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 26th Sep 2014, 03:52
  #1241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 350
263 - 273 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)(PDF 157KB)

In relation to a particular aircraft’s suitability to operate to a particular runway at an aerodrome, Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 20.7.4 is applicable to aeroplanes, not above 5700 kg, conducting regular public transport operations (single -engine aeroplanes only), private operations, aerial work operations (excluding agricultural operations ) and charter operations. The take-off distance required can be determined for a level, short, dry, grass surface with factors of between 1.15 and 1.25 applied to the distance in the Aircraft Flight Manual for certain maximum take-off weights.

However, where there is an approved foreign flight manual or manufacturer’s data manual (such as a Pilot’s Operating Handbook) that sets out the take-off distance for that aeroplane, that data may be used. CAO 20.7.4 cautions pilots that the data in some manufacturers’ data manuals are unfactored, and should be treated with caution.

Determining whether the take-off distance available is adequate to ensure safe operation of an aircraft is the responsibility of the pilot in command.
Weasel words. Try operating this way in the real world. Any (if not all) of the CAsA FOI's I know would be all over this. I know its legal to operate on foreign AFM's but have had the conversation before.


.
Two_dogs is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2014, 21:41
  #1242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Silence – was the stern reply.

Back in the old days, when folks worshipped the 'old gods', stone idols, bits of old bones or a pile of pony-pooh – if it pleased them, they looked for 'a sign' – always a sign. They were too realistic to expect actual words to be uttered by a stone idol. Chicken innards, fish guts, a couple of birds or the crops growing were all seen as auguries that the gods had listened, were happy and had bestowed that good will on the happy peasants and their masters alike.

I have determined to try some of the old time 'reading of the signs', just in case we expect too much from 'the gods', in the general way of communication. It is, I confess a slightly modified. 'modern' idea; inspired by 'the life of Brian', the gourd or the sandal type of decision. My first inkling that we should 'look to the past' for answers came when the sky didn't fall in when 61 went live. One of the problems of the old system of divination, by sign was that the gods could be ambiguous. For example, demigod Farq-u-hardson sent us a sign that all was well; for indeed, the sky did not fall in – however, this failed to explian why an earthquake stuck a flying school, a charter operator went mad, or why the chooks stopped laying. Tricky business this readin' of augury.

We probably do expect too much and really should hone our arcane skills. Was that rumble of thunder the gods decision to publish the industry responses to the WLR?, was that dead spider some god speak defining the reform or not question?; perhaps if I count the grains of sugar which missed my coffee cup the answers to old questions can be numerically deduced.

Don't know; but another month has rolled by and we can comfortably assume the rest of this one will follow suite, without response. So for the benefit and mental well being of our happy (IOS) peasants I shall Google some voodoo rituals, a tea leaf reading course and perhaps, chook guts reading: just to see what, if any answers may be gleaned from the gods, determined by a more scientific approach to finding out WTF is going on (or not, as the case may be).

No!, by Golly – I'm off to the dark cave, to visit the three Aunts: now that's a sure fire winner.

First Witch
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.

ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Toot toot......

Last edited by Kharon; 28th Sep 2014 at 21:49. Reason: A twiddle to pass the time. That or throw rocks at the traffic - undecided.
Kharon is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2014, 10:32
  #1243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
A new hope or delayed embuggerance??

Update on Cooper Pedy runway width issue, from Aunty today...:
Coober Pedy flights fix sparks hope of 'better relations' between airlines and CASA

Australia's Regional Aviation Association is hoping a resolution over commercial flights to Coober Pedy is part of ongoing improvements in relations with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Last Thursday, Regional Express (Rex) reversed a decision stopping future flights to Coober Pedy after resolving issues with CASA over the width of the town's runway.

Flights will continue as normal while the runway is widened.

Regional Aviation Association CEO Paul Tyrrell says it reflects better relations with CASA, which is undergoing changes including a new board.
"I think the previous decision that was restricting Rex airlines so much that they really were finding it difficult to fly in - that was a bad decision - now there's some sense come into this," he said.

"Rex and the council, everybody has been given some time to make the surface appropriate and not stop any services.

