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 28th Aug 2014, 21:37
  #1061 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
D&D.

Well, the darts challenge was met and the BRB team retained bragging rights. In deference to our overseas colleagues the gentlemanly thing to do would be simply to say 'your shout lads'.

Debate was interesting, and centred on the new board (has Truss announced this, or has he leaked - again?). So we have Hawke, Boyd, Danos, Taylor, Cox and Smith to select the DAS from the short list. One 'sane', interested Minister of yore put together a hit squad and was determined to clean out the mess; for some unknown reason this never happened but it was a productive period and things improved.

This started a line of reasoning which, after a while nearly everyone agreed was a good idea. In short; IF Truss ever decides to go with the reform, someone is going to have to lead the clean up squad, for a year at two at least. But once that job is done, the 'axe man' will be pretty much redundant and will be retired. So, IF Truss goes with reform; will Boyd and Cannane form the nucleus of the reform squad?, it makes sense. Short term consult – in and out – then back to normal; that clears the pathway for a new DAS who can smooth the very ruffled American feathers and select a team to drive the program. But the clean out has to be first. The board could act as 'independent' referee to sort out many of the complaints made against CASA officers, using that information as solid grounds for dismissal. Lord knows there's complaints aplenty. [Aside] I reckon Quadrio has the LSD by the balls, chopping them off would make a fine example of reform at work. It sort of makes sense and goes some way toward explaining the delay and prevarication.

The other notion that got some support was that the board would act in the vanguard role; clearing the mine field to allow the DAS the elbow room to get on with it and fresh air enough to crack on.

Then of course the Iron Rong could prevail; Aleck, Anastasi and that fellah who's name escaped us are bleating that the sky will fall in, the chooks will stop laying and the minuscule will end up with boils on his bottom if the reform travesty goes ahead. Doom, damnation and etc.

So it all revolves around Truss – speaking of whom, a curious thing in question time yesterday was brought up; when the question of Truss was asked, the 'Transport' word in his title was omitted: on two occasions. None of us could work out why? – any ideas??

Aye well – knitting was never really a spectator sport.

Toot toot.

PS. I wonder, what the bored would make of the Quadrio story and similar; if they ever got to hear them; that's a wall I'd love to be a fly on.
Kharon is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2014, 21:45
  #1062 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
16:59 fax

Send the DAS a Friday 16:59 fax.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2014, 23:19
  #1063 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,206
fax time

Half Bikkie...Dont you know Friday is POETs day in the "public" (self) service.
Piss Off Early Today....its Friday.

A 16.59 farewell and good riddance fax to the Screamer will be way toooo late.
Better make it 10.59 before he departs for a looong lunch with some of the mesmerised bored members and synchophants. Dr Hawke will probably have a quiet weep in the dunny as his "god" departs (See his earlier hagiography of the Skull).
Very upchuck inducing. Need the porcelain phone handy for a call.

Is it a red letter day for GA today.? One positive step at least. the xxxxxx timed out.! TCFT
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

What next I wonder?. Will miniscule Truss awake and rise to the occassion...I doubt it.

Ah we are convicts still... in a "free" country but sorely bound by regulatory chains.

Canada sounds like the go. Positive and very practical, with common sense.
Pity about the cold.
aroa is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2014, 23:39
  #1064 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Truss, Transport minister list.

Truss is transport minister but for some reason is not referred to as such in his title: Deputy PM, Leader of NATS, Minister Infrastructure-Regional development. From Wiki below,
Transport[edit]

List of Transport Ministers[edit]

