"Major" changes at CASA?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they should sack all of CASA and hand it to the Kiwi's or Yanks to handle.
Casa these days is either too busy or doing training courses to assist the industry.
Sack the lot of them!
Casa these days is either too busy or doing training courses to assist the industry.
Sack the lot of them!
Thread Starter
justapplhere
I'm sure you have a very high level of confidence in your own ability, and have a crystal clear understanding of what you are trying to say.
Could you explain to me how the regulator of the greatest aviation nation on earth is efficiently run by a women without a pilot's licence?
I'm sure you have a very high level of confidence in your own ability, and have a crystal clear understanding of what you are trying to say.
Could you explain to me how the regulator of the greatest aviation nation on earth is efficiently run by a women without a pilot's licence?
justapplhere 
Creamie, old girl, your score card isn't looking very good in this debate, is it! I'm surprised Lead Sled isn't in here lending you support!
Creamie, old girl, your score card isn't looking very good in this debate, is it! I'm surprised Lead Sled isn't in here lending you support!
Last edited by Torres; 25th Nov 2002 at 23:52.
Thread Starter
I am always comforted when Torres disagrees with me. Justapplhere disagreeing with me is – well – solid gold.
So sniffing all that Jet A1 has made you an expert, has it Justapplhere? Let’s see.
CASA issues an AD today, that must be complied with before further flight. Tesna Airlines will go broke if it can’t delay compliance with the AD. What specific rules, if any, need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that Tesna does not go broke? What power does the Minister have in relation to ADs?
CASA issues an AOC to ADNAY Airlines, and the AOC is expressed to expire on a date a year later. That date passes without CASA having issued a new AOC. What specific rules, if any, need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that ADNAY Airlines continues to operate? What power does the Minister have in relation to AOCs?
Bloggs Airlines’ Chief Pilot spits the dummy and leaves. What specific rules, if any need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that Bloggs does not go broke? What power does the Minister have in relation to Chief Pilots?
On how many occasions does CASA suspend unilaterally, without claiming an immediate threat to air safety may exist, given that the very power to suspend unilaterally turns on CASA’s belief that an immediate threat to air safety may exist?
In 25 words or less, state the precise and only circumstances in which you believe any licence or certificate should be suspended or cancelled.
Which body or court do you believe should decide whether a licence or certificate should be suspended or cancelled? If it’s someone other than CASA, what are the mandatory aviation-related selection criteria for persons to become members of that other body or court?
What aviation qualifications does the Minister have? If the Minister has no aviation qualifications, how can direct accountability to him achieve what you’re trying to achieve?
So sniffing all that Jet A1 has made you an expert, has it Justapplhere? Let’s see.
CASA issues an AD today, that must be complied with before further flight. Tesna Airlines will go broke if it can’t delay compliance with the AD. What specific rules, if any, need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that Tesna does not go broke? What power does the Minister have in relation to ADs?
CASA issues an AOC to ADNAY Airlines, and the AOC is expressed to expire on a date a year later. That date passes without CASA having issued a new AOC. What specific rules, if any, need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that ADNAY Airlines continues to operate? What power does the Minister have in relation to AOCs?
Bloggs Airlines’ Chief Pilot spits the dummy and leaves. What specific rules, if any need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that Bloggs does not go broke? What power does the Minister have in relation to Chief Pilots?
On how many occasions does CASA suspend unilaterally, without claiming an immediate threat to air safety may exist, given that the very power to suspend unilaterally turns on CASA’s belief that an immediate threat to air safety may exist?
In 25 words or less, state the precise and only circumstances in which you believe any licence or certificate should be suspended or cancelled.
Which body or court do you believe should decide whether a licence or certificate should be suspended or cancelled? If it’s someone other than CASA, what are the mandatory aviation-related selection criteria for persons to become members of that other body or court?
What aviation qualifications does the Minister have? If the Minister has no aviation qualifications, how can direct accountability to him achieve what you’re trying to achieve?
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the two things Dick screwed out of Anderson before the last election was NAS & a new organisation that will exist to tell CASA and ASA what to do, and CASA & ASA just get on with doing what they are told. I think Dick had it in mind to be the boss of said organisation, but it would appear Anderson would rather do it himself??