"It couldn't have got much worse over the last five or six years and I'm not laying blame on either side, I'm just saying the relationship had broken down rather fundamentally.

"There is a new board being appointed, a new head of CASA being organised, so we're hoping for much better relations in the future."
So a new hope?? Or a vain hope??

Also noticed that this back-down by FF was stated as being a 2 year extension to the previous exemption, does this mean all strips that REX operates to that need the exemption are included??

MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2014, 11:36
  #1244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
So the dangerously narrow strip is, for the time being, now OK and not dangerous. The flights can continue as normal, but only while while the runway is being widened because normal is abnormal but will soon be normal again.


Fair enough.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 29th Sep 2014 at 11:38. Reason: Gibbo remains unmedicated. Terry is sober.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2014, 21:18
  #1245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
White hats 1 – Black hats 0.

Well done All. Common sense prevails, choccy frog to CASA...

Regional Aviation Association CEO Paul Tyrrell says it reflects better relations with CASA, which is undergoing changes including a new board.

"I think the previous decision that was restricting Rex airlines so much that they really were finding it difficult to fly in - that was a bad decision - now there's some sense come into this," he said.
Colour me happy....
Kharon is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2014, 06:50
  #1246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
Robustess interuptus

Bravo bravo and well done on Coober Pedy. Could this be a 'baby step' towards sensibilty? Have CASA and industry just enjoyed their first act of foreplay? Maybe, maybe not. Either way Paul Tyrrell has proven one thing - Industry is more than happy to co-exist with the Regulator, and only asks to be listened to and treated with fairness. This small olive leaf could be turned into the start a new regime, an equitable working relationship. The ball is, and always has been in CASA's court.
Soteria is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2014, 08:06
  #1247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
While mining for Opals.

From Aunty last week on this back-down by FF:
Flights between Adelaide and Coober Pedy to continue after agreement to widen runway
Posted Fri at 10:33amFri 26 Sep 2014, 10:33am
Related Story: MP questions need for Coober Pedy runway widening
Related Story: Council told to widen Coober Pedy runway
Related Story: Flights to Coober Pedy to continue

Map: SA

Flights between Adelaide and Coober Pedy in South Australia's north are to continue after an agreement was reached for the town to widen its runway.
The Regional Express airline had planned to stop operating the route from November 13 due to new runway width requirements imposed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

But the firm's director Jim Davis said the local council had now agreed to widen the runway.

He said the route would continue running as the CASA had relaxed the rules since an agreement was now in place.

"There'll be no more disruption to services as long as the runway widening is carried out within a reasonable time," Mr Davis said.

"That time's not specified, so CASA has been fairly reasonable in allowing the work to take place.

"The work will have to take place within a reasonable timeframe once the funding's obtained."

District Council of Coober Pedy Mayor Steve Baines said it would be business as usual as long as the council could obtain funding and carry out the work.

Mr Baines said last month that widening the runway could cost up to $500,000.
Yes Soty sounds more like a classic FF 'stick and carrot' play... I do wonder though if this opens the door for other operators with runway width exemptions expiring 13 November 2014??

After all (from what I can find), in the case of REX & PelAir, they were given a general exemption due to expire February 2015 and not just a one off exemption for Cooper Pedy:
15. CASA EX37/12 – Expires end of February 2015.(not<18m)(REX)
16. CASA EX36/12 – Expires end of February 2015.(not<18m)(Pel-Air)

[Signed John F. McCormick]
John F. McCormick Director of Aviation Safety
6 March 2012
Exemption — from minimum runway width instructions
1 Duration
This instrument:
(a) commences on 8 March 2012; and
(b) stops having effect at the end of February 2015.
2 Application
This instrument only applies to the SAAB Model A and B aircraft operated by Regional Express Pty Limited, Aviation Reference Number 752788.
3 Exemption
The aircraft are exempt from compliance with the instructions in instrument CASA 61/12.
4 Conditions
The exemption is subject to the conditions mentioned in Schedule 1.
Schedule 1 Conditions
1 The aircraft must not land on, or take off from, a runway that is less than 18 metres wide.
2 Operations on a runway that is not less than 18 metres wide must be conducted in accordance with the Australian CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement #20 for the SAAB SF340A and Supplement #16 for the SAAB 340B.
Examples would be Hardy Aviation - CASA EX83/14– Expires 13 November 2014.(not<18m) - or Pearl Aviation - CASA EX45/14 - Expires 13 November 2014.(not<18m)...

