Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
I had Two long talks with people about CASA this weekend. Neither of them were reassuring.
One was with an Optometrist acquaintance who had completed the CASA course but on reading the CASA legal agreement to be appointed a CASA testing officer, declined to sign it.
The reasons were:
(A) The ocular standards required for pilots were far too strict in his opinion. One misread letter is a fail. He felt that the standards were ridiculously tight to the point where he could just about fail anybody if he had a mind to.
(B) CASA required him to report to CASA even the suspicion of a developing condition of any sort. For example, Glaucoma, which, according to him, may take Thirty years before it has a detectable effect on vision. Then of course eye photography now provides indications of potential cholesterol, diabetes and blood pressure conditions, he said. Needless to say, once reported to CASA Aviation Medicine, the medical certificate is only going to get issued by CASA after thousands of dollars of further tests each year. The Optometrist felt he was being asked to be a CASA spy, since even consultations not related to a medical certificate still required him to dob in any pilot he thought might have an issue.
(C) CASA waved the big "Conflict of interest" stick! If he tested a pilot and discovered his vision needed correction via prescribing glasses, then these had to be prescribed by a second separate Optometrist because he had a conflict of interest!!!!!!!
Can you believe that??? Here is CASA, the most conflicted entity in the entire country - regulator, policeman, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one, and they are primly telling a professional Optometrist to beware of conflict of interest???? This just beggars belief!
As he explained it. If you go to a CASA approved Optometrist for an eye test, not even not connected with your medical certificate, you risk getting reported to CASA!
Furthermore, here is a freedom of information request for someone: How many "renew by CASA only" pilot medical certificates exist and what are the numbers issued by year for the last Ten years or so? I have a sneaking suspicion that a little empire is being built in the medical section by inflating the numbers of medical certificates that require CASA consideration to renew them.
Second conversation was with an ex public servant senior enough to hob nob socially with Ministers and even the PM. When I explained my perplexity at CASAs alleged behaviour, he explained that it was consistent with neither major political party wanting anything to do with aviation at all.
The only workable solution according to him was political. Industry talking sweet reason to the regulator is a waste of time, even internal CASA staff talking sweet reason to their bosses is a waste of time. The bosses have been told to just ensure that aviation does not impinge on the body politic. The pilots have about the same political pull as prisoners rights groups - nobody cares.
The solution needs to be political action including the possibility of strike action that gets positive (not negative) media attention, and given pilot disunity that isn't going to happen.
One was with an Optometrist acquaintance who had completed the CASA course but on reading the CASA legal agreement to be appointed a CASA testing officer, declined to sign it.
The reasons were:
(A) The ocular standards required for pilots were far too strict in his opinion. One misread letter is a fail. He felt that the standards were ridiculously tight to the point where he could just about fail anybody if he had a mind to.
(B) CASA required him to report to CASA even the suspicion of a developing condition of any sort. For example, Glaucoma, which, according to him, may take Thirty years before it has a detectable effect on vision. Then of course eye photography now provides indications of potential cholesterol, diabetes and blood pressure conditions, he said. Needless to say, once reported to CASA Aviation Medicine, the medical certificate is only going to get issued by CASA after thousands of dollars of further tests each year. The Optometrist felt he was being asked to be a CASA spy, since even consultations not related to a medical certificate still required him to dob in any pilot he thought might have an issue.
(C) CASA waved the big "Conflict of interest" stick! If he tested a pilot and discovered his vision needed correction via prescribing glasses, then these had to be prescribed by a second separate Optometrist because he had a conflict of interest!!!!!!!
Can you believe that??? Here is CASA, the most conflicted entity in the entire country - regulator, policeman, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one, and they are primly telling a professional Optometrist to beware of conflict of interest???? This just beggars belief!
As he explained it. If you go to a CASA approved Optometrist for an eye test, not even not connected with your medical certificate, you risk getting reported to CASA!
Furthermore, here is a freedom of information request for someone: How many "renew by CASA only" pilot medical certificates exist and what are the numbers issued by year for the last Ten years or so? I have a sneaking suspicion that a little empire is being built in the medical section by inflating the numbers of medical certificates that require CASA consideration to renew them.
Second conversation was with an ex public servant senior enough to hob nob socially with Ministers and even the PM. When I explained my perplexity at CASAs alleged behaviour, he explained that it was consistent with neither major political party wanting anything to do with aviation at all.
The only workable solution according to him was political. Industry talking sweet reason to the regulator is a waste of time, even internal CASA staff talking sweet reason to their bosses is a waste of time. The bosses have been told to just ensure that aviation does not impinge on the body politic. The pilots have about the same political pull as prisoners rights groups - nobody cares.
The solution needs to be political action including the possibility of strike action that gets positive (not negative) media attention, and given pilot disunity that isn't going to happen.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sine die
CP –"What I said was they confidently predicted they would get away with it, scott free."
Yet if some poor mutt dares to contravene a small part of some arcane law, the full weight of the authority, using public money; in the name of safety is used to enforce that law, policy or whim – as, when and if it suits.
It leaves us living in a well padded state of reversed anarchy – under the rule of the of the regulator, where daring to question is a heinous crime, let alone protest. Challenge is treated as open rebellion, the challenger destroyed, at any price.
Australia – love it or leave it.
Melbourne Cup Day - One of the traditional times for Government to release bad news. I wonder if we get the Governments response to the review today or do we get it as a belated after Christmas present?
Response to review
It is unlikely that the government's response to the review will make much difference unless some Coalition MP's bring pressure to bear on Truss through cabinet. In other words I hope no one is self asphyxiated waiting for nearly nothing. The Skidmore appointment is not a portent for change. Your ordinary MP might take note that airline pilots are on the 457 visa list. I've asked my MP to consider that it is better to home grow pilots for economical and safety reasons.
Another suggestion to an MP; there could be bad publicity in the offing if there is no reform.
What is needed is political action of any and all sorts.
