Director uses under s 73(2) of the Act which says that:

"(2) All acts and things done in the name of, or on behalf of, CASA by the Director are taken to have been done by CASA."

What do you make of subsection 53(3)?
Boratous is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2014, 06:06
  #342 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,932
CASA Media Release - 14 February 2013
Director of Aviation Safety
The Chair of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Board, Dr Allan Hawke, has today announced that Mr John McCormick will not be seeking a further term of appointment as Director of Aviation Safety.
Mr McCormick has, however, agreed, to the Board’s request to stay on in the position until 31 August 2014.This will allow for an executive search process to fill the position and enable the Director to assist the Board’s initial consideration of the Government’s Independent Review of Aviation Safety Regulation scheduled to be completed around the end of May.
Mr McCormick’s leadership over the last five years has been the critical factor behind the significant improvements to Australia’s aviation safety regulatory regime and CASA’s performance. The aims he set out when taking up the position have been largely achieved, including:
  • refocussing CASA on regulation of aviation safety as its core activity;
  • improving CASA’s governance by restructuring it around functional lines;
  • ensuring CASA staff are properly trained and deployed through the Brisbane-based training school and establishment of the Central Region and satellite offices at Broome, Gove, Horn Island and Kununurra;
  • addressing emerging issues such as remotely piloted aircraft and Australia’s ageing aircraft;
  • completion of the major part of the modernisation of aviation safety standards in a most expeditious manner and the attendant improvements in industry performance through the regulatory reform program;
  • introduction of advanced air traffic navigation and surveillance equipment;
  • reform of CASA’s surveillance and safety management systems oversight; and
  • enhancement of air traffic services at major regional and capital city secondary airports.
These improvements have come at a time of increasing and more complex demands on CASA with major growth in Australia’s diversified aviation sectors and record numbers of domestic and international passengers flying in Australian skies.
Australia’s outstanding international reputation for aviation safety owes much to John McCormick’s stewardship and the reforms and initiatives undertaken on his watch.
Dr Hawke acknowledged that CASA had had to take significant regulatory action in relation to a few aviation operators, aircraft types and aircraft equipment over the last five years. Dr Hawke praised Mr McCormick’s key role in ensuring that these actions were taken by CASA to protect the travelling public and industry operators.
The Authority has also developed a more stable funding model under Mr McCormick’s direction to underpin sustainable and effective operations for CASA.
The Board has regarded it as a privilege to serve with John McCormick in the interests of “Safe Skies for All” and wishes him all the very best in his future endeavours.
Media contact:
Peter Gibson
Mobile: 0419 296 446
Email: [email protected]
Ref: MR1214
Don't you just luuurve spin doctor's press releases, when about 95% of the aviation community agree to a large degree with the views of the AAAA, RAAA etc., (except for AOPA, sadly, but he who pays the piper calls the tune))
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2014, 09:25
  #343 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Boratous: You are conflating the consequences of what the Board does with what the Board has power to do. Section 53(3) does not determine what the Board has power to do (just as section 73(2) does not determine what the Director has power to do). A Board has functions. They are set out in s 53.

If the Director says "I claim this Island in the name of CASA", or "I purchase this casino in the name of CASA", I'm confident CASA won't own the Island or be obliged to pay for the casino.

But I could be wrong: Submit your next AOC application to the Board and let us know if the Board resolves to issue you with, and issues you with, an AOC.

Re the Press Release, Leaddie It would not have been released without the blessing of the Minister. The government is still hoping for a wet lettuce solution.

Interesting times.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2014, 22:13
  #344 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17
I’m not sure that your example is a valid example. Of course, neither the Board nor the Director could simply say “on behalf of CASA I grant you a passport”. This is because CASA itself does not have any statutory power to grant passports – or to claim an Island or casino (as in your example). Section 53(3) clearly only works in the context of CASA’s statutory powers. On this basis, if the Act or regulations give "CASA" a power to do something, then section 53(2) expressly states that if that thing is done by the Board in the name of, or on behalf of CASA, then it is taken to have been done by CASA (similarly with the Director under 73(2)).