From RAAA ASRR submission:

CAR 235A – minimum runway width

CAR235A describes a process to develop standards of operations
on narrow runways. It also introduces additional requirements that
may restrict or prohibit operations to remote regional communities.
Additionally, the Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) contains
contradictions in regard to crew training and does not provide an
alternative means of achieving equivalent safety outcomes. One of
our Members indicated that CAR 235A has put regular public transport
services to at least one remote regional location in jeopardy.

Another of our members had a local inspector do all the checks at
Clermont Qld for reduced runway width and submitted the Standard
Form of Recommendation (SFR) to CASA where it was signed off by
the applicable section. After this it went to the General Manager within
CASA for final approval who refused to sign it without reason. The
CASA General Manager revisited the SFR twice ultimately waiting till
the maximum time period (3 months) specified in the regulations was
just about expired and then approved the SFR. Due to the excessive
period taken by CASA the client of our Member had decided not to
proceed with the project (mining) at that time.
Hmm...maybe the RAAA could put forward an application for a general (blanket) exemption for all it's effected members, with the proviso that the various effected airports acquire funding and start construction, for widening their runways, within an acceptable time-frame. Certainly test the veracity of this supposed goodwill gesture from FF...

While on Cooper Pedy I noticed that a certain PC-12/47 had a run in with a fence while landing just the other day.
The ATSB has commenced an investigation into a runway undershoot involving a Pilatus Aircraft, PC-12/47, VH-HIG at Coober Pedy Airport, South Australia on 23 September 2014.

During an approach to runway 32 in gusty conditions, the pilot encountered reducing visibility due to dust, and a high sink rate. The aircraft touched down short of the runway and collided with a fence.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the pilot and seek information from the operator.

A report will be released within several months.
Maybe FF will now require operators to apply for runway length exemptions???

MTF...

Last edited by Sarcs; 30th Sep 2014 at 08:40.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2014, 12:12
  #1248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,390
Simple fix for the problem Sarc's is to require all runways in Australia to be as wide as they are long...in the old days they called them "all over fields" Bankstown used to be an all over field, now its an industrial estate.

How many pages of differences with ICAO reside in our AIP???

How simple to include one dealing with runway width because the ICAO requirements are specifically to deal with contaminated runways...ever heard of snow/slush at sunshine coast???

Last edited by thorn bird; 30th Sep 2014 at 12:31. Reason: hey Frank was Terry sober this morning?
thorn bird is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2014, 21:18
  #1249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Stick, carrot and exemption.

Regional Aviation Association CEO Paul Tyrrell says it reflects better relations with CASA,
Had this statement been made a year ago; I'd have been shaking my head. But Paul Tyrrell and the rest of the RAA board are no where near silly, nor are they gullible. The RAA submission to the WLR was powerful and defined, very clearly that the RAA understood 'the system', were unafraid of the CASA stick and would not be fobbed off with a carrot. It's not a perfect solution, but if Tyrrell and his crew are able to negotiate a 'sensible' outcome, it's a good start along a very long path.

Heh, heh; ...the PC 12 story is beautifully ironic; "no problem with the existing width, officer on the centreline all the way in, just a bit too short for landing in contrary winds that's all".

Murphy Rules – OK....

Toot toot.
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2014, 05:22
  #1250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 122
Unhappy narrow runway AFM supplements

I'm a bit confused...

Operations on a runway that is not less than 18 metres wide must be conducted in accordance with the Australian CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement #20 for the SAAB SF340A and Supplement #16 for the SAAB 340B.
I thought the whole idea of the "Australian CAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement" was that the operations to narrow runways was now part of the accepted certification of the 'airplane' and thus a permanent exemption from CAR 235A - am I missing something?
scrubba is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2014, 07:29
  #1251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Skull's parting gesture.