It has been puzzling to me that our airline pilots, particularly those who started in GA, have as a group been so quiet in the public arena. Maybe someone can enlighten me why this is so? If a few senior airline captains were to make noise, the media would listen and give credence to us lowly GA types at the same time.
Another suggestion to an MP; there could be bad publicity in the offing if there is no reform.
What is needed is political action of any and all sorts.
It has been puzzling to me that our airline pilots, particularly those who started in GA, have as a group been so quiet in the public arena. Maybe someone can enlighten me why this is so? If a few senior airline captains were to make noise, the media would listen and give credence to us lowly GA types at the same time.
Wren460:
Because CASA do not have the competence, capability or experience to regulate Qantas and Virgin, they are left to their own devices, although the formalities are preserved. This was even the case when I worked at Ansett in the 1970's.
Cowardly CASA therefore sticks to terrorising the GA sector.
It has been puzzling to me that our airline pilots, particularly those who started in GA, have as a group been so quiet in the public arena. Maybe someone can enlighten me why this is so? If a few senior airline captains were to make noise, the media would listen and give credence to us lowly GA types at the same time.
Cowardly CASA therefore sticks to terrorising the GA sector.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA won't change because it doesn't have to change!!!
Wren460, the reason why most pilots are reasonably quiet is because they have spent decades and a lot of money in pursuit of the career they love and they know that just one outspoken public criticism of CASA could see their career, future and retirement plans flushed down the ****ter in the blink of an eye. Now those who live with the fairies won't believe that for a second, but those who know and play within the system know this only too well - Butsons, Quadrio's et al.
The Regulator is a narcissist, a bully, a puerile sanctimonious collection of sycophants and sociopaths thriving as an untouchable and unaccountable parasitic machine that is fed and supported by its host - the Australian government.
CASA won't change because it doesn't have to. The Government, ICAO, the UN, our laws, our politicians and all the demons in heaven don't want change, don't care about change, don't want to mandate change, couldn't give a **** about change. Change will only come about if there is an Australian revolution or an A380 pancakes itself on top of the Australian war memorial (will likely be blamed on a Captain with alleged CVD anyway) . In the meantime boys, remember the film The Castle and keep dreaming.
The Regulator is a narcissist, a bully, a puerile sanctimonious collection of sycophants and sociopaths thriving as an untouchable and unaccountable parasitic machine that is fed and supported by its host - the Australian government.
CASA won't change because it doesn't have to. The Government, ICAO, the UN, our laws, our politicians and all the demons in heaven don't want change, don't care about change, don't want to mandate change, couldn't give a **** about change. Change will only come about if there is an Australian revolution or an A380 pancakes itself on top of the Australian war memorial (will likely be blamed on a Captain with alleged CVD anyway) . In the meantime boys, remember the film The Castle and keep dreaming.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err Soty old mate,
"The Regulator is a narcissist, a bully, a puerile sanctimonious collection of sycophants and sociopaths thriving as an untouchable and unaccountable parasitic machine that is fed and supported by its host - the Australian government".
Tad harsh old boy!!...
been trying to think what you left out?
Ah, you forgot corrupt!!
Anybody have anything else?
"The Regulator is a narcissist, a bully, a puerile sanctimonious collection of sycophants and sociopaths thriving as an untouchable and unaccountable parasitic machine that is fed and supported by its host - the Australian government".
Tad harsh old boy!!...
been trying to think what you left out?
Ah, you forgot corrupt!!
Anybody have anything else?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perspective.
Wren - Many of the 'senior' airline pilots have spoken out, but as a cohesive group, in compliance with company policy and dignity, when and where it mattered, through the 'union' system.
'They' have spoken eloquently and effectively at every one of the Senate inquiries, i.e. Pilot training (derailed by the Tiger smoke and mirrors show), the Pel Air inquiry and responded very well to the Forsyth review; the 'pilot bodies' and I suspect the companies provided massive support to John O'Brien and the Colour Vision debacle. The GA associations have also contributed, in a similar fashion. I fail to understand what more you believe could have been done, short of camping on the Truss lawn and setting off fireworks to wake the lazy, useless blighter from his self induced trance.
'Industry' has responded magnificently, (considering the risk) whether the investment of time, skill, trouble and effort, all voluntary, (blood sweat and tears) has been in vain or not only time will tell.
I'd just say thank you, to all: well done; and never, ever quit. Bravo.
Toot toot. MkII.
'They' have spoken eloquently and effectively at every one of the Senate inquiries, i.e. Pilot training (derailed by the Tiger smoke and mirrors show), the Pel Air inquiry and responded very well to the Forsyth review; the 'pilot bodies' and I suspect the companies provided massive support to John O'Brien and the Colour Vision debacle. The GA associations have also contributed, in a similar fashion. I fail to understand what more you believe could have been done, short of camping on the Truss lawn and setting off fireworks to wake the lazy, useless blighter from his self induced trance.
'Industry' has responded magnificently, (considering the risk) whether the investment of time, skill, trouble and effort, all voluntary, (blood sweat and tears) has been in vain or not only time will tell.
I'd just say thank you, to all: well done; and never, ever quit. Bravo.
Toot toot. MkII.
Borg's message & Tezza MIA.
Mid-week around the traps...
Borghetti keen to ease regulation to improve productivity
But your pitching your message to the wrong bloke JB...
Our miniscule is currently either fluffing in the bath with his beloved boats or playing with his full replica Thomas the Tank Engine set...
Meanwhile over at Fort Fumble it is good to see someone in the airspace office is awake and did not miss Dick's broadside at the big "R" regulator - Dick Smith warns pilots to be wary of new rules at uncharted airports - here is the response as relayed by the Hitch crew:
Could someone send Hitch a link for the relevant thread on this subject - plenty of comments in there...
While on Fort Fumble it would appear that there has been some spring-cleaning going on pending the arrival of the new DAS...
Trouble is they couldn't rouse Tezza from his arvo slumber to pen his moniker to this missive to the Heff...