The issue that you are referring to seems to be covered by 53(2) – which gives the Board power to do all things necessary for the purpose of carrying out the Board’s functions. This does not seem to be relevant to the exercise of CASA’s statutory powers.

This seems to be the basis on which the DAS, for example, makes Civil Aviation Orders, eg:

“I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under subregulation 308 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
[Signed John F. McCormick]
John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
22 March 2011”

The power to make Orders is given to CASA not the DAS. But acting under 73(2) the DAS can on behalf of CASA make an Order. If it was minded to, I think that the Board could also make Orders and do anything else that CASA was empowered to do. etc. But it obviously chooses not to do so for whatever reasons – probably fear of having to accept responsibility for any such decisions.
Boratous is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2014, 23:00
  #345 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Red face Maybe Hawke is right??

Re the Press Release, Leaddie It would not have been released without the blessing of the Minister. The government is still hoping for a wet lettuce solution.
That might be so Creamy but it is interesting that, so far at least, the only government site (including the Miniscule’s office) that is publishing the Hawke rubbish is Fort Fumble...

Maybe, in some bizarre way, Hawke is right and Skull has done the industry a huge favour.., after all where would we have got the term…“Ills of Society”…from if not for the, soon to be former, DAS?? Would industry groups have been quite so motivated to produce excellent submissions, like the AAAA one… , if we had a lesser sociopath at the joystick??

As for the WLR solution from the Miniscule, well it is fast becoming a rather forlorn hope while submissions like the following from ALAEA (FedSec Steve’s mob) keep popping up..

ALAEA WLR submission

Although obviously somewhat more subjective, the ALAEA submission still contains the same underlying & strong message (i.e. ‘same hymn sheet'), here are their recommendations:
Part 4 - ALAEA Recommendations

1. Based upon extensive professional experience Australia’s Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers recommend:

2. That CASA realign its organisational structure and priorities to the primary auditing and oversight role required as the supervisor of an outcome based aviation rule framework;

3.That in order to address the inherent conflict arising from outcome based approaches in a liberalised (commercially focused) industry, CASA must increase the strength of its enforcement activities and penalties (similar to the enforcement policy of the US FAA);

4.That CASA be required to respond in an official, open and timely manner to breaches and safety concerns brought to its attention and advise the outcomes of investigations or the reasons for non-action;

5. That the Government develop legislation supporting an aviation Whistleblower Protection Program. And that CASA develop the policy for the WPP and administer the program and an associated Whistleblower Hotline service;

6. That the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner be established as a separate statutory office and be given powers to investigate and report to the CASA board and Minister on complaints in regard to aviation safety regulation administration;

7.That the Government consider amendments to the Fair Work Act to support employees acting in accordance with their professional reporting obligations under the Civil Aviation Act 1988;

8.That the government and CASA ensure reciprocity of Australian Part 66 engineering maintenance licensed with the EU or remove the recognition of the EU aircraft maintenance license as the basis for issue of an Australian part 66 license;

9. That the government reassess the replacement of Australian regulatory content with EASA rules where the Australian rules are more appropriate for our specific national requirements and industry;

10.That in any ongoing process of ICAO regulatory harmonisation, Australia adhere to the longheld principle of independent professional license holders and not allow the transfer of certifying authority from license holders to non-licensed personnel or company authorisations;

11. That CASR 42 should require a CAMO to ensure that any system of recording certification formaintenance (including an electronic system) must be able to delineate and identify a person and their authorised certification privileges in relation to the work being certified; to ensure unauthorised persons are not certifying for work outside their scope of qualifications and authorisation.
{Note: It is also worth perusing some of the member’s submissions/comments from pages 36-40}
FedSec Steve’s mob are also strongly supportive of the ‘small end of town’ GA operators....and were quite disturbed by what they witnessed at the, now infamous, AMROBA 2013 meeting:

26. The ALAEA is concerned about reports that some CASA officers have exercised a heavy handed approach to regulatory enforcement on a large number of smaller General Aviation operations. The ALAEA attended a meeting of small maintenance organisations and operators in 2013 (also attended by Senator Ian McDonald) where a number of these actions were discussed. Some organisations had said that they were going to close down because they could no longer bear the stress and financial burden of meeting vague and often contradictory new standards. Aircraft were being grounded late on Friday afternoon over administrative errors and reputations were being trashed.

