Dick Smith initiated change to the Civil Aviation Act....
Safer qualifications
I’d just remind CASA officials not to jump for joy at this proposal because we will be watching if anyone is airborne, even momentarily, without a valid flying licence and current medical. With nearly all air law these days of strict liability one photo of any such person with both feet in the air could result in a criminal conviction.
Moderator
Is that a new CASA proposal ? Commercial Licence minimum for the Caravan?
Theoretically, if you have enough money, time and jumped through enough hoops I believe you could fly B747 on a PPL.
So the belief is out there in Australia.
It gets quite difficult, when the belief is held by an CASA FOI, particularly when it results is a demand to do something that will almost certainly be fatal, or at best, "only" greatly increase the risk to the operation.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are wrong! Just admit it (pilots have to all the time!)
No aircraft restrictions on private licences, just need the applicable rating for private ops.
"It was my understanding"
My understanding seems incorrect (can not say for sure as no evidence has been supplied).
And years later many in Australia still have the same understanding that I had, and some even pilots.
On pilots I have lost count of the number of pilots that had the gear all fold up on 210's after landing, you know they selected down - look at the gear selector handle.
My understanding seems incorrect (can not say for sure as no evidence has been supplied).
And years later many in Australia still have the same understanding that I had, and some even pilots.
On pilots I have lost count of the number of pilots that had the gear all fold up on 210's after landing, you know they selected down - look at the gear selector handle.
----- that had the gear all fold up on 210's after landing, you know they selected down
Indeed, many year ago, after a number of "experiences" a long gone mate of mine had a big sheet of teflon (Ye!! with an E/0) fitted along the guts, and it worked.
Next time it happened, minimal damage from the gear up landing.
Tootle pip!!
Teflon works wonders
Given the well known failure modes of C-210 gear, they were no all telling porkies.
Indeed, many year ago, after a number of "experiences" a long gone mate of mine had a big sheet of teflon (Ye!! with an E/0) fitted along the guts, and it worked.
Next time it happened, minimal damage from the gear up landing.
Tootle pip!!
Indeed, many year ago, after a number of "experiences" a long gone mate of mine had a big sheet of teflon (Ye!! with an E/0) fitted along the guts, and it worked.
Next time it happened, minimal damage from the gear up landing.
Tootle pip!!
It’s not looking good. I remember I was hopeful Warren Truss would be better than John Anderson. But this was not so.
Imagine if you became Deputy Prime Minister of this country. Pretty fantastic. Surely you would want to put in some changes to make it all worthwhile!
History does not support this. Mr Anderson claimed cost was not to be taken into account and it allowed the Bureaucracy to further destroy our General Aviation Industry..
I wonder what the new Minister has been told. Seems to be complete silence. Poor Australia.
Lead ballooon. Are you laughing at me re your post 43?
Imagine if you became Deputy Prime Minister of this country. Pretty fantastic. Surely you would want to put in some changes to make it all worthwhile!
History does not support this. Mr Anderson claimed cost was not to be taken into account and it allowed the Bureaucracy to further destroy our General Aviation Industry..
I wonder what the new Minister has been told. Seems to be complete silence. Poor Australia.
Lead ballooon. Are you laughing at me re your post 43?
I may be wrong in some details and happy to stand corrected but my memory was CASA started a rewrite of the CAO/ANOs and CARs in the mid 1990s to simplify the regulatory framework.
The end result would reduce the then CARs, CAOs into a simple 2 tiered structure by rewriting it, so existing CAOs would be either turned into actual regulations (CARs) or advisory documents describing procedures that would acceptably comply with the CARs (CAAPs).
It sounded pretty sensible, would reduce the complexity and spaghetti nature of existing regulation making it all easier to understand, easier to comply with and verify compliance with and consequently make things safer and more efficient.
Again, as I recall the process was going to take some time as it was a big job - not a year or so but probably a few years but would progressively replace and simplify the existing regulations as it proceeded.
Again I may be wrong here but I understood NZ decided on a similar rewrite of their legislation but they started a few years earlier in the early 1990s.
It is now over 20 years later. NZ have had their rewritten model pretty much all in operation for nearly 20 years? (is that the case? I am not familiar with their history).
Meanwhile in Oz, the rewrite is still actively happening and progressively replacing the old system and is apparently close to being finished, the time-frame, much as it has been for 20 years - is in a year or two...
Now there are also CASRs as well as CARs and CAOs so instead of streamlining the regulations into a single document with an additional advisory document, we now have 3 sets of regulation documents and an advisory document and the new "simplified regulations" are more complicated, less consistent, more spaghetti like and more difficult to comply with than the system they were simplifying.
So the current state of play:
* A 2 decade time blowout.
* The apparent accomplishment of exactly the opposite of what was proposed.
* What must be an enormous amount of money and resources expended.
* A regulator that is deeply distrusted and disliked and mocked by the industry.
* A general aviation industry that is struggling to survive and is snowed under a growing mountain of regulations that they feel do little to enhance safety but find add significant costs and impose inappropriate and silly restrictions.