:
1.) Correspondence received on 31 October 2014 from Mr Terry Farquharson, Acting Director of Aviation Safety for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, clarifying evidence given on 20 October 2014.(PDF 684 KB)
MTF...
Borghetti keen to ease regulation to improve productivity
Virgin Australia chief executive John Borghetti says government should ensure regulation does not stifle the growth and productivity of Australia’s airlines.
Speaking in Canberra to the Transport and Tourism Forum leadership summit’s audience of political and industry figures, Borghetti noted airline productivity had been a key driver of the growth in Australia’s aviation industry over the past decade, and said government had a key role to play to ensure regulatory burdens did not throttle that growth.
“Ensuring that the regulatory and compliance burden is not impeding the growth and competitiveness of the industry is an area where government can very clearly play a role,” Borghetti said on October 29.
“Undertaking the usual business approach of robust cost-benefit analyses before introducing new regulations and considering opportunities to streamline current regulations, or for that matter looking at new approaches rather than simply adding layers and layers of regulation over time, and keeping on putting bandaids in place, are cases in point.”
Speaking in Canberra to the Transport and Tourism Forum leadership summit’s audience of political and industry figures, Borghetti noted airline productivity had been a key driver of the growth in Australia’s aviation industry over the past decade, and said government had a key role to play to ensure regulatory burdens did not throttle that growth.
“Ensuring that the regulatory and compliance burden is not impeding the growth and competitiveness of the industry is an area where government can very clearly play a role,” Borghetti said on October 29.
“Undertaking the usual business approach of robust cost-benefit analyses before introducing new regulations and considering opportunities to streamline current regulations, or for that matter looking at new approaches rather than simply adding layers and layers of regulation over time, and keeping on putting bandaids in place, are cases in point.”
Our miniscule is currently either fluffing in the bath with his beloved boats or playing with his full replica Thomas the Tank Engine set...Meanwhile over at Fort Fumble it is good to see someone in the airspace office is awake and did not miss Dick's broadside at the big "R" regulator - Dick Smith warns pilots to be wary of new rules at uncharted airports - here is the response as relayed by the Hitch crew:
CASA responds to ALA Frequency Question
05 Nov 2014
CASA has responded to criticisms over their advice to broadcast on the area VHF frequency when operating from a airfield not marked on charts.
Former CASA boss Dick Smith highlighted the issue on Friday with a scathing response to advice provided in a Civil Aviation Advisory publication (CAAP).
A CASA spokesperson reiterated the regulator's position in an e-mail sent to Australian Flying.
"The multicom frequency (126.7) is not appropriate here because pilots who are unaware of the unmarked aerodrome will be using the Area frequency, and will not hear multicom broadcasts," the e-mail stated. "Pilots transiting at low levels over uncharted aerodromes will not be monitoring multicom—they could be flying on the same track not knowing traffic is coming up.
"Multicom was never a national frequency—it was the frequency to be used at, or in the vicinity of, non-controlled aerodromes without a discrete frequency.
"The area frequency also has an advantage in an emergency, for receiving ATC alerts, and to receive a surveillance information service (SIS) if required.
"Uncharted aerodromes can be very busy. If you are concerned about frequency congestion, and wish to have an aerodrome charted, the best approach is for the aerodrome owner to work through the local Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) to seek a change.
"It is not possible to develop guidance addressing every possible circumstance. This is because radio alerted see-and-avoid in Class G airspace is subject to many variables, not least of which is that not all aircraft will be VHF-radio equipped. So pilots must exercise judgement and airmanship to determine what broadcasts should be made and on what frequency.
"Pilots must check all applicable charts—WAC, VTC, VNC etc. This is important because chart limitations mean that an aerodrome may be marked on one chart but not another."
Smith's objection to the advice is based on the possibility that broadcasts on the area frequency may block out important instructions given to passenger jets.
Your Say
We're keen to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment below and tell us if you think 126.7 or the area VHF frequency should be used for airfields not marked on ANY chart.
05 Nov 2014
CASA has responded to criticisms over their advice to broadcast on the area VHF frequency when operating from a airfield not marked on charts.
Former CASA boss Dick Smith highlighted the issue on Friday with a scathing response to advice provided in a Civil Aviation Advisory publication (CAAP).
A CASA spokesperson reiterated the regulator's position in an e-mail sent to Australian Flying.
"The multicom frequency (126.7) is not appropriate here because pilots who are unaware of the unmarked aerodrome will be using the Area frequency, and will not hear multicom broadcasts," the e-mail stated. "Pilots transiting at low levels over uncharted aerodromes will not be monitoring multicom—they could be flying on the same track not knowing traffic is coming up.
"Multicom was never a national frequency—it was the frequency to be used at, or in the vicinity of, non-controlled aerodromes without a discrete frequency.
"The area frequency also has an advantage in an emergency, for receiving ATC alerts, and to receive a surveillance information service (SIS) if required.
"Uncharted aerodromes can be very busy. If you are concerned about frequency congestion, and wish to have an aerodrome charted, the best approach is for the aerodrome owner to work through the local Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) to seek a change.
"It is not possible to develop guidance addressing every possible circumstance. This is because radio alerted see-and-avoid in Class G airspace is subject to many variables, not least of which is that not all aircraft will be VHF-radio equipped. So pilots must exercise judgement and airmanship to determine what broadcasts should be made and on what frequency.
"Pilots must check all applicable charts—WAC, VTC, VNC etc. This is important because chart limitations mean that an aerodrome may be marked on one chart but not another."
Smith's objection to the advice is based on the possibility that broadcasts on the area frequency may block out important instructions given to passenger jets.
Your Say
We're keen to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment below and tell us if you think 126.7 or the area VHF frequency should be used for airfields not marked on ANY chart.
While on Fort Fumble it would appear that there has been some spring-cleaning going on pending the arrival of the new DAS...