27. GA operators were finding that issues that had been sanctioned by CASA officers for decades had suddenly become no-go items with CASA taking an increasingly hard and inflexible line. On the other hand, CASA appears to be allowing larger operators to regulate themselves and seems extraordinarily concerned with any cost imposition the more powerful operators might have to bear. ALAEA questions the disparity in enforcement activity that appears to be taking place between the industry’s segments.
Unfortunately for Hawkey the ALAEA submission (along with many others) does not paint the same, rose coloured glasses, exemplary picture of the current FF (Skull led..) regime....more to follow K2..
Sarcs is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 00:23
  #346 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
item 4 in their submission is an item that is a bit of a concern.

the regs are a pox because a few of the underlying assumptions are wrong.

australian regulations have never really been in synch with private property rights.
we have the concept of "private property" in this country.
an owner has the inalienable right to use, enjoy and maintain private property.
that is what ownership is actually about.
except in aviation the regulatory mindset is observably ex-RAAF, an environment where private ownership was totally unknown, where one never did one's own maintenance and where subservience to "orders" was the operating method.

Australian aviation laws have it wrong. The canadians had the penny drop after a safety case they ran and they introduced two things. Canadian Private Owner maintenance and the facility to de-certify a production aeroplane and there after maintain it on a stand alone basis if it was in private use.

The ALEA demand that CASA act on reports is all well and good until you realise that australian law doesn't adequately recognise private ownership concepts. Seeking to preserve the LAME mandate over private owners just impinges on an area where the laws are observably deficient.

Of course what actually is General Aviation?
there is a whole area of GA that is nothing to do with commercial operation.
their voice seems totally drowned out in all the angst.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 01:43
  #347 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
The Liberal Party denied any liability that may arise from saying sorry to the traditional owners, (who reckon to have some sort of a claim against my property), in much the same way that CASA rarely, (I can't think of one actually), admit liability to anything they may have caused by their own negligence, incompetence or vexatious means. Rudd did and I don't feel any more guilty than I did before although it is touted as 'statesmanship' at its finest. Probably beats the Gillard rant about Abbott hating women when he was attacking Slipper for the same thing, but the end result is probably manna from heaven for our legal brethren.

No, I doubt Truss will find anything that could lead to such an avenue being opened up as a result of his 'review'. Worms everywhere and the government is fiscally broken.

The best one can hope for is to rid ourselves of some floating and available slime and put an end to the RRP and introduce FAR's in such a way as they can be manipulated to suit the snouts in the troughs.

Someone once called me an anarchist, but seeing as I don't understand the law as it is writ, I don't know how to break it. Perhaps the FAR's will be more understandable and I can break them with a clear understanding of what I hate about authority.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 15th Feb 2014 at 01:47. Reason: swearing, spelling and a general re read I suppose.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 03:18
  #348 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
The issue that you are referring to seems to be covered by 53(2) – which gives the Board power to do all things necessary for the purpose of carrying out the Board’s functions.
And what are the Board's functions, Boratous?

Re the ALEA submission, Sarcs, I'm not as big a fan of the ALEA submission as I am of the AAAA submission. I suspect a lot of ALEA members haven't heard of the Waddington Effect or its causes.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 20:50
  #349 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052

I'm intrigued to find out what everyone believes these Boards can do that results in so much faith being put in a Board as part of the solution?

In regulatory regimes like aviation safety regulation, the exercise of delegated powers is determined by the relevant criteria in the legislation and the general law of administrative decision-making. The Board can’t override or change any of that. The Board may make or endorse policies that are relevant to and within the narrow scope permitted by the legislation, but these are generally very broad statements of strategic principle – dare I say motherhood? CASA has an ample supply of warm and fuzzy policies.

