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

Why does CASA allow twin engine ETOPS operation at all?

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

Why does CASA allow twin engine ETOPS operation at all?

Old 5th Feb 2018, 22:52
  #141 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
What about this argument?

1) s9A does not mean that safety is the only consideration
2) CASA policies (shadowing ICAO) say that risks should be kept 'As Low as Reasonably Practicable' (also see s11 - international agreements)
3) Policies that are not in conflict with legislation are relevant for the interpretation

Then doesnt this mean that ALARP is already a consideration for decision making? (Or, if it isn't, then a court may find that it should be...)

And terms like 'reasonable' are very established legal concepts... Cost is very much a test of 'reasonableness'

It also occurred to me that the ATO has quite well established rules thanks to the 20 odd million taxpayers (some of whom are quite litigious) who are constantly testing the system. Contrast with the 2000 odd AOC, AMO, aerodromes etc, none of whom want a bar of dealing with CASA.
michigan j is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2018, 23:33
  #142 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,706
So apply your reasoning to setting standards for Community Service Flights.

What standards should Community Service Flights meet? Walk us through all of the matters you take into consideration, and how you weigh up the costs and benefits and relative importance of each, to set the those standards.

(Reaches for popcorn...)
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2018, 08:42
  #143 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 891
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Thanks Curtain. Personally I have always been comfortable with the decisions made internationally in relation to certification standards.

Thatís why I was instrumental in the introduction of CAA acceptance of first of type from the five leading countries.

The problem I have is with 9a of the act. It would be great to have the act reflect what CASA often does in practice.
Agreed, Dick,

And as I said in my earlier post, an ETOPS/EDTO challenge is not the appropriate argument to support your problem with 9a.

You need to come up with a better one. The ETOPS/EDTO argument can be shot out of water. Surely you can find something better for your 9a challenge.

If I was looking for one, Iíd be looking for an example of significant reduction of important services to rural communities caused by CASAís apparent adherence to 9a with undue cost/benefit. That would get community support, raise headlines, and ruffle CASA and Government feathers. Isnít that what youíre after?

Regards, Fred

Last edited by Derfred; 6th Feb 2018 at 08:59.
Derfred is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

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.