Trouble is they couldn't rouse Tezza from his arvo slumber to pen his moniker to this missive to the Heff...:1.) Correspondence received on 31 October 2014 from Mr Terry Farquharson, Acting Director of Aviation Safety for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, clarifying evidence given on 20 October 2014.(PDF 684 KB)
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF AVIATION SAFETY
Trim Ref: SE1415
28October 2014
Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan
Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Rural
and Regional Affairs and Transport Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Senator Heffernan
Clarification of an issue raised at Estimates
I write regarding an issue raised at the October 2014 Estimates hearing regarding credit card transactions.
During the hearing, Senator Sterle asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to advise the Committee' ... how many employees have had to pay back money for private expenses that were claimed on cash or credit card' (Hansard (proof) at p. 153).
In responding to Senator Sterle's questions on this matter, Ms Gillian Savage and Mr Craig Jordan inadvertently overstated the number of employees who have had to repay money for private expenses made on CASA credit cards during the financial year 2014-15, and understated somewhat the estimated amounts of typical charges of this kind. The correct information is provided below.
Between 1 July and 30 September 2014, CASA had 13 instances of misuse with 11 instances being self-reported and the remaining two being identified through CASA's assurance processes. The misuse transactions ranged from $2 to $622.00 with the average total being $152.43.
As Mr Jordan advised during the hearing, all monies related to inadvertent purchases have been repaid. CASA also advises that no instances of fraud were identified.
I trust this advice clarifies matters on this issue.
Yours sincerely
Terry Farquharson
Acting Director of Aviation Safety
Trim Ref: SE1415
28October 2014
Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan
Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Rural
and Regional Affairs and Transport Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Senator Heffernan
Clarification of an issue raised at Estimates
I write regarding an issue raised at the October 2014 Estimates hearing regarding credit card transactions.
During the hearing, Senator Sterle asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to advise the Committee' ... how many employees have had to pay back money for private expenses that were claimed on cash or credit card' (Hansard (proof) at p. 153).
In responding to Senator Sterle's questions on this matter, Ms Gillian Savage and Mr Craig Jordan inadvertently overstated the number of employees who have had to repay money for private expenses made on CASA credit cards during the financial year 2014-15, and understated somewhat the estimated amounts of typical charges of this kind. The correct information is provided below.
Between 1 July and 30 September 2014, CASA had 13 instances of misuse with 11 instances being self-reported and the remaining two being identified through CASA's assurance processes. The misuse transactions ranged from $2 to $622.00 with the average total being $152.43.
As Mr Jordan advised during the hearing, all monies related to inadvertent purchases have been repaid. CASA also advises that no instances of fraud were identified.
I trust this advice clarifies matters on this issue.
Yours sincerely
Terry Farquharson
Acting Director of Aviation Safety
Last edited by Sarcs; 5th Nov 2014 at 04:21.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoke, mirrors and chump change..
Deadly boring warning, just couldn't let it slide by. I expect there are those who would call me a cynic, or at least not a troo bloo believer in CASA speak, but even the most gooey eyed Casaphile deconstructing the statement below, even using CASA applied 'logic' would have pause.
"Between 1 July and 30 September 2014, CASA had 13 instances of misuse": that's July, August and September this year (three months or a quater for the purist) which is 4.333' incidents per month, so a reasonable forecast of 51.96 incidents a year, :: one a week.
"with 11 instances being self-reported". You notice that the 'terms of use' are not specified and there is no yardstick to measure the 'legitimate' uses of the card against the 'illegitimate' which is passing strange enough, but who were the 'volunteers' who so selflessly owned up? and why did they feel they could use 'the card' illegitimately in the first instance?, perhaps it's those naughty suffer-market scanners, or McDonalds don't take Mastercard.
"and the remaining two being identified through CASA's assurance processes". Is it for this useful purpose, (like the DAMP), we pay a 441 strong 'corporate services' outfit to hunt down these perpetrators of credit card misuse. It seems highly possible, going on CASA numbers that it costs more to 'audit' the loss than the small transactions acknowledged cost.
"The misuse transactions ranged from $2 to $622.00 with the average total being $152.43". Tricky numbers there, one $150 misuse a week for the year = $7920.26. The $622 'misuse' is probably a genuine 'Whoops'; it's the little ones that are a worry; who uses a credit card to buy a $2.00 bus ticket?, it costs more to use the card. But a multitude of between $20 and $50 touches soon add up and pay the golf club membership, so essential to Can'tberra living.
I don't care about the money so much as I care that the CASA actually believe that the Senators or even Joe Public are naive enough to actually believe this rubbish or dopey enough to accept it. What is needed? – well the Auditor General through CASA, ASA and perhaps even ATSB would be a start – a goodwill gesture if you like; now that would be of interest in the 'self reporting' stakes.
No wonder Terry didn't sign the missive; I'm sure I wouldn't have either...
Between 1 July and 30 September 2014, CASA had 13 instances of misuse with 11 instances being self-reported and the remaining two being identified through CASA's assurance processes. The misuse transactions ranged from $2 to $622.00 with the average total being $152.43.
"with 11 instances being self-reported". You notice that the 'terms of use' are not specified and there is no yardstick to measure the 'legitimate' uses of the card against the 'illegitimate' which is passing strange enough, but who were the 'volunteers' who so selflessly owned up? and why did they feel they could use 'the card' illegitimately in the first instance?, perhaps it's those naughty suffer-market scanners, or McDonalds don't take Mastercard.
"and the remaining two being identified through CASA's assurance processes". Is it for this useful purpose, (like the DAMP), we pay a 441 strong 'corporate services' outfit to hunt down these perpetrators of credit card misuse. It seems highly possible, going on CASA numbers that it costs more to 'audit' the loss than the small transactions acknowledged cost.
"The misuse transactions ranged from $2 to $622.00 with the average total being $152.43". Tricky numbers there, one $150 misuse a week for the year = $7920.26. The $622 'misuse' is probably a genuine 'Whoops'; it's the little ones that are a worry; who uses a credit card to buy a $2.00 bus ticket?, it costs more to use the card. But a multitude of between $20 and $50 touches soon add up and pay the golf club membership, so essential to Can'tberra living.
