Why does CASA allow twin engine ETOPS operation at all?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plovett.
I think what is important is what happens in practice. Over the last decade CASA appears to have been responsible for a one way ratchet in increasing costs on GA.
The unique ADSB mandate is just one example. And also part 61.
I have been told many times by CASA people that they do not have any legislative requirement to promote a profitable industry or get more people flying so they can benefit from a safer form of travel.
Seems strange to me that you say they will have to be forced to change. Why would they not want to change and get more people flying.?
I think what is important is what happens in practice. Over the last decade CASA appears to have been responsible for a one way ratchet in increasing costs on GA.
The unique ADSB mandate is just one example. And also part 61.
I have been told many times by CASA people that they do not have any legislative requirement to promote a profitable industry or get more people flying so they can benefit from a safer form of travel.
Seems strange to me that you say they will have to be forced to change. Why would they not want to change and get more people flying.?
The requirement to consider the industry was removed from the legislation following the Monarch and Seaview airlines crashes. We now have what we have because it was argued that the then CAA (I think) was too close to the industry.
I have long thought that CASA does not want more people flying unless it is in a proper high-capacity airliner. Something they can understand - they have no hope of understanding GA so they would rather it didn't exist. They will have to be forced to change, I see no other way. The industry cannot agree on what day it is let alone come together for a concerted attack on CASA. The pressure must come though the politicians and the only way they will move is if they think they will lose votes. As you might have guessed I don't hold out high hopes for a long-lived GA sector.
Thread Starter
Plovett
You make some very good points.
What is clearly now happening was probably not intended. That is a very damaged and contracting training industry. Reported 30% reduction in the last 5 years. This will result in pilots having to be imported if not corrected. Many will come from developing countries and we just have to hope that our extraordinary airline safety record will be maintained.
You are correct that the present cargo cult “safety before cost” claim came in after the Monarch and Seaview fatals. But it was a con. CAA personnel were not too close to these companies. The CAA people were just slack and did not take proper enforcement action when there was a history of non compliance. Also there was not a proper, and still isn’t, administrative fine system.
One day those involved with air safety regulation will see it’s better to be honest with politicians and the traveling public and explain that there will often be decisions made on what the people paying for the benefit can afford. Then the GA training industry will be able to grow again.
You make some very good points.
What is clearly now happening was probably not intended. That is a very damaged and contracting training industry. Reported 30% reduction in the last 5 years. This will result in pilots having to be imported if not corrected. Many will come from developing countries and we just have to hope that our extraordinary airline safety record will be maintained.
You are correct that the present cargo cult “safety before cost” claim came in after the Monarch and Seaview fatals. But it was a con. CAA personnel were not too close to these companies. The CAA people were just slack and did not take proper enforcement action when there was a history of non compliance. Also there was not a proper, and still isn’t, administrative fine system.
One day those involved with air safety regulation will see it’s better to be honest with politicians and the traveling public and explain that there will often be decisions made on what the people paying for the benefit can afford. Then the GA training industry will be able to grow again.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 4th Feb 2018 at 07:25.
I have no idea what they look at, but I imagine that they examine all aspects, and if they decide that the operation is 'safe' relative to whatever circumstances are proposed to conduct it, they allow it, or allow it if certain conditions are met. It doesn't have to be so safe as to make it impossible, just 'safe', ie not 'unsafe'. Then they've met their obligations as far as I'm concerned.
Your imagination is perfectly reasonable.
Alas, the reality is starkly different from what you imagine. CASA would’t have a clue, doesn’t have a clue and therefore produces clueless proposasl on what the standards should be for ‘Community Service Flights’.
This is not criticism of CASA. CASA wouldn’t know.
Alas, the reality is starkly different from what you imagine. CASA would’t have a clue, doesn’t have a clue and therefore produces clueless proposasl on what the standards should be for ‘Community Service Flights’.
This is not criticism of CASA. CASA wouldn’t know.