My view is that the only practical thing a competent CASA Board could have done is prevented the creation and growth of the Frankenstein that is the regulatory reform program. But the far better way to have achieved that outcome was to not have given CASA the job in the first place.

You’ve seen the experiment right before your eyes: CASA with a Board and CASA without a Board. What difference did it make? One of those Boards had Dick Smith and Bruce Byron on it (among other people with business and aviation expertise). What difference did it make?

Board or not, CASA’s functions and powers must be constrained to a very narrow and simple regulatory role (which does not include managing the regulatory reform process), and the senior executives of the organisation must be qualified and experienced in managing regulatory organisations.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 21:45
  #350 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Value for money.

At very little expense, the WLR has been gifted, once again the benefit of hundreds of collective years current, valid operational and legal experience. The old Kenwood fridge, posing as a security system must be bursting at the seams if current estimates of between 150 and 200 submissions are to be believed. This is significant, not only in the amount of paper and words but in the value to gummermint.

For example, the Australian Lawyers submission runs to 30 pages of first class opinion, if the WLR had commissioned such a report, the invoice would be significant. Here is a yet another submission provided by professionally qualified, competent people prepared to support their arguments at very little cost to the public. I always feel the 'legal' eagles are a bit like the ambulance, fire and police crews attending a nasty prang on a highway; they get to see, on a regular basis the darker side of life, the bodies and the aftermath. These folk deal with reality everyday. The legal folk, whilst not attending the crash must deal with the fall out. Their concentrated knowledge is of value; most here may be involved once in a lifetime with a CASA aberration and occasionally, vicariously get some sense of the trauma someone like Quadrio or James are enduring. To aviation lawyers this is the stuff of life, they live and breathe this on a daily basis. Their opinions are valid, their time and effort is appreciated.

The same is true of the majority of 'organisational' submissions, the writers are immersed, professionally on a daily basis with 'their' speciality area and with the exception of a couple of no hopa groups can justly claim to represent their tribe. A small amount of self interest and own agenda is, on consideration, forgivable. Their expert opinion is of value and, once again, provided to the WLR – pro bono.

I just wonder, does the Vicar hosting this tea party fully understand that this is not the first time that candles have burned late into the night, lighting the desks of those who, after a long day sit down to voluntarily draft and edit a submission. Miniscule – the real expertise resides within the industry: you must thank your gods everyday that the continuing safety record of Australia rests with folks who bet their own time, money, talent and expertise to maintain that record; despite the lack of tangible safety advice from those paid handsomely to provide it or those paid equally as well to administer that advice.

Just for fun, compare the AAAA submission to the Chambers report. Carefully examine the pathway each of those documents have taken to end up on your desk and the motivation for them being there. One is a heartfelt, intelligent, comprehensive assessment, the other simply beggars belief.

Ask yourself miniscule, which is the one you paid for and which one was provided gratis?

Ask yourself miniscule, which is the one that rings true and which is a plagiarised, self serving, cynical hidden document.

Ask yourself, which is the better value to Australia, the industry, the people who work in aviation and those who depend on aviation for business or pleasure.

Then ask yourself, would I sleep better at night with the Ills of Society running the industry or the likes of the McComic/ Farq-u-hard-son team supported by those creatures named and shamed in the Senate committee response to Pel Air. Forgotten those names?, well we haven't. There are 150 + submissions which may provide the answer to that riddle; I'd suggest that there are just a little more honest folks providing answers than an alleged 'few' disgruntled, tendentious bloggers having a whinge. Do we have a problem here ? – Oh yes miniscule and you are parked right on top of it.


Sponsored by the IOS benevolent fund for Safe Elephant and Pot plant Transport Inculcating Catastrophe. (SEPTIC).

Last edited by Kharon; 15th Feb 2014 at 21:58. Reason: That bloody cat !!! coffee and keyboards eh??. Minnie – fetch the spares.
Kharon is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2014, 23:34
  #351 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Bored with the Board.