I'm a bit confused...
Seems there is a few on here today that are confused....

Eddie D - "There seems to be confusion over class of operation and category of maintenance, then again that may not be the case because the confusion is confusing me."

...for a second post Eddie that is a classic... Kind of says it all when it comes to interpreting the regs, although it probably doesn't top AerialAg Phil's comment on Part 61..

“Imagine what some poor bastard with a flying training school’s going though. They’re looking at it and saying, how do I train?’’

But back to scrubba's confusion, although not entirely guaranteed.., perhaps this recent DRAFT version of the intended CAAP 235A might help:CAAP 235A-1(0)

Why this publication was written
The purpose of this CAAP is to identify the minimum runway width requirements that apply to aeroplanes with a Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW) greater than 5,700kg engaged in regular public transport (RPT) or charter (CHTR) operations. This CAAP identifies the recommended processes and considerations for the initial production of the Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM), AFMS and operational documentation for narrow runway operations.
However if those 35 pages only add to your confusion scrubba perhaps the following parting good-will letter from the former DAS to REX may help your confused state of mind...:
Trim Ref.' EF14/283

29 August 2014
Mr Neville Howell
Chief Operating Officer
Regional Express
PO Box 807
MASCOT NSW 1460

Dear Mr Howell

I am writing to provide you with the currently available information regarding the ongoing
operation of SAAB 340 aircraft at Coober Pedy. Firstly, let me make it clear that as
previously communicated to you, CASA is seeking means to permit continued safe SAAB
340 operations at Coober Pedy and not to prevent these flights.

Previously, and at present, SAAB 340 operations to runways as narrow as 18m (including
Coober Pedy) have been conducted, in part, under the authority a Flight Manual Supplement
(FMS) that was developed and approved by the then Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in 1991.

CASA is developing a revised legislative package that provides for the assessment of the
capability of aeroplanes to conduct narrow runway operations. This is the alternative to
requiring aerodrome operators to widen runways at aerodromes that do not meet the
aerodrome standards for larger aeroplane types. The assessment will include evaluation of
aeroplane capabilities and aerodrome facilities. lt should be noted that these approvals
frequently impose limitations, an example of which would be a reduced cross wind limit.

Other major regulators including the FAA, EASA and NZ CAA do not allow operations into
runways narrower than the aircraft code and without CASAs legislative package this kind of
operation would cease.

This revised legislative package (CAR 235A and CAAP) is proposed to come into effect as
early as 13th November 2014. Guidance on how to comply with that regulation, and CA SA's
policy on the matter, is provided in CAAP 235A-1 (0). The regulation remains subject to the
Government's normal regulation approval process, including approval by the GovernorGeneral.
CAAP 235A-1 (0) clarifies that the runway width must be of a homogenous surface material.
Coober Pedy's main runway currently consists of an 18m sealed section and 6m gravel
shoulders on either side. This would be considered an 18m wide runway, not a 30m wide
runway for the purposes of the new regulation. This takes into account the effect of having
different braking and performance characteristics when one set of main landing gear wheels
is on gravel and the other on a sealed surface. Similarly, aircraft certification is based on
keeping both landing gear tracks wholly contained on the same surface with the same friction
characteristics.

The FMS previously approved by the CAA restricts operations on 18m wide runways by
application of a 17kt cross wind limitation. However, CASA has identified issues with the
basis used to approve this supplement, and intends to withdraw this approval at some time in
the future.

Earlier this year CASA conducted some initial simulator testing and this indicated that the
cross wind limit may need to be reduced to 10kt in order to ensure the continued safe
operation of SAAB 340 aircraft on the 18m wide runway at Coober Pedy.

CASA has also sought assistance from SAAB to specifically facilitate ongoing operations at
Coober Pedy. Progressing this matter will need to be done in accordance with CASA's policy
as set out in the proposed CAAP 235. SAAB is currently considering if a suitable FMS might
be generated to allow operation to the 18m wide portion of the runway at Coober Pedy, or if
operations to the wider (30M) non-homogeneous Coober Pedy runway may be viable. lt
should be noted that the outcome of this analysis in no way guarantees that a less restrictive
cross wind limit than that proposed by CASA would result.