MinisterPartyTenureMinisterial TitleThomas PatersonNationalist1928–1929Minister for Markets and TransportParker MoloneyLabor1929–1932Archdale ParkhillUnited Australia Party1932Minister for TransportLarry AnthonyCountry1941George LawsonLabor1941–1943Eddie Ward1943–1949Howard BealeLiberal1949–1950George McLeay1950–1951Minister for Shipping, Fuel and Transport1951–1955Minister for Shipping and TransportJohn Spicer1955Shane Paltridge1955–1960Hubert Opperman1960–1963Gordon Freeth1963–1968Ian SinclairCountry1968–1971Peter Nixon1971–1972Gough WhitlamLabor1972Charles Jones1972–1975Minister for TransportPeter NixonNational Country1975–1979Ralph Hunt1979–19821982–1983Minister for Transport and ConstructionPeter MorrisLabor1983–1987Minister for TransportGareth Evans1987–1988Minister for Transport and CommunicationsRalph Willis1988–1990Kim Beazley1990–1991John Kerin1991–1991Graham Richardson1991–1992Bob Collins1992–1993Laurie Brereton1993–1996Minister for TransportJohn SharpNational1996–1997Minister for Transport and Regional DevelopmentMark Vaile1997–1998John Anderson1998–2005Minister for Transport and Regional ServicesWarren Truss2005–2006Mark Vaile2006–2007Anthony AlbaneseLabor2007–2010Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional
Development and Local Government2010–2013Minister for Infrastructure and TransportWarren TrussNational2013–presentMinister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.


I too noticed his title used yesterday in relation to East West Melbourne bypass with interjections by Albo, (ex Minister transport), and a transport matter but not used in his questions as it has been done in the past. Is someone using an obvious, perhaps intentional, Freudian slip to tell us something?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 04:19
  #1065 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
As the days go by.......

2 years ago today since Beaker launched the now infamous Norfolk/Pel-Air report.
2 years this coming Monday since 4 Corners busted the story to the world.
As a result, a Senate Inquiry resulting in 26 recommendations; the ASRR report resulting in 37 recommendations, and what's changed? SFA!!!!!
Wake up Warren!

Last edited by Jinglie; 29th Aug 2014 at 04:34.
Jinglie is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 11:29
  #1066 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
let me be the first to offer my sincere praise for Minister Warren Truss.

you're doing a real good job there warren.

....nah, come to think of it you've done nothing.

you're doing a real good job there warren. NOT
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 12:40
  #1067 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Also failed to get a new DAS in place.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 13:19
  #1068 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
Bit off topic but someone from PMC just landed a gig high up the ladder in OTS, so maybe a wordsmith from PMC will also be anointed as CASA DAS?
Just wish the FAA and ICAO would come back with a bag of pineapples and downgrade us, that will force some needed change and wake up all the silly old farts asleep at the aviation wheel.
Soteria is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2014, 14:08
  #1069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
one of the great advances made by CAsA in recent years is to cease publishing the paper copy of the aviation safety digest.
for decades the message in it hasn't been relevant to actual aviation.
every month when it arrived I felt guilty not reading it.
occasionally I would succumb and have a browse. always just the same old same old.
now that it isn't posted out I don't feel in the least bit guilty in not logging on to the website.
the peace has been amazing.

I thought I was unique but I noticed last visit that the club librarian was throwing them out as well.

I love this electronic age.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2014, 02:35
  #1070 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
There at it again - Divide & Conquer

Hmm...wonder what Phil & the AAAA have to say about this??

Courtesy of Bladeslappers:
Meeting AHIA & CASA cancelled

A meeting between the Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA) and CASA planned for Friday 29 August 2014 to discuss Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61 (Flight Crew Licensing) was cancelled after several eleventh hour teleconferences.

AHIA President, Peter Crook had requested a face to face meeting with senior CASA staff to seek a delay in the introduction of the new rules on 1 September 2014. However, the AHIA and CASA agreed so many final changes were underway; the meeting would not achieve its objective; being scheduled on the last working day prior to the new rules coming into effect. However, some critical elements were clarified by the CASA’s AHIA Liaison Officer from the Standards Division.

Firefighting Authorisations. From 1 September 2014, CASR Part 61 will require a person conducting a firefighting operation below 500 ft AGL in an aeroplane or helicopter, to hold (a) an aerial application rating, and (b) an Aeroplane or Helicopter firefighting endorsement.

The transitional provisions in the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2013 (No. 1) do not have the result that a current authorisation can be taken to be a firefighting endorsement. To overcome the problem, CASA is preparing an exemption which will relieve pilots from the requirement to hold an aerial application rating and firefighting endorsement subject to certain conditions. The conditions would be consistent with the requirements that apply to pilots currently when conducting firefighting operations with a focus on an operator’s training and checking requirements when managed under a CAR 217 organisation or the assessment of the operator’s Chief Pilot.