I don't care about the money so much as I care that the CASA actually believe that the Senators or even Joe Public are naive enough to actually believe this rubbish or dopey enough to accept it. What is needed? – well the Auditor General through CASA, ASA and perhaps even ATSB would be a start – a goodwill gesture if you like; now that would be of interest in the 'self reporting' stakes.
No wonder Terry didn't sign the missive; I'm sure I wouldn't have either...
And I reiterate that:
- they apparently issue corporate credit cards with the PayWave function enabled; and
- the holders of these cards apparently wave their wallets at the PayWave terminal with the expectation that it will magically 'pick' and charge the personal credit card.
Comedy gold.
- they apparently issue corporate credit cards with the PayWave function enabled; and
- the holders of these cards apparently wave their wallets at the PayWave terminal with the expectation that it will magically 'pick' and charge the personal credit card.
Comedy gold.
Hitch daring to have an opinion??
From - The Last Minute Hitch: 7 November 2014 :
Ps Confusing isn't it Creamy...
Perhaps this helps or not...
MTF...
:
When John McCormick announced his departure as CASA Director of Aviation Safety, I was very quick to point out that we were naive if we thought that changing leaders was enough to fix culture at CASA. Similarly, just because the head of the aviation medical division Pooshan Navathe will leave next year, we are foolish to think the culture within AVMED will automatically change. Of all the divisions within CASA, it is AVMED that is drawing the greatest amount of derision from the industry. Hardly a week goes by when we don't hear of another story of a pilot treated harshly by a seeming lack of logic and fairness from AVMED. There is a long way to go, and hopefully Mark Skidmore is the man to step out on the journey.
CASA has hit back on the matter of radio frequencies for airfields not marked on charts. They are reiterating their position on the need to use the area VHF not 126.7. This is a classic example of the old saying: in aviation, if you ask five people what they think you'll get six opinions. Are we overlooking that, as CAAPs are advisory only, no-one needs to comply with CASA's advice and everyone can do their own thing anyway? That doesn't sound safe either.
CASA has hit back on the matter of radio frequencies for airfields not marked on charts. They are reiterating their position on the need to use the area VHF not 126.7. This is a classic example of the old saying: in aviation, if you ask five people what they think you'll get six opinions. Are we overlooking that, as CAAPs are advisory only, no-one needs to comply with CASA's advice and everyone can do their own thing anyway? That doesn't sound safe either.
Perhaps this helps or not...
.AR201400065Date reported- 07 August 2014
Concern title - The processes used by CASA and Airservices Australia to make changes to Aeronautical Information Package (AIP)
Concern summary - The concern related to the procedures used by both CASA and Airservices to make changes to the AIP.
Industry / Operation affected - Aviation: General aviation
Concern subject type - Aviation: Airspace
Reporter's concern
The reporter expressed a safety concern regarding the procedures CASA and Airservices Australia have in place when changes are made to the AIP.
The reporter pointed out that changes were made to the AIP on the 30 May 2013 in relation to the frequency which was to be used at aerodromes which did not have a specific CTAF [Common Traffic Advisory Frequency]. These changes contradicted other areas of the AIP (such as the definition of 'Multicom') and resulted in the likelihood of two aircraft operating to an aerodrome on different frequencies, diminishing the collision avoidance benefits of radio-alerted see and avoid, and creating additional radio broadcasts and over transmissions on frequencies used regularly by airlines. These changes were followed by a Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) released in December 2013 again contradicting statements within the AIP. The CASA safety advisors do not seem to have been consulted or made aware of the changes, leaving them giving again contradictory messages as to which frequency should be used.
The Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) was not consulted about these changes. The frequency confusion caused by non-aligned documentation and lack of industry education has existed for more than 12 months.
Operator's response (Operator 1)
Airservices Australia (Airservices) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the reported concern regarding the changes made to the Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) on 30 May 2013 in relation to the frequency to be used at aerodromes which do not have a specific Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF).
Airservices clarifies that there is a formal process agreed by CASA and Airservices for amending the AIP, and in accordance with this process, the agency (CASA or Airservices) initiating the change is responsible for assessing the impact of the change and taking relevant actions such as industry consultation and education to manage any associated risks.
Where AIP changes are initiated by Airservices they are managed in accordance with Airservices Safety Management System (SMS). By applying our SMS, Airservices ensures that the impact of the change is clearly understood and any associated risks to air traffic management are identified and managed appropriately. Once approved by Airservices and CASA, changes are sent to Airservices Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) group who are responsible for publishing updates to the AIP.
As the change referred to by the reporter was initiated by CASA, Airservices suggests that CASA would be best placed to respond to the specific concerns raised in this REPCON.
Airservices notes that as a result of a CASA Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the implemented AIP change and associated Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) additional amendments were made to the AIP. These changes are to be published on 21 August 2014 (AIP issue AL80) and address the reporter's concern.
Regulator's response (Regulator 1)
There is a documented process in place to affect changes to the AIP as well as agreed procedures between CASA and Airservices to progress change requests to the AIP which is:
Generally, changes to AIP are not consulted with RAPACs. RAPACs are used as a vehicle to review frequencies in use at an aerodrome or by a group of aerodromes and may recommend establishing a discrete CTAF at an aerodrome, allocating a discrete CTAF used by neighbouring aerodromes or establishing BAs.
Concern title - The processes used by CASA and Airservices Australia to make changes to Aeronautical Information Package (AIP)
Concern summary - The concern related to the procedures used by both CASA and Airservices to make changes to the AIP.
Industry / Operation affected - Aviation: General aviation
Concern subject type - Aviation: Airspace
Reporter's concern
The reporter expressed a safety concern regarding the procedures CASA and Airservices Australia have in place when changes are made to the AIP.