Based on the 10kt crosswind limitation proposed by CASA, services at the airport could be
affected up to 10% of the time. This is based on information contained in the 2008 report into
options for Coober Pedy airport that was prepared by Aerodrome Design Pty Ltd for the
Coober Pedy District Council.

Whilst there is no requirement in the regulations to widen the runway at Coober Pedy to a
30m homogenous surface, if the runway was widened it would mean that an FMS would not
be required for services to Coober Pedy with SAAB 340 aircraft, and that REX services could
continue with no operational limitations. An acceptable method to "widen" the runway
includes applying sealant to the gravel shoulders of the runway strip, so that the landing
surface would be extended to a 30 metre wide homogenous surface.

To permit continued SAAB 340 operations at Coober Pedy there are a number of options
including:
1. Awaiting the outcome of SAAB's analysis while operating in accordance with CA SA's
recently determined limitations.
2. Sealing the runway shoulders to provide a homogenous 30m surface, allowing
operations of SAAB 340 aircraft with no additional operating limits.

Another option would be to conduct operations to Coober Pedy with an aircraft type such as
a Dash 8, Fokker 50 or Beech Kingair that has the necessary performance and handling
characteristics, and is already approved by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for
operations to an 18m runway.
{this is the bit scrubba...}
The new legislation proposed by CASA means that aeroplane operators will no longer need
to apply for exemptions for narrow runway operations. Instead, aeroplanes will need to have
been assessed by the OEM or by flight test of the aeroplane to determine their capability to

operate on narrow runways.


Irrespective of the proposed legislative changes CASA will continue to work with SAAB and
REX to facilitate ongoing operations of SAAB340 aircraft at Coober Pedy, noting that
depending on the option chosen this may be with appropriate operational limitations to
ensure the safety of such operations.

Yours sincerely

John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
Errr...John REX don't operate Dash 8, Fokker 50 or B200 but nice thought though...

MTF...

Last edited by Sarcs; 1st Oct 2014 at 07:49.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2014, 08:51
  #1252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,390
Just a thought Sarcs, are Saabs approved to operate from gravel?

If so tear up the whole bloody sealed portion of the runway and operate from gravel.

Is anyone surprised that aviation in Australia is being regulated out of business.
Absolutely unbelievable.

Last edited by thorn bird; 1st Oct 2014 at 08:53. Reason: Had to check if Terry was sober today and the skull hadnt had one of his episodes
thorn bird is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2014, 23:01
  #1253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,477
SAAB 340 brochure, page 9 of 22: gravel runways are ok.


http://www.saabaircraftleasing.com/p...40Brochure.pdf
Sunfish is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2014, 23:35
  #1254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Robustus Bollocks- Interuptis.

It was my intention to ignore the last (hopefully) missive from McComic; this industry will take a decade to fully recover from the effects of what is probably the worst half decade of mismanagement, micro managed, misbegotten, left handed bastardry seen since Stalin. However, as the doyen of deviates has elected to have a parting shot before departing the fix, I thought I may make a riposte to an unpleasant missive which defines the McComic era.

Firstly, let me make it clear that as previously communicated to you, CASA is seeking means to permit continued safe SAAB 340 operations at Coober Pedy and not to prevent these flights.
Translation: It was perfectly safe before, it is safe now but "we" are going to try to make sure that 'you' can continue your safe operations. This, despite the fact that

[under] the authority a Flight Manual Supplement (FMS) that was developed and approved by the then Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in 1991.
Translation: It is unfortunate that you were in the past operating quite safely and legally; even more so that you now continue to do so, quite safely and legally but we have to stop you – anyway.

The assessment will include evaluation of aeroplane capabilities and aerodrome facilities. lt should be noted that these approvals frequently impose limitations, an example of which would be a reduced cross wind limit.
Translation: Here's the rub – the tame CASA 'experts' will decide how much crosswind 'they' believe the aircraft can handle; seems to me there are a couple of regulations and some certification data to be wriggled around, but by artificially 'limiting' your operation, with artificial crosswind limits; we can be seen as 'helpful' while stopping your safe, approved, legal operations.