Pilots that would qualify for the exemption would be those that held requisite authorisations under CAR 1988; for example, for aeroplane pilots, an agricultural rating (aeroplane) and for helicopter pilots conducting bucket operations, a low level permission and sling endorsement.

Pilots would also still need to complete training in firefighting operations conducted by the operator and a proficiency check also conducted by the operator, as they do currently. The training operations would need to be conducted under an AOC that authorises that kind of operation. The exemption, if made, would be in force until 31 August 2015.
So Part 61 with a combined total of over 1600 pages (and even before the ink has had a chance to dry), FF are already negotiating putting in place an exemption to placate one small sector of the industry...

Don't get me wrong I do admire the AHIA's, as a relatively new industry association, endeavour to try to negotiate less regulatory burden for their concerned members. But FF have played this game for far too long to simply allow one small sector of the IOS to have a win and there is always a catch and a devious ulterior motive...

Memo for Boyd & co:

Stop this bollocks now!

Possible solution to Part 61 (all 1600+ pages of it): Part 61- CAA Consolidation,10 November 2011 - Pilot Licences and Ratings

Now if we accept that our uniquely Australian conditions, where topography and bushfires are much more significant an issue than in NZ, water bombing therefore is an essential service to containing these bushfires.

Okay so we have a point of difference with NZed. So using the AHIA Firefighting Authorisations example above, & accepting the NZed Part 61 as a barebones blueprint for our own Part 61. We then go to the relevant section for Agricultural Ratings (Aerial Application etc), which is contained within six pages, pg 66-72.

After real consultation with the relevant associations, whose members operate in this unique environment, we then allow these same experts to partake in a draft addendum to Part 61 which would with minor changes end up as law.

Therefore straight up we've cut down the red tape, years of procrastination & industry anxiety and finally any need for further exemptions to Part 61 (Oz style 1600 + pages). At the same time the Part 61 (NZed blueprint) would still be well within a 100 page count and much more easily readable/understandable for the average operator/pilot...

Come on Boyd & co you know it makes sense...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2014, 18:39
  #1071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
"Accounting to the stakeholders for the organisation's performance";

Has Truss finally managed to publicly announce the CASA board – No?; well he should because there's work for it to do. Even allowing Cox, Smith and Taylor a weekend to digest Part 61, Boyd, Danos and Hawke have had ample time to realise that the part is 1600 wasted pages, wasted time, money and effort; (anyone guess on the cost?). The board should advise the minuscule to delay the introduction until the patent errors have been addressed.

One major issue is the need to negotiate instruments and exemptions. This alone is open to the suggestion of corruption, simply by being highly subjective. A 1600 page part 61 with multiple 'accommodations' made at the whim of a FOI is potentially as 'unsafe' from a legal standpoint as it is from an operational purview. One of the major headaches and complaints raised during the Forsyth review by industry was/ is the wide variation in regulatory interpretation by individual FOI.

Part 61 bears all the hallmarks of a flying school weekend 'project', written by coven of junior flight instructors and their first year law student mate, all intent on impressing their mentors. No one with a serious, qualified background would design and produce such a perfect example of 'bad-law', not while sober anyway.

The board could earn it's corn, get off it's collective rump compare the FAA/CAA/NZCAA regulation to the 'thing' which is to become Australia's millstone and have a quiet word to the minuscule. Now would be good; but no later than Monday.

Sarcs "Come on Boyd & co you know it makes sense."
Second the comrade Sarcs motion....

Last edited by Kharon; 30th Aug 2014 at 18:52. Reason: Wonder Which Wodger Wote it? Gods forbid they collaborated. I need a second coffee.
Kharon is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2014, 00:00
  #1072 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Snoop Part 61 has the true puppet master's vote??

Kharon:
Part 61 bears all the hallmarks of a flying school weekend 'project', written by coven of junior flight instructors and their first year law student mate, all intent on impressing their mentors. No one with a serious, qualified background would design and produce such a perfect example of 'bad-law', not while sober anyway.
Interesting that by default Part 61 (all 1600 + pages of it..) appears to be acceptable law and is being actively embraced by the recently sighted 'fabled bull elephant'...