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting hypothetical examples, Creampuff. Thank goodness Tesna and Abmay are mythical operators, figments of a very fertile imagination…..
However, imagine if mythical operator, Abmay, had it’s AOC suspended for a relatively minor infringement involving one pilot, then the regulator, ASAC’s (Authority Supervising Aviation Controls) mythical Mr Snilloc simply declined to renew the AOC, I suppose that’s one method of removing a mythical operator from a phantom whiteboard?
An interesting twist to our hypothetical example would be if mythical ASAC employee, Mr Redle suggest execution of a “Voluntary Enforceable Agreement” could result in the AOC being restored? Of course, any sensible businessman such as Mr Seer, owner of mythical Abmay, would decline the offer rather than risk losing his legal rights.
“Voluntary Enforceable Agreements” – now there’s a great regulator’s concept for any democracy! Any operator foolish enough to sign the Agreement would automatically waive all rights of legal review through a Court, thus leaving the operator solely at the mercy of regulator, ASAC’s excesses. I hope some pilyk doesn’t dust the concept off and haul it out to counter the Minister’s proposal that suspended AOC’s be immediately reviewed by a Court?
Considering ASAC would take no AOC regulatory action against the operator of a heavy multi (or many) engine airline aircraft if a pilot were to erroneously retract flaps in lieu of undercarriage (creating a very interesting spectacle at, perhaps, a tropical resorts), a commuter operator would never suffer suspension of AOC for something as simple as, for example, a trim error in a commuter aircraft?
All hypothetical, of course…… Can’t happen in our Australian democracy. Thank goodness we don’t have that mythical ASAC, rather the caring, competent, understanding and industry loved CASA and it’s well trained management and operational staff.
However, imagine if mythical operator, Abmay, had it’s AOC suspended for a relatively minor infringement involving one pilot, then the regulator, ASAC’s (Authority Supervising Aviation Controls) mythical Mr Snilloc simply declined to renew the AOC, I suppose that’s one method of removing a mythical operator from a phantom whiteboard?
An interesting twist to our hypothetical example would be if mythical ASAC employee, Mr Redle suggest execution of a “Voluntary Enforceable Agreement” could result in the AOC being restored? Of course, any sensible businessman such as Mr Seer, owner of mythical Abmay, would decline the offer rather than risk losing his legal rights.
“Voluntary Enforceable Agreements” – now there’s a great regulator’s concept for any democracy! Any operator foolish enough to sign the Agreement would automatically waive all rights of legal review through a Court, thus leaving the operator solely at the mercy of regulator, ASAC’s excesses. I hope some pilyk doesn’t dust the concept off and haul it out to counter the Minister’s proposal that suspended AOC’s be immediately reviewed by a Court?
Considering ASAC would take no AOC regulatory action against the operator of a heavy multi (or many) engine airline aircraft if a pilot were to erroneously retract flaps in lieu of undercarriage (creating a very interesting spectacle at, perhaps, a tropical resorts), a commuter operator would never suffer suspension of AOC for something as simple as, for example, a trim error in a commuter aircraft?
All hypothetical, of course…… Can’t happen in our Australian democracy. Thank goodness we don’t have that mythical ASAC, rather the caring, competent, understanding and industry loved CASA and it’s well trained management and operational staff.
Creampuff, how about this new scam:
An AOC is due for renewal. The local FOI sends a Show Cause to the AOC holder requiring him to show cause why he (the FOI) should recommend to the Delegate that the AOC be renewed.
No administrative decision, therefore the ex AOC holder has no right of appeal to the AAT!
So simple. Game, set and match!
I believe the scam has been successfully tried – and proven. Minister shafted again!
An AOC is due for renewal. The local FOI sends a Show Cause to the AOC holder requiring him to show cause why he (the FOI) should recommend to the Delegate that the AOC be renewed.
No administrative decision, therefore the ex AOC holder has no right of appeal to the AAT!
So simple. Game, set and match!