The current board is insignificant; equally damned if it do or if it don't do; being, to a lay point of view, either complicit or negligent. No doubt they are aware of this and have taken steps to limit the damage. They may well be legally capable of defending their individual positions and no doubt will; however in any national discussion on the well being of industry, they must, collectively hang their heads in shame. In any event, they become a spent force, distrusted and suspect.

The Minister has committed to enhancing the CASA Board with two additional board members, both with aviation experience. Although in theory this is a good start, the likelihood of redressing the present situation where CASA is perceived to be 'out of touch' with the Australian aviation community, is questionable.

The chronic, endemic problems are considered to be more fundamental, requiring much more than a simple restructure of a board which is obliged to; "ensure that CASA conducts its activities in compliance with government policies and its governing laws, the Civil Aviation Act and the Commonwealth Authorities and Corporations Act".

It is noteworthy that the Board has significant legal qualifications, this may be one desirable attribute. Regrettably, the net effect, visible throughout all levels of CASA, promotes a “legal bias” first approach, rather than a tight focus upon safety related outcomes. Hopefully, with Board who's skills are biased towards a higher level of technical competence the whole organisation would become more safety outcome focused, rather than being simplistically totally reliant on 'legal' (black letter) compliance.

The previous Board has been let down by poor quality legal and technical advice from the CASA executive. The current CASA senior management structure is ineffective, an unnecessary extravagance and clearly a hindrance to the efficient operation of the organisation. The Director of Aviation Safety (DAS), with the luxury of a board should be able to run CASA with, at most, a deputy responsible for the corporate aspects of managing CASA. The present structure, with a board, a director, a deputy director and an associate director is simply excessive, conveniently diluting both the responsibility and accountability of the director.

It is noteworthy that the predecessor to CASA (CAA) was efficiently and economically run by a general manager within the Civil Aviation Authority. The current arrangement is an onerous burden and unnecessary impost on industry.

The board represents but a small problem to industry compared to the problems which are left behind, the management level must be completely gutted and cauterised. Mark my words in some dark, damp corner the monsters are waiting for the storm to blow over. Changing a DAS is a band aid, little more than a cheap publicity stunt. If the government will not lay bare the dreadful truth, then it falls to the IOS to ensure that every single act of malice, every untruth told in court or the AAT is exposed and those who initiated or are associated with those acts are ruthlessly, vigorously and very publicly prosecuted. The board has a duty of care which honourable men would accept along with being suitably recompensed for exercising that duty.

Enough of the board with a lower case b and a regulator with a capital R – it's all bollocks; we know it, they know it and now the miniscule knows it. Will he get off of his arse and take the opportunity offered for the second time now to actually do something??.

All aboard – Toot toot.

Last edited by Kharon; 15th Feb 2014 at 23:51.
Kharon is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2014, 01:07
  #352 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 943
Well said!!

One of the options, which may not be that far fetched is to put the knife through the organisation and start again. There are no doubt many options that the Minister might consider, however one that places safety first and not 'R'egulation (as I don't believe you can regulate for safety)... If this means splitting up the existing CASA then so be it. Safety promotion and education should go to the ATSB or be outsourced with a similar budget. Other areas could also be moved elsewhere. The "S" in CASA is not what we are seeing right now! More like an "R"
triadic is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2014, 21:08
  #353 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Angel Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy (Oz regs)…thank you OLDP??

Note: Slight drift from boards, directors & IOS submissions..

From post # 297 of the Reg Reform thread..

If CASRs were supposed to be in plain English, why is there a dictionary as Part 1? Surely plain English words are sufficiently defined in Webster's or Oxford and one should not need to invest in Black's?
Well according to the 1072 page, 1 July 2009 version, on ‘How to use the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998’ {Note: Which as a point of interest was around 6 months after the Skull’s appointment }, under the heading of…

“…Definitions and meanings

30. A piece of legislation often includes definitions of terms used within it. The terms defined are principally the ones that are specific to the legislation in some way — for example because they have been specially invented. Ordinary dictionary words are not normally defined; they are assumed to take their ordinary dictionary meanings. Terms defined in the Act take the same meanings in the Regulations unless redefined in the Regulations. Legal terms also are not normally defined; again, they are assumed to have their ordinary legal meanings.