Insurer to provide PI so flight examiners don’t fly solo

All in a selfless interest of course...

“supporting the long-term health of the local aviation industry”

&..

“Underwriting this indemnity allows us to ensure our valued customers and Flight Examiners can continue their important contribution to flying training across Australia with confidence and security,”

...because:
ATOs had been protected for professional liability by CASA however the Authority announced earlier this month that existing ATOs will be transitioned to a FER on 30 June 2016, at which point protection would cease. Those transitioning to or commencing as FERs from 1 September 2014 will also no longer be covered by CASA and will be required to make their own insurance arrangements.
Call me cynical....but could Part 61 be the new age 'bad-law' equivalent of CAR 206?? Lets face it with LHR, Hempel (see footnote #1) & the PelAir embuggerance CAR 206 as a 'cash cow' has almost passed it's use by date...

Footnote #1 - Hempel sighting of FBE...
Email one:

Adam, Narelle,
I received a phone call from the individual below. He claimed to represent the insurers of Hempel Aviation, (blank) have received a claim from Hempel's Aviation. He also stated that Hempel's has provided a document on a record that showed Barry Hempel still held all his ratings at the time of the accident.

He also stated that he has seen the request for information on the CASA web site and that he has doubts as to the truthfulness of the claim.

I did not discuss any of the details of the investigation but did commit to have someone contact him to determine if he constitutes a bonafide interested party.

Email 2 (fwd):

Adam,
I advised (blank) that you were the most appropriate person to handle this.
Regards,
Narelle

Email 3 (reply):

I spoke to Mr (blank) - I advised him of Mr Hempel's licence status at the time of the accident- he will make an FOI request seeking relevant documents, he was very cooperative and said he considers Hempels are trying to make a fraudulent insurance claim.

(blank) -he said he is happy to speak to you in the event you would like any information you may not already have.
{Disclaimer: The email chain excerpts are extracted from documents released under the FOI Act 1982}

Q/ So will Part 61 be as equally & eagerly manipulated to the advantage of the true puppet masters of Oz aviation regulation??

Buyer beware: Any current ATOs or future FERs signing up to the PI offered, FFS get your lawyer (lawyer friend) to decipher the Fine print..

MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2014, 03:31
  #1073 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
the trick with insurance is to exaggerate the risk way higher than it actually is.
promote the fear that the exaggerated risk will occur.
then offer to carry the exaggerated risk for a financial consideration.
all the while writing into the agreement such weasel words that you can escape making any payouts for the eventuality of the actual risk.

ponzie schemes are illegal in australia but insurance and superannuation are scams of high profit for some.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2014, 10:35
  #1074 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
“Underwriting this indemnity allows us to ensure our valued customers and Flight Examiners can continue their important contribution to flying training across Australia with confidence and security,”

Hmmm, wonder which CAsA iron ring members have suddenly become major shareholders in QBE??
thorn bird is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2014, 20:31
  #1075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 300
AHIA and CASR Part 61

Today is 1 September 2014 - CASR Part 61 is alive!

Due to intense interest from the Australian industry - we will create a new thread for the Flight Crew Licensing changes; which are still coming as various concessions are worked out.

Also, media interest is intense; probably as fire fighting qualifications did not come across into the new legislation today. In theory, no fire fighting operations until CASA promulgates a short term concession. Hopefully today.

To be fair we need to give CASA a chance to catch this bouncing ball, thus a need for a specific thread on the technical aspects of the new legislation; allowing the more political discussions to continue on other threads such those commenting on the Truss issues (or lack of) - ASRR + Industry follow through. Now scheduled for late 2014?

Please send your questions to us and we will do our best to find someone who is up to date on the latest rule changes.

AHIA
Regulatory Review Coordinator
[email protected]
robsrich is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2014, 21:32
  #1076 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Aw - for crying out loud.