I believe the scam has been successfully tried – and proven. Minister shafted again!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail_Wheel,
Do you know what the legal basis of this supposed "Voluntary Enforceable Agreement" relies upon? I saw something similar in some recently subpoenaed documents but felt that it was likely to be unenforceable because it was obtained under duress.
Torres,
Interesting twist - clearly designed by a person or persons who chose a "clever" procedure to get a result without the required level of integrity to act properly in the first instance by taking formal action against the existing AOC. Notwithstanding, I suspect that if CASA decides that the application for a new AOC requires the recommendation of an FOI before the delegate makes a decision, then any decision by the relevant FOI to recommend or not to recommend is an administrative decision and is reviewable in the Tribunal and the Courts.
The ability to remedy this sort of situation rests entirely within the hands of CASA, firstly because the term of the AOC is at the discretion of CASA (see s27(7) of the CAA 88), and secondly, because CASA management should exert appropriate control over the initiation of any form of administrative action such that the action is procedurally fair in all respects.
I saw what unlimited life AOCs created in terms of expectations of untouchability among the bandits and I don't think we want to resurrect it now that we have achieved some recognition that compliance is a constant requirement rather than a "once-off" at application. But I do think that it is within the power of the Director to issue a limited term AOC to permit the matter to be fairly reviewed and resolved before the AOC lapses through the effluxion of time or, preferably, to embody a condition that any administrative action commenced against an AOC will automatically extend the life of the AOC to permit review of any adverse decisions.
But all of this ignores the continuing problem with CASA - the lack of leadership, command and control - not one of which will be affected by the recent announcements by the Minister.
Do you know what the legal basis of this supposed "Voluntary Enforceable Agreement" relies upon? I saw something similar in some recently subpoenaed documents but felt that it was likely to be unenforceable because it was obtained under duress.
Torres,
Interesting twist - clearly designed by a person or persons who chose a "clever" procedure to get a result without the required level of integrity to act properly in the first instance by taking formal action against the existing AOC. Notwithstanding, I suspect that if CASA decides that the application for a new AOC requires the recommendation of an FOI before the delegate makes a decision, then any decision by the relevant FOI to recommend or not to recommend is an administrative decision and is reviewable in the Tribunal and the Courts.
The ability to remedy this sort of situation rests entirely within the hands of CASA, firstly because the term of the AOC is at the discretion of CASA (see s27(7) of the CAA 88), and secondly, because CASA management should exert appropriate control over the initiation of any form of administrative action such that the action is procedurally fair in all respects.
I saw what unlimited life AOCs created in terms of expectations of untouchability among the bandits and I don't think we want to resurrect it now that we have achieved some recognition that compliance is a constant requirement rather than a "once-off" at application. But I do think that it is within the power of the Director to issue a limited term AOC to permit the matter to be fairly reviewed and resolved before the AOC lapses through the effluxion of time or, preferably, to embody a condition that any administrative action commenced against an AOC will automatically extend the life of the AOC to permit review of any adverse decisions.
But all of this ignores the continuing problem with CASA - the lack of leadership, command and control - not one of which will be affected by the recent announcements by the Minister.
Last edited by 4dogs; 29th Nov 2002 at 04:55.
Creamie, wonder if this proposal was added for my benefit?
119.150 Appointment of chief executive officer
(1) An operator must not appoint a person as CEO for the operator’s organisation unless the appointment is acceptable to CASA.
CEO, Chief Pilot, Head of Training & Checking, Maintenance Controller - all will require CASA "acceptance"!
4Dogs, ....to get a result without the required level of integrity to act properly in the first instance.... I won't go there!
119.150 Appointment of chief executive officer
(1) An operator must not appoint a person as CEO for the operator’s organisation unless the appointment is acceptable to CASA.
CEO, Chief Pilot, Head of Training & Checking, Maintenance Controller - all will require CASA "acceptance"!
4Dogs, ....to get a result without the required level of integrity to act properly in the first instance.... I won't go there!
Last edited by Torres; 28th Nov 2002 at 01:23.
Thread Starter
Geez Torres, I can’t imagine how those dumb bureaucrats keep coming up with these ingenious ideas.