31. Naturally, the Regulations use many technical terms. A term of which the meaning is well known within aviation and generally accepted is usually not defined. If an unfamiliar word or term occurs in the Regulations, it may be defined in a general dictionary. For example, chord, empennage, fuselage, and longeron are all defined in the Macquarie Dictionary.

32. Occasionally a term that is in general use may be defined because the general meaning of the term is not sufficiently precise. For example, although everybody knows what ‘take-off’ means, it may be necessary, in a particular case, to treat taxiing as part of a take-off. It is not certain whether the ordinary meaning of ‘take-off’ includes taxiing or not. In cases like this there will be a definition in the Regulations.

33. Definitions may be either in the Dictionary at the end or in the text of the Parts.

34. A few terms that are used in the Regulations and that are not defined either in the Regulations or in standard dictionaries are discussed in the Note on Terms at the end of this Guide.

35. Although the Dictionary is not called a Part of the Regulations, and is not numbered, it is as much part of the Regulations as any of the numbered Parts.

36. If a definition that applies throughout the Regulations is in the Regulations but not in the Dictionary, there is a ‘signpost’ in the Dictionary to the regulation where the definition is. For example: major change, for a type design — see regulation 21.093.

37. The standard definitions of aviation terms are those laid down by ICAO and published by it in International Civil Aviation Vocabulary (ICAO Document 9713). Generally, terms defined by ICAO are used in the Regulations with the meaning given by ICAO. There may still be a definition in the Regulations, but the definition will usually be followed by a note to the effect that the source of the definition is the ICAO definition. (The ICAO definition will either be used unchanged, or rewritten in minor ways to be clearer and easier to read.) Often, where a term defined in the Regulations is used, there will be a note nearby saying where to look for the definition.

38. See Subpart 1.A for general provisions about interpretation and definitions.….”

Well that should clear it all up for all those muddle-minded AOC holders, gingerbeers, skygods & knuckledraggers….

We all know the tale now on how the CASR 1998 has grown from a paltry 190 pages, back in 1998-9 to (at last count) 2186 pages and that it all originally came about (the need ) because of the desire to…

….“ 1.003 Harmonisation with FARs

(1) These regulations contain provisions based on the FARs.
(2) An object of these regulations is to harmonise certain parts of Australia’s aviation safety law with the FARs.
(3) The words ‘Source FARs’ below a regulation indicate that the regulation is based on the section of the FARs, as in force on 1 January 1997, stated after the words and, if the section number is followed by the word ‘modified’, the word indicates that the FARs section has been modified for the regulation..." {Q for WLRP: Hmm how do you think we are going with that original endeavour??}

I’m sure the WLR panel are all over this....but for those of us that were contemplating suicide while studying ATPL Air leg, or trying to apply for an AOC, or just finding out whether they’re operationally legal or not ; the HG to the CASRs put out by the OLDP should have a powerful sedative & anti-depressant effect…

Hmm wonder if there is a QRH version to simplify the task for the WLR panel..??

OK back to boreds and other areas of significant contemplation for the WLRP...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2014, 17:16
  #354 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Oh, Good catch Sarcs.

You can tell, the drafter really has a good grasp on matters aeronautical:-

32. Occasionally a term that is in general use may be defined because the general meaning of the term is not sufficiently precise. For example, although everybody knows what ‘take-off’ means, it may be necessary, in a particular case, to treat taxiing as part of a take-off. It is not certain whether the ordinary meaning of ‘take-off’ includes taxiing or not. In cases like this there will be a definition in the Regulations.
TWR – ABC Clear for immediate take off.

FO. – Wodger that – now, standby whilst us defines if you have actually cleared us to taxi and then take off; should we not have been cleared to taxi to the threshold, then pwoceed??. (Extracts manual from flight deck library thumbs through index to find the appropriate regulation before proceeding to correct definition section).

TWR – For FS ABC - get rolling.

FO. – Well !, how very un PC of you. The Captain advises that this will be reported. I am, after all only asking for you to clearly define what precisely you expect us, as a fully qualified legally compliant flight crew to do.