The reporter pointed out that changes were made to the AIP on the 30 May 2013 in relation to the frequency which was to be used at aerodromes which did not have a specific CTAF [Common Traffic Advisory Frequency]. These changes contradicted other areas of the AIP (such as the definition of 'Multicom') and resulted in the likelihood of two aircraft operating to an aerodrome on different frequencies, diminishing the collision avoidance benefits of radio-alerted see and avoid, and creating additional radio broadcasts and over transmissions on frequencies used regularly by airlines. These changes were followed by a Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) released in December 2013 again contradicting statements within the AIP. The CASA safety advisors do not seem to have been consulted or made aware of the changes, leaving them giving again contradictory messages as to which frequency should be used.
The Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) was not consulted about these changes. The frequency confusion caused by non-aligned documentation and lack of industry education has existed for more than 12 months.
Operator's response (Operator 1)
Airservices Australia (Airservices) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the reported concern regarding the changes made to the Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) on 30 May 2013 in relation to the frequency to be used at aerodromes which do not have a specific Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF).
Airservices clarifies that there is a formal process agreed by CASA and Airservices for amending the AIP, and in accordance with this process, the agency (CASA or Airservices) initiating the change is responsible for assessing the impact of the change and taking relevant actions such as industry consultation and education to manage any associated risks.
Where AIP changes are initiated by Airservices they are managed in accordance with Airservices Safety Management System (SMS). By applying our SMS, Airservices ensures that the impact of the change is clearly understood and any associated risks to air traffic management are identified and managed appropriately. Once approved by Airservices and CASA, changes are sent to Airservices Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) group who are responsible for publishing updates to the AIP.
As the change referred to by the reporter was initiated by CASA, Airservices suggests that CASA would be best placed to respond to the specific concerns raised in this REPCON.
Airservices notes that as a result of a CASA Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the implemented AIP change and associated Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) additional amendments were made to the AIP. These changes are to be published on 21 August 2014 (AIP issue AL80) and address the reporter's concern.
Regulator's response (Regulator 1)
There is a documented process in place to affect changes to the AIP as well as agreed procedures between CASA and Airservices to progress change requests to the AIP which is:
- The procedures for approving changes to the AIP are included in a manual which is stored in CASA's corporate records management system;
- There is a Letter of Agreement between CASA and Airservices on how both organisations progress approval of changes to the AIP;
- A standard template has been developed to facilitate AIP changes;
- AIP changes within CASA are approved by a selected group of senior managers who consult within their teams;
- Approvals for AIP changes are recorded in CASA's corporate records management system; and
- Only changes approved by CASA can be published in the AIP.
Generally, changes to AIP are not consulted with RAPACs. RAPACs are used as a vehicle to review frequencies in use at an aerodrome or by a group of aerodromes and may recommend establishing a discrete CTAF at an aerodrome, allocating a discrete CTAF used by neighbouring aerodromes or establishing BAs.
Last edited by Sarcs; 7th Nov 2014 at 08:06.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunday ramble.
Hitch – "Are we overlooking that, as CAAPs are advisory only, no-one needs to comply with CASA's advice and everyone can do their own thing anyway? That doesn't sound safe either.
The great debate of whether a two tier or a three tier system needs to be employed. There is serious support for both propositions, valid argument for and against, there is even a school of thought which would like to see a 'spilt system', three layers for 'engineering' two layers for 'operations'. If Skidmore allows a 'fair dinkum' debate it will be as fierce as it will be entertaining.
OMO – but one of the 'elements' missing is a phrase something like "a method of compliance, but not the only method" which implies that the 'Advisory' as provided by the 'third' tier is 'preferred' but an alternative method may be approved; bit like a MEL, equivalent safety standard if you like. Where in theory you believe you can disregard a CAAP, you can; but do so at your own peril. Say you run out of noise and you have been operating a system which does not comply with the CAAP; if there is no approval for the 'difference' then the CAAP will be viewed as 'the law' by a judge and CASA. Even if there is a two tier system and you propose an alternative means of compliance, it must be a formally accepted and approved 'difference'.
The above is a potted version and not legally nice, but it's one of the 'big' decisions industry will have to form an opinion on; if industry wants to have a say that is. I have provided (with permission) below part of one of the many opinions on the matter for discussion. It's a worthy, important topic, even if as dry as dust. It is one of the many reasons why Truss must publish the industry response to the WLR and is failing industry by not doing so; the issue needs to be addressed, in full, consultation between industry and CASA essential.
It is not the only argument, nor is it the necessarily a right one, but it is food for thought; and, if we are to regain some semblance of 'say' in how industry is managed, your point of view must be considered. FWIW:-
Items 30 and 31.
Officially, Australia has, since 1998 operated in a two tier legislative structure. The two tier structure has worked well for over 15 years, the recently introduced third tier has not. Participants involved with a CASR Part 42/145 organisation for example will confirm and define exactly what the problems are, even to a simple, routine matter such as negotiating a 'variation'.
To have a third tier of legislation (by whatever name, Manuals of Standards, Aviation Standards, CAO etc.) which require no less than full parliamentary process for each operational change is a significant impost; but, it is the built in rigidity, the 'inflexibility', which raises objections from an industry already enraged, disadvantaged by and burdened with the cost of regulation, combined with an aggressive, obsessive culture of micro management.
The premeditated, deliberate CASA manipulation of the “Manuals of Standards” (MOS) has been designed in such a way that Australia has, to all intents and purpose, been returned to a third tier structure; this without the benefit of industry consultation, consideration or acceptance.
The “manual of standard” terminology was originally used to describe certificates issued under CASR Part 21 such as aircraft TC, STC, APMA, ATSO. etc. It was never intended to meet 'aviation safety standards' specified in 9(1)(c).
Simply put, there is no risk reduction (safety benefit) in the current interpretation of 'third tier' of legislation. Arguably the reverse is true, due to regulator inability to act or respond 'quickly' to rapidly changing aviation circumstance. Indeed, it could be reasonably argued that the inflexibility of three tier regulation increases operational and accidental breech risk levels.
Under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(Cth), the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth); and, due process to create/enact/change a legislative instrument, change can take years, while an AC/AMC (1) advisory) can be changed within days of a requirement becoming known.