It's only my opinion. I am no defender or fan of CASA. Your 'reality' is also only your perception and opinion. Like the OP continually fails to realise, perception and opinion are not facts.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
You’d be surprised.
When part 61 came into force a couple of years’ ago the airlines (and the FOI’s who inspected them) were astonished to learn that the whole of part 61 was written for GA. It included zero understanding of the way airlines run check and training. This has caused quite a lot of disruption to airline check and training, and is currently not scheduled to be resolved until mid 2019.
I have long thought that CASA does not want more people flying unless it is in a proper high-capacity airliner. Something they can understand - they have no hope of understanding GA so they would rather it didn't exist
When part 61 came into force a couple of years’ ago the airlines (and the FOI’s who inspected them) were astonished to learn that the whole of part 61 was written for GA. It included zero understanding of the way airlines run check and training. This has caused quite a lot of disruption to airline check and training, and is currently not scheduled to be resolved until mid 2019.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
You’d be surprised.
When part 61 came into force a couple of years’ ago the airlines (and the FOI’s who inspected them) were astonished to learn that the whole of part 61 was written for GA. It included zero understanding of the way airlines run check and training. This has caused quite a lot of disruption to airline check and training, and is currently not scheduled to be resolved until mid 2019.
You’d be surprised.
When part 61 came into force a couple of years’ ago the airlines (and the FOI’s who inspected them) were astonished to learn that the whole of part 61 was written for GA. It included zero understanding of the way airlines run check and training. This has caused quite a lot of disruption to airline check and training, and is currently not scheduled to be resolved until mid 2019.
I heard an interesting comment the other day, albeit third hand. A FAA inspector was talking to an Australian airport inspector and said that he wished the FAA would adopt the NZ legislation. It was everything they had been trying to do but were stymied due to political pressure. Incidentally, the NZ legislation has been adopted by most of our Pacific brethren and we gave foreign aid to PNG so that they could adopt the NZ legislation as well.
Thread Starter
Additional safety is marginal
Here is an interesting answer to the question from a professional pilot:
https://www.quora.com/Are-4-engine-p...-engine-planes
The additional safety from four engines is marginal, but it is still there – that is, four engines are safer if the aircraft are of the equivalent most modern, latest certification standards.
I also found this quote from a professional pilot:
https://www.quora.com/Are-4-engine-p...-engine-planes
The additional safety from four engines is marginal, but it is still there – that is, four engines are safer if the aircraft are of the equivalent most modern, latest certification standards.
I also found this quote from a professional pilot:
“The engines are very reliable these days, so the chance of even one of them stop functioning is low.
Four engined airplanes are more expensive to maintain and even to buy than twin engine airplanes. This is not what airlines want, they want an airplane that is very economical and reliable because it is a business and business is always about making profits.”
Four engined airplanes are more expensive to maintain and even to buy than twin engine airplanes. This is not what airlines want, they want an airplane that is very economical and reliable because it is a business and business is always about making profits.”
Thread Starter
Mikewil, yes here is an example. This is what the British CAA Act says:
As you can see, their statement clearly reflects that companies need to be viable to be safe.
No lies about the most important consideration being safety!
‘To secure that British airlines provide air transport services which satisfy … public demand at the lowest charges consistent with a high standard of safety in operating the services and an economic return to efficient operators … and with securing the sound development of the civil air transport industry in the UK.
No lies about the most important consideration being safety!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 5th Feb 2018 at 02:01.
Dick, that quora reply is from Tim Morgan - a web designer who holds a ME CPL and as far as I can tell never flown a jet. Hardly the expert to pontificate on the relative safety of 2 vs 4.
And the second quote is from a first officer from a small Indian Ocean island country of less than two years airline experience.
And the second quote is from a first officer from a small Indian Ocean island country of less than two years airline experience.