RR # "In theory, no fire fighting operations until CASA promulgates a short term concession. Hopefully today.
Oh pretty please can we have a concession; don't want to rush you, but Victoria is on fire and we would really like to go to work; if that's ok with you, today ??. Oh thank you; thank you very much, bow, grovel, crawl, slobber. Bollocks. FCOL....

The ball is not bouncing; it has been well and truly dropped – by CASA. What sort of a rule needs immediate concession?, what is the point of having a 1600 page rule set which required 1600 pages of concessions, instruments and exemptions. It's a complete, total utter waste of time, money and energy. Once you have been 'granted' a concession, you are owned and have to play nice to keep it. Tell them to stick their bloody concessions where the sun don't shine and fix this unmitigated pile of crap you paid for....

Watch as the AIHA, standing alone are sucked into a trap; the old one, used for years to defer, delay, dilute.

The AHIA have no business attempting to 'negotiate' without the other industry bodies being involved. They are leaping into trap two - divide and conquer and exemptions out the wazoo.....

The industry should just slap the NZ part 61 on the table and say this is what we want – with these variations. Industry has paid for this legislation, not CASA – it's 'our' legislation. Tell them it's no ducking good, not worth the expense and get them to fix it....

If you paid an engineer to fix your aircraft and it came back a complete Cock-up; there would be hell to pay. What makes a pile of crap work from CASA any different????.....

FFS Don't ask them – tell them.

Last edited by Kharon; 31st Aug 2014 at 21:51. Reason: Steam well and truly ON.
Kharon is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2014, 21:51
  #1077 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Woke up this morning quite surprised.
The sun actually came up and the sky hadn't fallen.
But then the reality that Australia's unique Part 61 is with us.
No last minute court order to delay the execution.
No call from the governor to grant clemency.
The industry is strapped to the gurney and CAsA is going to proceed
with the bizarre, macabre little ritual of killing an industry in cold blood.
Unfortunately is wont be a quick and painless death, it will be slow and painful as 1600 pages of indecipherable poorly drafted gobblegook slowly suffocate the condemned.
Could it be that is the only way for the powers that be come to realize the folly in the way our tyrant regulator is allowed to trample on the dreams and aspirations of so many.

The example is just across the Tasman of what good regulation can do.

Hopefully when the Australian Aviation industry is dead, wiser heads will
prevail, its tormentor reformed allowing the industry to be reborn and be a as vibrant and productive as in other countries.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2014, 22:24
  #1078 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Grrr Give them an inch they'll take a mile.

Hey Rob how about having a chat with Phil to get a feel for how your current conciliatory approach will eventually end in tears while dealing with the current toxic FF culture. I'm sure he will enlighten you...

See pages 6-7 & appendix one here: ASRR Recommendations – Responses from AAAA

"The more concerning issue, however, is that the current members of the CASA Board thought it appropriate to write to AAAA while the review process was still in train.

The apparent intent of the CASA letter appears to be to intimidate a representative body participating in the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review and to undermine the validity of the AAAA submission.

The willingness of the CASA Board to actively participate in the ‘politics’ of the ASRR process should sound clear alarm bells to the Minister and anyone else interested in the appropriate discharge of responsibilities by the current CASA Board.

Apart from its factual errors, the CASA letter served no purpose other than to provide further evidence to the ASRR Panel (if more was needed) of the very problems of poor culture, bullying and intimidation highlighted in many of the submissions – with clear evidence – to the ASRR."


Also RR FFS ask PH what AAAA's considered opinion is on what should be happening to Part 61 (in it's current form). Or if you prefer read the following:

CASR Parts 61, 141, 142

Recommendation 31 says that all regulations not currently made should be reshaped into a three tier structure with the aim of gaining significant simplification and thereby improved compliance.

AAAA strongly believes that the current CASR Parts 61,141 and 142 should again be deferred for implementation and should be the first regulations subject to the ASRR Recommendation 31.



The simple fact that CASA have only recently released critical parts of the Manual of Standards for industry to consider, and that there is ongoing conjecture from within CASA about the transition of roles such as ‘approved pilots’ in aerial application, suggests that any move to make the regulation ‘active’ by September is simply premature.