* The apparent loss of a safety culture that actively sought to understand the factors behind incidents and why safety might be compromised, replaced instead by a regulatory system that looks at ways of pursuing and attaching liability rather than identifying and mitigating systemic failures and weaknesses.
That successive ministers, (of all persuasions), for 2 decades have failed to address this other than by allowing the process to roll on directionless is a classic failure of leadership.
Surely such an ongoing, long standing debacle and such a failure to get the situation in hand would make great fodder for someone who wanted to embarrass a pollie or a government?
The end result would reduce the then CARs, CAOs into a simple 2 tiered structure by rewriting it, so existing CAOs would be either turned into actual regulations (CARs) or advisory documents describing procedures that would acceptably comply with the CARs (CAAPs).
It sounded pretty sensible, would reduce the complexity and spaghetti nature of existing regulation making it all easier to understand, easier to comply with and verify compliance with and consequently make things safer and more efficient.
Again, as I recall the process was going to take some time as it was a big job - not a year or so but probably a few years but would progressively replace and simplify the existing regulations as it proceeded.
Again I may be wrong here but I understood NZ decided on a similar rewrite of their legislation but they started a few years earlier in the early 1990s.
It is now over 20 years later. NZ have had their rewritten model pretty much all in operation for nearly 20 years? (is that the case? I am not familiar with their history).
Meanwhile in Oz, the rewrite is still actively happening and progressively replacing the old system and is apparently close to being finished, the time-frame, much as it has been for 20 years - is in a year or two...
Now there are also CASRs as well as CARs and CAOs so instead of streamlining the regulations into a single document with an additional advisory document, we now have 3 sets of regulation documents and an advisory document and the new "simplified regulations" are more complicated, less consistent, more spaghetti like and more difficult to comply with than the system they were simplifying.
So the current state of play:
* A 2 decade time blowout.
* The apparent accomplishment of exactly the opposite of what was proposed.
* What must be an enormous amount of money and resources expended.
* A regulator that is deeply distrusted and disliked and mocked by the industry.
* A general aviation industry that is struggling to survive and is snowed under a growing mountain of regulations that they feel do little to enhance safety but find add significant costs and impose inappropriate and silly restrictions.
* The apparent loss of a safety culture that actively sought to understand the factors behind incidents and why safety might be compromised, replaced instead by a regulatory system that looks at ways of pursuing and attaching liability rather than identifying and mitigating systemic failures and weaknesses.
That successive ministers, (of all persuasions), for 2 decades have failed to address this other than by allowing the process to roll on directionless is a classic failure of leadership.
Surely such an ongoing, long standing debacle and such a failure to get the situation in hand would make great fodder for someone who wanted to embarrass a pollie or a government?
I started the re write as Chairman of CAA in 1990 not just to simplify but more importantly to reduce every unnecessary cost as Labor had introduced cost recovery after the Bosch report. I told the PM that without major cost reductions there would not be a General Aviation industry in Australia.
Graham Marsh who was in charge of the NZ rewrite had moved to Hong Kong and was working for Cathay. I attempted to get him to come to Aus but he correctly surmised it would be a poisoned chalice and refused.
The Act stating the most important consideration must be safety was used to stop the concentration on removing cost. Then all downhill!
I agree. The opposite to what was proposed has happened.
Graham Marsh who was in charge of the NZ rewrite had moved to Hong Kong and was working for Cathay. I attempted to get him to come to Aus but he correctly surmised it would be a poisoned chalice and refused.
The Act stating the most important consideration must be safety was used to stop the concentration on removing cost. Then all downhill!
I agree. The opposite to what was proposed has happened.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 31st Mar 2018 at 06:21.
I may be wrong in some details and happy to stand corrected but my memory was CASA started a rewrite of the CAO/ANOs and CARs in the mid 1990s to simplify the regulatory framework.
You are partially correct, but you give to much credit to CASA.
The mid- 1990s changes came from the Howard Government aviation policy "Soaring into Tomorrow" and two successive Ministers, Sharp and Vaile who wouldn't be snowed by the public service,and their personally appointed industry Program Advisory Panel (PAP) for the "CASA Review".
There were two other things missing since, a reform minded CASA CEO/DAS who was ex FAA, and an excellent Secretary of the "Department", Alan Hawke.
The substantive output of the PAP/CASA Review was CASR Parts 21-35, and complete drafts of many other major sections, all in simple language --- that past muster with A-Gs etc.
The resistance from the ranks of CASA was ferocious, and as the Minister's moved on, Hawke moved to Defense etc., "the system" conspired to force the resignation of the DAS/CEO, Leroy Keith, convinced the incoming minister that the PAP was no longer required, all the regulations ready to be made were stopped in their tracks, and any real "reform" was dead, and you see what we have all these years later.
There were major reforms in Parts 21 to 35, resulting in the explosive growth of amateur building and the growth of AUF/RAOz, and huge expansion in the "warbirds" sector, all by removing (reforming) unnecessary restrictions.