(1) An incorrect, although commonly made statement is "Advisory Circulars (AC) are not enforceable". This is a complete misrepresentation of the legal position. The preamble to every AC states: “A way but not the only way to comply with Regulation ABC; (the regulation which raises the AC). However "not the only way” clearly releases the operator to 'negotiate' an alternative Acceptable Means of Compliance (ACM) with CASA.
Three tier legislation, modelled on the Canadian system would be acceptable, provided changes the current two-tier regulatory framework evolved to where the third-tier standards are drafted in plain, easy to understand language and Regulations are drafted in a clear succinct style, defining provisions for enabling standards and necessary legislative provisions, including offences.
Third tier ‘standards’; provided as either 'legislation' or Advisory (Acceptable Means of Compliance) - must comply with CASA function under Sec 9 (1)( c) of the Act to develop and promulgate appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards. Amending ‘standards’ specified in the regulations to “aviation safety standards” specified in regulations, to be provided in either Operational Specification or as an Instrument.
Section 98 5AB of the Act states that a legislative instrument can be issued. An instrument must not prescribe a penalty.
Officially, Australia has, since 1998 operated in a two tier legislative structure. The two tier structure has worked well for over 15 years, the recently introduced third tier has not. Participants involved with a CASR Part 42/145 organisation for example will confirm and define exactly what the problems are, even to a simple, routine matter such as negotiating a 'variation'.
To have a third tier of legislation (by whatever name, Manuals of Standards, Aviation Standards, CAO etc.) which require no less than full parliamentary process for each operational change is a significant impost; but, it is the built in rigidity, the 'inflexibility', which raises objections from an industry already enraged, disadvantaged by and burdened with the cost of regulation, combined with an aggressive, obsessive culture of micro management.
The premeditated, deliberate CASA manipulation of the “Manuals of Standards” (MOS) has been designed in such a way that Australia has, to all intents and purpose, been returned to a third tier structure; this without the benefit of industry consultation, consideration or acceptance.
The “manual of standard” terminology was originally used to describe certificates issued under CASR Part 21 such as aircraft TC, STC, APMA, ATSO. etc. It was never intended to meet 'aviation safety standards' specified in 9(1)(c).
Simply put, there is no risk reduction (safety benefit) in the current interpretation of 'third tier' of legislation. Arguably the reverse is true, due to regulator inability to act or respond 'quickly' to rapidly changing aviation circumstance. Indeed, it could be reasonably argued that the inflexibility of three tier regulation increases operational and accidental breech risk levels.
Under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(Cth), the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (Cth); and, due process to create/enact/change a legislative instrument, change can take years, while an AC/AMC (1) advisory) can be changed within days of a requirement becoming known.
(1) An incorrect, although commonly made statement is "Advisory Circulars (AC) are not enforceable". This is a complete misrepresentation of the legal position. The preamble to every AC states: “A way but not the only way to comply with Regulation ABC; (the regulation which raises the AC). However "not the only way” clearly releases the operator to 'negotiate' an alternative Acceptable Means of Compliance (ACM) with CASA.
Three tier legislation, modelled on the Canadian system would be acceptable, provided changes the current two-tier regulatory framework evolved to where the third-tier standards are drafted in plain, easy to understand language and Regulations are drafted in a clear succinct style, defining provisions for enabling standards and necessary legislative provisions, including offences.
Third tier ‘standards’; provided as either 'legislation' or Advisory (Acceptable Means of Compliance) - must comply with CASA function under Sec 9 (1)( c) of the Act to develop and promulgate appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards. Amending ‘standards’ specified in the regulations to “aviation safety standards” specified in regulations, to be provided in either Operational Specification or as an Instrument.
Section 98 5AB of the Act states that a legislative instrument can be issued. An instrument must not prescribe a penalty.
Last edited by Kharon; 8th Nov 2014 at 19:38.
Kharon, basically CASA is capricious and it likes to that way because it affords more power to its staff without adding any responsibility for outcomes.
Hence its use of "Accepted" rather than "Approved", "a method of compliance, but not the only method", "Appropriate" , "Fit and Proper" "safety" and half a dozen other nominatives that can mean anything you like with the aid of a complaisant Administrative Appeals Tribunal and an expensive lawyer.
If CASA were a genuine aviation regulator instead of a sham, the wording of regulations would remove all reference to nominatives; they would exclusively use "Approved", "required", and "Recommended". "Fit and proper" would be gone.
"Safety" would be replaced by the words "risk analysis has demonstrated".
If you follow "Approved" or "recommended" procedures and satisfy "requirements" then you are immune from prosecution. Conversely, deviate from "recommended" and the onus is now on you to make the safety case.
To put that another way; I challenge CASA to produce a simple one sided A4 page checklist, written in plain English, set in Twelve point type, that specifies the requirements a Cessna 172 Pilot and aircraft must meet in order to automatically pass a ramp check (roadworthy to non pilots) without a single weasel word nominative in it, or reference to any other publications or regulation. I know at least one pilot who asked for this and was told it was "too hard".
The above is the essence of Weberian bureaucracy, designed at least a century ago to stamp out corruption - rigid requirements, rigid authorities and rigid procedures and rigid decision criteria, all of which are transparent, logically arranged and subject to public scrutiny . If CASA cannot do this, and I don't think it can, for a generic training aircraft like a C172 then their entire regulatory construct is a complete and utter sham.
As an aside,, when I first visited Germany I ran straight into a Webers handiwork: I was surprised and frustrated to be told by customs officials that they were prohibited by law from helping me with filling out some paperwork. I was to learn much later in my MBA that "helping someone fill out the forms", presumably with a small gift at the end, was one of the earliest types of corruption targeted by Weber and similar Prussian reformers.
Hence its use of "Accepted" rather than "Approved", "a method of compliance, but not the only method", "Appropriate" , "Fit and Proper" "safety" and half a dozen other nominatives that can mean anything you like with the aid of a complaisant Administrative Appeals Tribunal and an expensive lawyer.