Segue to tower windows shattering multiple controllers, headsets, chairs and coffee mugs flying into space, pursued by an eerie, blood curdling primal scream. Monty Python (or Stephen King?) eat your heart out. In Australia we have weality.

Last edited by Kharon; 17th Feb 2014 at 17:24. Reason: It is essential to laugh – do not contemplate any other course of action.
Kharon is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2014, 19:29
  #355 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
My favourite:
car, in relation to a lighter-than-air aircraft, means basket whenever, in the case of any particular type of such aircraft, a basket is a constructional feature of that type.
That, and the definition of “aeroplane” in Part 61.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2014, 19:48
  #356 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 60
32. Occasionally a term that is in general use may be defined because the general meaning of the term is not sufficiently precise.
a UDF has been defined as an unducted fan

in this context, Dick Rutan ('Voyager') was one who bemoaned the tendency to define things in terms of what they weren't instead of what they are.

we are now going to roll a joint. . . which will not be a chiropractic manoeuvre

and to be more specific -

we shall require a receptacle for the denuded weed. . . . .
or more precisely . . . an ashtray

and when you are ordered to cease what you are doing . . ..
think "stop it'

(else you go blind?)

a well known CFI, a redhead incidentally, had this notice on his desk for years -

WARNING - When one has reached my age, noise and non-concurrence cause hyperperistalsis of the gastric mucosa and I become .. .

Last edited by Fantome; 17th Feb 2014 at 20:36.
Fantome is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2014, 23:52
  #357 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
car, in relation to a lighter-than-air aircraft, means basket whenever, in the case of any particular type of such aircraft, a basket is a constructional feature of that type.
I wonder if that is an admission that the CAR's (civil aviation regulations) are a basket case.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2014, 23:57
  #358 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 286
Utter tosh, really?

Utter tosh.
The Minister can’t make anyone who wants to leave, stay.

Really? Well I was correct. Herr Skull wanted to leave in May but he has been 'asked' to stay until August! And Creampuff before you delve into any legal wankery definitions about the word 'asked', don't bother. It is what it is, Mr Angry wanted to bail but if he does he won't get his glowing reference and farewell pen.

Not sure why Casaweary mentioned Gaunty, he has never been part of the iron ring, it could be because he has 'friends' in government. Either way Gaunty is irrelevant in the context of the current review. Although he has probably shared canopes with Creampuff and Flyingfiend.

Skull has (had) a nice office, great view of the Airport, some pot plants, patched holes in his walls, conference phone, keys to the trough, things like that.

Last edited by Paragraph377; 18th Feb 2014 at 00:07.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2014, 00:10
  #359 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I hear there's silver whistle involved also.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 18th Feb 2014 at 00:11. Reason: Talking of pot plants, who's watering Pete now?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2014, 00:28
  #360 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 286
The CASA enema has begun

The whistle is a nice gesture. He can blow it loudly to attract the attention of the Styx River Boat Captain, however something tells me that he won't need it as the Ferryman always knows where his passengers are! Toot Toot.
As for pot plant Pete, the real Pete resides in the office of Senator Nash. As for the Skulls pot plants they are withered and droopy (like other senior managements genitalia) as the poor plants have been processing carbon shite-ox-ide from his office for some time.

I am amazed at what has transpired in the past few days, and the dribble that has been preached from the bloated mouth of Mr Hawke is just plain nauseating. Why oh why won't Truss send him and the rest of his pathetic Board, and MrDak on their way with a golden lettuce and a fist pump? CASA as it is, has to go in its entirety. Keep the handful of good lower level managers and Inspectors (yes there are a couple still there) and pineapple the rest.
It's funny, Truss was warned how the IOS would react if change wasn't sanctioned by him. I am predicting Dr Voodoo will possibly get the gig, not certain though. But either way Terry must also follow suit and head to the retirement villa, A380 endorsed what a f#cking joke. Take any manager around the network who has been there over 10 years and take all of LSD as well.

The time has come for the Iron Ring to be smashed once and for all!!

Paragraph377 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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