Last edited by compressor stall; 5th Feb 2018 at 00:14.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith, rather than sourcing your arguement from Quora, why don't you try one of the other regulators, EASA: AMC 20-6 rev. 2
Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Aeroplanes ETOPS Certification and
Operation
I welcome a critique of the certification specifications.
Have a good read of that document, especially the rationale behind ETOPS maximum diversion time based on in-service Inflight Shutdown Rate (IFSD) - this is what determines the maximum ETOPS time interval, a probability based assessment.
Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Aeroplanes ETOPS Certification and
Operation
I welcome a critique of the certification specifications.
Have a good read of that document, especially the rationale behind ETOPS maximum diversion time based on in-service Inflight Shutdown Rate (IFSD) - this is what determines the maximum ETOPS time interval, a probability based assessment.
There you go, Your experience shows the folly of believing that 4 engines are always going to be safer than two, and if old mate engineer drives to and from the airport, then his argument is null and void.
Dick, unfortunately Quora really shouldn't be treated as a key source of expertise as it lets anyone answer any questions, with the only requirement being a real name for their username (which can be faked). There's the ability to upvote answers or writers, which helps to some degree but there's still no real guarantee of accuracy - as you've seen, anyone with a CPL can list themselves as an expert, and if you look through some of the military questions the answers are clearly written by people who get their expertise through Call of Duty on the XBox - some of them are also still in their early teens, which seems a bit young to have their claimed years of special forces combat experience 
There's also quite a few "experts" who write authoritatively on numerous topics, listing their expertise in fields that would take several lifetimes to accumulate...the Special Forces soldier/CIA agent with the expertise in nuclear weapons, hand to hand combat, billion-dollar business administration, submarine warfare and computer hacking...luckily that's entirely unlike any Rumour Networks for Profeshionull Pilots!
There's also quite a few "experts" who write authoritatively on numerous topics, listing their expertise in fields that would take several lifetimes to accumulate...the Special Forces soldier/CIA agent with the expertise in nuclear weapons, hand to hand combat, billion-dollar business administration, submarine warfare and computer hacking...luckily that's entirely unlike any Rumour Networks for Profeshionull Pilots!
Thread Starter
Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom - Metro III
Here is a link to Chapter 5 in Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom that covers the relevant issue about the Metro III. In fact, Max Hazelton had a Beech 1900 sitting in the Hawker hangar for over 8 months as they were trying to modify it to comply with the unique Australian rules. It was only when my Board approved the first of type from five countries that this aircraft was allowed to operate – and indeed, further improvements came in that allowed more people to fly, such as ETOPS.
Have a read and cry about the fact that we are now back where we were then in the Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom days. Just look at the recent CASA class G ARP or whatever it is now called.
Have a read and cry about the fact that we are now back where we were then in the Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom days. Just look at the recent CASA class G ARP or whatever it is now called.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 5th Feb 2018 at 02:21.
Thread Starter
Curtain. Very strange. Why would there be extra restrictions placed on two engined aircraft if they are as safe as three or four engined?
Now that’s a difficult one to answer.
Now that’s a difficult one to answer.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curtain. Very strange. Why would there be extra restrictions placed on two engined aircraft if they are as safe as three or four engined?
You can have four engines maintained to a lesser standard, or two to a higher standard. Manufacturers & airlines concluded the best overall cost optimisation for equivalent safety or better was to go with the twinjet system.
One large operator used to take the engine cores from an ETOPS twin once it went out of spec and then install it on it's four engine aircraft.
In 400+ sectors on a four engine jet, I had 3 inflight shutdowns. I've spent 9 hours in cruise across the pacific on 3 engines. In 4,500+ sectors on a twinjet, I've never had an engine miss a beat, never.
So, about the Certification Specifications critique...
Last edited by CurtainTwitcher; 5th Feb 2018 at 03:41.
Thread Starter
Thanks Curtain. Personally I have always been comfortable with the decisions made internationally in relation to certification standards.
That’s 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.
That’s 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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about this argument?
Given
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.
Given
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.