If CASA were a genuine aviation regulator instead of a sham, the wording of regulations would remove all reference to nominatives; they would exclusively use "Approved", "required", and "Recommended". "Fit and proper" would be gone.
"Safety" would be replaced by the words "risk analysis has demonstrated".
If you follow "Approved" or "recommended" procedures and satisfy "requirements" then you are immune from prosecution. Conversely, deviate from "recommended" and the onus is now on you to make the safety case.
To put that another way; I challenge CASA to produce a simple one sided A4 page checklist, written in plain English, set in Twelve point type, that specifies the requirements a Cessna 172 Pilot and aircraft must meet in order to automatically pass a ramp check (roadworthy to non pilots) without a single weasel word nominative in it, or reference to any other publications or regulation. I know at least one pilot who asked for this and was told it was "too hard".
The above is the essence of Weberian bureaucracy, designed at least a century ago to stamp out corruption - rigid requirements, rigid authorities and rigid procedures and rigid decision criteria, all of which are transparent, logically arranged and subject to public scrutiny . If CASA cannot do this, and I don't think it can, for a generic training aircraft like a C172 then their entire regulatory construct is a complete and utter sham.
As an aside,, when I first visited Germany I ran straight into a Webers handiwork: I was surprised and frustrated to be told by customs officials that they were prohibited by law from helping me with filling out some paperwork. I was to learn much later in my MBA that "helping someone fill out the forms", presumably with a small gift at the end, was one of the earliest types of corruption targeted by Weber and similar Prussian reformers.
Last edited by Sunfish; 8th Nov 2014 at 20:52.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aye - It's a puzzle right enough.
Phelan had a crack at it - Start here:-
Reproduced by kind permission of – Pro Aviation
Yet they persist, despite free expert advice, peer examples and some very good models to work with..
Reproduced by kind permission of – Pro Aviation
Author's note.
The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, devotes the first 91 words to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as "shelf-ware"; a pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight.
Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft's operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire.
Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn't always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.
The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than the pilot.
The Australian version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring to shelf-ware as listed.
From this example it is clear that far from putting the "finishing touches" on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn't even started yet.
The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 does in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event if requested.
Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and dopers.
Literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to the pilot in command, and they are spelled out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.
Paul Phelan.
The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, devotes the first 91 words to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as "shelf-ware"; a pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight.
Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft's operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire.
Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn't always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.
The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than the pilot.
The Australian version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring to shelf-ware as listed.
From this example it is clear that far from putting the "finishing touches" on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn't even started yet.
The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 does in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event if requested.
Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and dopers.
Literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to the pilot in command, and they are spelled out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.
Paul Phelan.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who Guards the Guards?
If CASA, (perhaps rename Civil Aviation Solicitors Authority). More experts in that field than aviation involved...?safety?
The angles of interception hindering the Ghost of NGA and many others to Rest In Justice (RIJ), have been most disturbing.
I question:
Have the Regulatory and/or Investigative authorities Perverted the Course of Justice?
Have they trespassed in the course of any investigation? Which there is still no answers.
As this is a Commonwealth offence and CASA have their own Fort, the only one who can ask the questions is the Minister. Well.
Who can guard the guards?
A change of the guards is needed.
But how? Every avenue meets with a block.
The angles of interception hindering the Ghost of NGA and many others to Rest In Justice (RIJ), have been most disturbing.
I question:
Have the Regulatory and/or Investigative authorities Perverted the Course of Justice?
Have they trespassed in the course of any investigation? Which there is still no answers.
As this is a Commonwealth offence and CASA have their own Fort, the only one who can ask the questions is the Minister. Well.
Who can guard the guards?
A change of the guards is needed.
But how? Every avenue meets with a block.
Last edited by Ziggychick; 8th Nov 2014 at 22:51. Reason: Blocked, again.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the problem you people all have is that you want a reassuring religion.
you want to feel safe when you fly.
you need reassurance.
you crave the waft of holy smoke.
the anointing of blessings that will make you all safe.
you are a sad, sad bunch of the clueless.
there is a technology to aviation.
aviation is an engineering of structures to meet the physical forces experienced during flight.
you need to work to understand the engineering.
yr right posted a link to the most amazing admission of incompetence ever posted by CAsA.
paraphrasing "we have abused our position of privilege and issued approvals to do things that have no sound engineering basis. in fact many of these approvals have led to situations so dangerous that people have suffered and been killed by mid air breakups cause by our incompetence. but tough **** we are here to stay. please report to us the extent of our stuffups."
the only way forward is to totally ignore CAsA.
turn your backs on them, and the ATSB, and go flying.
neuter them by having nothing whatsoever to do with them.
it is the only way to deal with this totally incompetent organisation.
let them huff and puff to a wall of backs.
you want to feel safe when you fly.
you need reassurance.
you crave the waft of holy smoke.
the anointing of blessings that will make you all safe.
you are a sad, sad bunch of the clueless.
there is a technology to aviation.
aviation is an engineering of structures to meet the physical forces experienced during flight.
you need to work to understand the engineering.
yr right posted a link to the most amazing admission of incompetence ever posted by CAsA.
paraphrasing "we have abused our position of privilege and issued approvals to do things that have no sound engineering basis. in fact many of these approvals have led to situations so dangerous that people have suffered and been killed by mid air breakups cause by our incompetence. but tough **** we are here to stay. please report to us the extent of our stuffups."
the only way forward is to totally ignore CAsA.
turn your backs on them, and the ATSB, and go flying.
neuter them by having nothing whatsoever to do with them.
it is the only way to deal with this totally incompetent organisation.
let them huff and puff to a wall of backs.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kharon brought up acceptable means of compliance.
For a maintenance org it could work well. An acceptable or alternative means of compliance could be EASA'so AMC. Which could then make it easier to get EASA approval and also maintain compliance to casa and EASA requirements.
For a maintenance org it could work well. An acceptable or alternative means of compliance could be EASA'so AMC. Which could then make it easier to get EASA approval and also maintain compliance to casa and EASA requirements.