The complexity of the writing of the CASR 61 itself works against compliance by being so difficult to understand. Consider the difficulties when trying to trace the requirements for training, licensing and, critically, privileges of each licence/rating/endorsement across a number of licences (eg CPL, low-level rating, application rating, firefighting endorsement, etc), having to manage both the regulations and the MOS of over 1500 pages.



"In addition, some areas of the MOS that cover competencies for aerial application and firefighting are not acceptable to industry in their current form and require further refinement. It appears that a range of prerequisites suggested by industry have not been included, nor has adequate recognition of prior learning for an application pilot, for example, to attain a firefighting endorsement."



To ask industry to absorb and be functionally capable of working with over 1500 pages of regulations and standards when the latest requirements have only been released in the last few weeks makes a mockery of any implementation ‘strategy’.



For those companies having to transition to Part 141 operations so as to be able to provide the critical role of training for aerial application sector within the current timeframe is another problem. It is highly unlikely that the companies will be able to develop the appropriate operations manuals now required under CASA’s ‘simplified’ approach within the current timeframe due to the need to develop curriculum and competency training syllabus and assessment procedures that are in line with the new Part 61/141. The flight test requirements were only released in the last few weeks and have NOT been the subject of industry consultation – as is the case with much of the recent MOS related publications.



It is also highly unlikely that CASA will be able to assess and accept the various requirements mandated in the MOS and Part 141 before the commencement of operations under the new regulations.



The only logical outcome is to put the current Part 61/141/142 on hold until it can be subject to the ASRR recommendations. As an absolute minimum the September start date should be deferred for at least 12 months to enable training organisations to absorb what has only recently been released...

Here you go here is the contact details webpage: AAAA contact


MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2014, 00:21
  #1079 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
CASA is cancerous in its entirety

The apparent intent of the CASA letter appears to be to intimidate a representative body participating in the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review and to undermine the validity of the AAAA submission.
The willingness of the CASA Board to actively participate in the ‘politics’ of the ASRR process should sound clear alarm bells to the Minister and anyone else interested in the appropriate discharge of responsibilities by the current CASA Board.
So let me get this straight. CASA has a history of bullying industry, as well as it's lower ranked people. It had the Skull (of Star Chamber fame) at the forefront, followed by lieutenants who have had a hand in the Pel Air debacle, Lockhart mismanagement, Butson pineappling and the outright assault on the rights of one John Quadrio. Now we add into the mix the Board, the people who are expected to uphold integrity and transparency, also acting in a despicable bullying manner, as has been revealed in their correspondence with AAAA. And the Minister, throughout all of this has done...........that's correct, nothing, except grudgingly ordering a review and then keeping that damning reviews outcome under lock and key. Oh yes, I forgot, he approved Mr Mrdak's reappointment as the Conductor who has been presiding over this mess for years. So there you have it, the rot, the cancer, is embedded all the way to the PMC....what a disgrace to the taxpayer.

The situation is toxic, it is putrid, and if ever there was a reason for a royal commission it is now. Now is the time for a social campaign against those responsible for the embuggerance of our livelihoods. Now is the time to seek out all those Independent politicians in our communities and charge them with righting the wrongs. This is the only way that our decrepit system can be fixed.
Oh I forgot, in amongst all this it would be also nice to see levels of SAFETY returned to our industry! Just a side point that is forgotten by the political parties playing with the safety of the publics lives.
Soteria is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2014, 01:16
  #1080 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 300
AHIA - Awaiting CASA exemption to fire fighting rules.

CASA and Media misunderstanding - Fire fighting pilots.

Today there has been a lot of media reports about the fire fighting pilots being grounded - see previous. In reply, CASA Standards have said their intention is to issue an exemption which has been proposed verbally and by email; but not officially yet.

However, the AHIA is asking how this will be done? - A Media Release or similar. President, Peter Crook has been in contact with CASA Standards who have again confirmed a Media Release is imminent. We are not sure of the 'legal' form it will take; being Day 1 of Part 61, etc.

Maybe when the CASA position is formally stated as the regulator, then this confusion will be cleared up.

So in the meantime - don't let your kids play with matches?? But we believe it will all be resolved in a few hours. So have an extra beer with lunch!

AHIA
robsrich 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.