[and] without CASAs legislative package this kind of operation would cease.
Translation: WTF – lets see; CASA approved the operation, CASA issued the instruments, CASA can lodge the ICAO differences; but, CASA now want to blame the regulation of other authorities for the operation ceasing – without CASA 'assistance' to make it all artificially legal again, after they made it artificially illegal – despite it being legal anyway?

[clarifies] that the runway width must be of a homogenous surface material. Coober Pedy's main runway currently consists of an 18m sealed section and 6m gravel shoulders on either side
Translation: So, to all practical intents and purpose; the runway is 30 meters – just not 'homogenous'; the surface is suitable for the purpose of a runway excursion in the rare event a Saab wanders away from the 'sealed' centre, but apart from the PIC being embarrassed by a cloud of dust training behind, no harm is done. Yes 30 meters of bitumen would be nice to have; but a safety case – I doubt it.
Similarly, aircraft certification is based on keeping both landing gear tracks wholly contained on the same surface with the same friction characteristics.
Translation: Disingenuous at best, it may fool a Polly or two, but industry experts – Nah.

The FMS previously approved by the CAA restricts operations on 18m wide runways by application of a 17kt cross wind limitation. However, CASA has identified issues with the basis used to approve this supplement, and intends to withdraw this approval at some time in the future.
Translation: We intend to enforce our decision – no matter what. The simple fact that a generation of pilots have been landing there, without incident for years will not stop the 'withdrawal' due to 'issues', which are not for various reasons cited in the missive. Passing strange – indeed. So, 10 knots forecast – flight departs – 12 knots flight delayed. BOLLOCKS you bloody fool. Absolute Bollocks..

Progressing this matter will need to be done in accordance with CASA's policy as set out in the proposed CAAP 235.
Translation: Finally – a nugget of truth.

I promised myself only one page on this outrageous last, Parthian shot; there is more, much more to said about what is, hopefully, the last time I have to plough through any more of this disingenuous, devious, self serving clap-trap spouted by what is, undoubtedly the worst CASA boss the Murky Machiavellian crew has ever inflicted on a long suffering industry – and that boys and girls, is saying something. We need a Mike Smith, a Billson and a breath of fresh, clear air.

Now bugger off, make it permanent; take your little play mates and cuddly toys with you. We have no need of them.

Toot toot – Houseboat seat 1A is reserved, complimentary, courtesy of the IOS.

Last edited by Kharon; 1st Oct 2014 at 23:42. Reason: That's it (I hope) steam off. A good riddance indeed.
Kharon is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2014, 00:07
  #1255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Safety case be damned!

Top post Kharon, although given in obvious angst, you nail the complete and utter bulldust that constantly emanated from this horrible excuse for a DAS that was inflicted on the industry by that grub Albo...

Much like the PMO embuggerance of CVD pilots the REX/KENDALL Cooper Pedy RPT run had a significant empirical safety case to espouse; from REX ASRR submission:
The new CAR 235A will require operators using runways narrower than the arbitrary
default standards set by ICAO to have procedures for the use of narrow runways set
out in both the aircraft’s Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) and the operator’s
Operations Manual. If the manufacturer does not supply the necessary narrow
runway certification then the operation is prohibited. For the Rex operation, SAAB
has indicated they will not engage in further flight testing to gain narrow runway
operation certification to comply with the ICAO aircraft reference codes (ARC). The
SAAB AFM does currently make provision for narrow runway operations, however
they are not in accordance with the mandated requirements of the CAAP and
therefore not acceptable under the proposed new CAR 235A. The new rule will
prohibit Regional Express Airlines, Pel-Air Aviation and Air Link from operating into
airports with narrow runways thus denying essential air services to some remote
regional communities.