Had the operator sniffed enough Jet A1 to be as experienced and knowledgeable as justapplhere - whom I am sure is busy putting the finishing touches on a superbly crafted response to my questions above – the operator would have figured out that no AOC is “renewed”. In fact, what people call “renewal” comprises the expiry of an AOC and the issue of a new consecutive AOC in the same terms, save for the dates and the purely administrative number. This new AOC should be the subject of a new application, which application, if refused, is reviewable by the AAT. If the regulator isn’t requiring some form of application – even just a one pager - for each new consecutive AOC, or operators aren’t submitting one in any case each time to protect their interests, perhaps somebody’s been sniffing a bit too much Jet A1.
If I was as knowledgeable and experienced as justapplhere, I’d probably come up with the idea of seeking review of the decision as to the duration of the expired AOC. The AAT rarely turns late applications away, and likes to find jurisdiction where it can. I’d probably also toss around terms like “constructive refusal” and provisions like section 7 of the ADJR Act. But I’m sure justapplhere’s on to it.
BTW: I thought you weren’t a fan of the AAT. Isn’t it your view that an appeal to the AAT is pointless? Why not go straight to what you call “a real court”. Just because something is not reviewable by the AAT, or is reviewable by the AAT but you think it isn’t, does not stop you going to the Federal Court. You could even put on some affidavits from your “independent experts” to show that something done or refused to be done by the regulator was so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have done or refused to do it, or was unlawful, or was ….
Tail-Wheel – you don’t post often, but you post quality.
I’m sure the mythical Mr Redle would never make improper deals like that in real life.
And Abmay could have sought review of the refusal. They could even have got Torres’s “independent experts” to give evidence.
4-dogs – objective and thorough, as usual.
I’ve just had another sniff of Jet A1. I’m thinking of this legislation I’ve read that says if you have an approval, and you make an application for a new approval before the date the old one is expressed to expire, and the decision-maker fails to make a decision before that date, the old one is deemed to remain in force until the date 1 month after the date the decision is finally made.
Couldn’t work in aviation I suppose – too complicated.
Had the operator sniffed enough Jet A1 to be as experienced and knowledgeable as justapplhere - whom I am sure is busy putting the finishing touches on a superbly crafted response to my questions above – the operator would have figured out that no AOC is “renewed”. In fact, what people call “renewal” comprises the expiry of an AOC and the issue of a new consecutive AOC in the same terms, save for the dates and the purely administrative number. This new AOC should be the subject of a new application, which application, if refused, is reviewable by the AAT. If the regulator isn’t requiring some form of application – even just a one pager - for each new consecutive AOC, or operators aren’t submitting one in any case each time to protect their interests, perhaps somebody’s been sniffing a bit too much Jet A1.
If I was as knowledgeable and experienced as justapplhere, I’d probably come up with the idea of seeking review of the decision as to the duration of the expired AOC. The AAT rarely turns late applications away, and likes to find jurisdiction where it can. I’d probably also toss around terms like “constructive refusal” and provisions like section 7 of the ADJR Act. But I’m sure justapplhere’s on to it.
BTW: I thought you weren’t a fan of the AAT. Isn’t it your view that an appeal to the AAT is pointless? Why not go straight to what you call “a real court”. Just because something is not reviewable by the AAT, or is reviewable by the AAT but you think it isn’t, does not stop you going to the Federal Court. You could even put on some affidavits from your “independent experts” to show that something done or refused to be done by the regulator was so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have done or refused to do it, or was unlawful, or was ….
Tail-Wheel – you don’t post often, but you post quality.
I’m sure the mythical Mr Redle would never make improper deals like that in real life.
And Abmay could have sought review of the refusal. They could even have got Torres’s “independent experts” to give evidence.
4-dogs – objective and thorough, as usual.
I’ve just had another sniff of Jet A1. I’m thinking of this legislation I’ve read that says if you have an approval, and you make an application for a new approval before the date the old one is expressed to expire, and the decision-maker fails to make a decision before that date, the old one is deemed to remain in force until the date 1 month after the date the decision is finally made.
Couldn’t work in aviation I suppose – too complicated.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the compliment, Creampuff. Wish I could return the favour!
Seldom indeed, do I haunt these hallowed domains of aviation wisdom.