At the other end of the scale, CASR 25 removed Australian unique restriction on airlines, especially Qantas, who had to compete internationally against airlines who were not subject to such restrictions.
A point not to be forgotten, the FARs by reference for 23 to 35 became CASR 23-35.
GET THAT ---- WE adopted a CHUNK OF US Title 14 CFR (aka FARs) Parts 23 to 35 as Australian law.
But, as we have seen, as soon as the IRON RING re-assumed control, all reform died, and with only the IRON RING in control, you see the atrocities we have today, like Parts 61/ 141/142, the "maintenance suit" including Part 142 and 66, and the forthcoming are just as bad or worse.
The very idea of having to operate a GA8 Airvan (or a C-207 or C-208 etc) to Part 121 HCRPT standards is ludicrous, as Part 135, itself a terrible document, finishes with five seats.
For my money, we should start with most of the NZ regs, which are the FARs cleaned up and greatly reduced in size. There are a few things NZ we should not do, but that could be easily sorted ---- by people who actually know what they are talking about, and not talking for sectional/union interests.
Tootle pip!!
And, in "adopting" the NZ rules, we need to reform the special provisions CASA has forced, that prevent the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty working as intended.
I agree with Jongster, and LeadSled’s detail is replete with the facts of the disgraceful administration and aviation rules rewrite these many years plus backward and extremely costly warfare against GA.
I would modify Jongster’s 20 year time line to 30 years, having the ‘benefit’ of watching the GA industry slowly die by a thousands cuts. The general decline, and sad loss of flying schools in particular, was well underway before Dick Smith had the position to make change, and during his tenure in my 50 years in GA the only time some sense appeared.
The new Minister has not had time to show us his colours, we can hope against hope.
I would modify Jongster’s 20 year time line to 30 years, having the ‘benefit’ of watching the GA industry slowly die by a thousands cuts. The general decline, and sad loss of flying schools in particular, was well underway before Dick Smith had the position to make change, and during his tenure in my 50 years in GA the only time some sense appeared.
The new Minister has not had time to show us his colours, we can hope against hope.
I started the re write as Chairman of CAA in 1990 not just to simplify but more importantly to reduce every unnecessary cost as Labor had introduced cost recovery after the Bosch report. I told the PM that without major cost reductions there would not be a General Aviation industry in Australia.
Graham Marsh who was in charge of the NZ rewrite had moved to Hong Kong and was working for Cathay. I attempted to get him to come to Aus but he correctly surmised it would be a poisoned chalice and refused.
The Act stating the most important consideration must be safety was used to stop the concentration on removing cost. Then all downhill!
I agree. The opposite to what was proposed has happened.
Graham Marsh who was in charge of the NZ rewrite had moved to Hong Kong and was working for Cathay. I attempted to get him to come to Aus but he correctly surmised it would be a poisoned chalice and refused.
The Act stating the most important consideration must be safety was used to stop the concentration on removing cost. Then all downhill!
I agree. The opposite to what was proposed has happened.
It was the guts of Bob Hawke ,Ansett and European pilots that changed the restrictive practices of the pilots union. Australians have benefited from the cheap airlines.
Sadly the days of private pilots coming from Europe to Oz for flying safaris are long gone. The money those tourists brought to rental companies and outback communities is now spent in places such as NZ.
Is it too late to make a noise in Canberra?
Jay Sata’s question; “Is it too late to make a noise in Canberra?”
Efforts should be redoubled because reforms of any scale will not happen otherwise. In politics, as in other fields, action occurs when the incentives are strong. Politicians react when they think there’s votes to be had. One recent classic example is the turn around by former Transport Minister Albanese. In his time he allowed CASA to grow by another couple of hundred personnel by instituting an additional fuel levy, planned to raise $89.9 million over four years. Now that its not his responsibility and Labor are salivating at the thought of taking government he thinks they will gain more votes than they will lose by agreeing to make a modest change to the Civil Aviation Act.
The medical reform measures being introduced by CASA CEO Mr. Carmody would not have seen the light of day without persistent bad publicity.
Again all the media attention, especially from the Oz (bless them) negative to CASA, and ATSB (made independent like CASA by Albo) would not be happening without noise.
Efforts should be redoubled because reforms of any scale will not happen otherwise. In politics, as in other fields, action occurs when the incentives are strong. Politicians react when they think there’s votes to be had. One recent classic example is the turn around by former Transport Minister Albanese. In his time he allowed CASA to grow by another couple of hundred personnel by instituting an additional fuel levy, planned to raise $89.9 million over four years. Now that its not his responsibility and Labor are salivating at the thought of taking government he thinks they will gain more votes than they will lose by agreeing to make a modest change to the Civil Aviation Act.
The medical reform measures being introduced by CASA CEO Mr. Carmody would not have seen the light of day without persistent bad publicity.
Again all the media attention, especially from the Oz (bless them) negative to CASA, and ATSB (made independent like CASA by Albo) would not be happening without noise.