For Rex, this will prevent operations to Coober Pedy where it and Kendell Airlines
have operated continuously since 23 August 1986. Coober Pedy Airport has a 30
metre wide runway with a homogenous 18 metre sealed centre section and to date
CASA has seen fit to issue Regional Express with an exemption (CASA Instrument
EX37/12) from the requirements of the current CAR 235A. The new prescriptive CAR
235A will remove CASA’s ability to issue such exemptions in the future and will
prevent Rex from operating to Coober Pedy after the exemption instrument expires
on 28 February 2015. This is despite more than 27 years of demonstrated safe operations.
The Skull 'olive branch' parting missive is indeed passing strange and smacks of a higher authority directive to get it sorted before his departure. However in true Skull style the weasel words are laced with typical malice & aforethought; perhaps a true depiction of what will be described as the McComic years. Six years of truly diabolical embuggerance that the industry may well not ever recover from...


MTF...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2014, 01:57
  #1256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Shades of the CVD "recent research" smoke and mirrors:
However, CASA has identified issues with the basis used to approve this supplement, and intends to withdraw this approval at some time in the future.
What, precisely, are those "issues"?

I find it dumbfounding that Mr McCormick considered it appropriate simply to make the bald assertion, without backing it up with any cited data or other information. The laws of physics are important in aviation. Lots of work goes into performance calculations and consequent limitations based on precise reality, not amorphous reference to "issues".

There are advantages to this approach, though. For example, it would make aircraft master caution panels simpler. One annunciator that says: "AIRCRAFT HAS ISSUES".

Imagine everyone in CASA being told their employment was going to be terminated. When asked the reasonable question: "WTF?", the answer is: "Somebody has identified issues with the basis used to approve your employment. We're not going to tell you what the "issues" are. We're just sacking you."

If there's hard data and information to support the assertion that the approval of the supplement was based on flawed data or information, just produce it and everyone will then understand the objective reasons for the change.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2014, 05:32
  #1257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 122
Unhappy a sine wave of confusion

Sarcs, thanks for that info.

I was less confused because I learnt that my original premise was correct but that CASA believes that the supplement is flawed. Love to know why...

But then my confusion soared!

Earlier this year CASA conducted some initial simulator testing and this indicated that the cross wind limit may need to be reduced to 10kt in order to ensure the continued safe operation of SAAB 340 aircraft on the 18m wide runway at Coober Pedy.
I presume that this was in the SAAB engineering development simulator and not in the common old garden variety pilot training simulator, since the data package in the latter is most likely not to have sufficient fidelity to accurately replicate the effect of crosswind on Vmcg nor is it tested for such.

How was the original 'flawed' supplement determined?

And another thing:

CAAP 235A-1 (0) clarifies that the runway width must be of a homogenous surface material. Coober Pedy's main runway currently consists of an 18m sealed section and 6m gravel shoulders on either side. This would be considered an 18m wide runway, not a 30m wide runway for the purposes of the new regulation.
I thought that in such circumstances we used to treat it as a 30m gravel runway (worst case) and plan accordingly. If you have a gravel runway certification, no drama...
scrubba is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2014, 07:11
  #1258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,477
CASA seems to have a habit of issuing "exemptions" when it suits them but pleading ICAO regulations as a crutch as well when it suits.

This reminds me of the pre reformation Catholic Church practice of issuing "Indulgences" allowing the faithful to sin for money, while the same sin was prohibited to the rest of us.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2014, 07:40
  #1259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
The aviation industry is ruled by exemptions to the degree that removal of every of them would instantly ground all aircraft in Australia. A bit like the constitution really. What started out as a dozen pages has morphed into a library of amendments that take the size of the Commonwealth Archives to house them.


The ONLY way to rid ourselves of these exemptions is to adopt a new suite of regulations and not written by the current mob of incompetents.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 2nd Oct 2014 at 11:41. Reason: Worried about Terry and PG. No news for a few days.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2014, 09:14
  #1260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,390
Kharon, mate,

Calm down, calm down, you'll have a coronary

Sarc'y not you to mate!! Oh good grief even Creamie!!!!!...err all you others..JEEZ

Now guys this is a serious anger management issue, I mean CAsA medical and all that, not fit and proper, thousands of $ in shrinks...!!

God, that mongrel bastard sure seems to be able generate some fury, even when we thought he was off the stage.

Guys there is a simple solution, line up the bulldozers, invite the press, the Theme?? CAsA considers it safer for us to tear up this nice patch of bitumen and replace it with Pristine GRAVEL, 45 meters wide of course.
thorn bird 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.