Interesting and contradictory use of the words "mythical" and "real" in the same sentence? Very few in our mythical organisation, ASAC, would have a real life.
Mythical Abmay unquestionably would have right of review of the refusal decision. I suspect mythical Mr Seer had a gut load of BS and derived far more pleasure advising mythical Messrs Snilloc, Redle, Yoh and Co where they could shove the AOC!
No doubt one of the few real pleasures left to mythical Mr Seer!
As you know, Creampuff, once a mythical operator featured on the phantom whiteboard only a masochist would persist......... And that's no adverse reflection on your persistent and successful efforts, Torres.
4Dogs. "Voluntary Enforceable Agreements", interesting concept and one which my learned colleague, Creampuff, may have significantly more knowledge than he's prepared to reveal.
Whilst I am inclined to concur with your suggestion the document may not be enforceable, it protracts the suspension creating further financial hardship and provides grounds for further immediate suspension/cancellation of AOC if all conditions are not met. It may not be kosher at law, but who said the game was ever played by any rules?
In light of HIH proposed multi billion dollar damages claim against the Government insurance industry regulatory authority, I would be interested in your opinion of whether CASA's expanded list of "approved" operator personnel (as per Part 119) may also expose CASA to increased damages liability if they "approve" a person (in particular the CEO) and the operation subsequently goes pear shape?
Torres. Nice scam. Tried and proven!
Seldom indeed, do I haunt these hallowed domains of aviation wisdom.
Interesting and contradictory use of the words "mythical" and "real" in the same sentence? Very few in our mythical organisation, ASAC, would have a real life.
Mythical Abmay unquestionably would have right of review of the refusal decision. I suspect mythical Mr Seer had a gut load of BS and derived far more pleasure advising mythical Messrs Snilloc, Redle, Yoh and Co where they could shove the AOC!
No doubt one of the few real pleasures left to mythical Mr Seer!As you know, Creampuff, once a mythical operator featured on the phantom whiteboard only a masochist would persist......... And that's no adverse reflection on your persistent and successful efforts, Torres.
4Dogs. "Voluntary Enforceable Agreements", interesting concept and one which my learned colleague, Creampuff, may have significantly more knowledge than he's prepared to reveal.
Whilst I am inclined to concur with your suggestion the document may not be enforceable, it protracts the suspension creating further financial hardship and provides grounds for further immediate suspension/cancellation of AOC if all conditions are not met. It may not be kosher at law, but who said the game was ever played by any rules?
In light of HIH proposed multi billion dollar damages claim against the Government insurance industry regulatory authority, I would be interested in your opinion of whether CASA's expanded list of "approved" operator personnel (as per Part 119) may also expose CASA to increased damages liability if they "approve" a person (in particular the CEO) and the operation subsequently goes pear shape?
Torres. Nice scam. Tried and proven!
Thread Starter
It must be true - He's said it more than once
From pages 9256-9257 of the House of Representatives Hansard for 2 December 2002, copy at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr021202.pdf
I hadn’t realised there was going to be a “regulatory reform task force”. Heaven’s knows you guys were crying out for another committee to fix aviation.
Tail-Wheel – it’s unfortunate you are apparently unable to overlook your prejudices and assess the argument rather than your (misguided) prejudices.
I think you’ll find that the company by whom Torres was employed was wound up by its creditors. A perfectly normal and mundane event when a company does not pay its bills, and public record.
Ho hum. Yes: I had a whyteboard with a list of all the operators who were going to be put out of business, come what may. Of course, that list could have been kept in my head or on a small piece of paper in my pocket. But instead, I put it on a whyteboard for all to see. My stupidity knows no bounds. And I shot JFK and I know where Jimmy Hoffa’s buried. Ho hum
The defining feature of aviation in Australia is the capacity of otherwise intelligent people to demonstrate, time and time again, their unerring willingness to ignore any fact that gets in the way of their prejudices.
Aviation: Reform
Mr JOHN COBB (2.32 p.m.)—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of progress the government has made in airspace reform? What benefits to the travelling public will flow from these reforms, and are further reforms being undertaken?
Mr ANDERSON—I thank the honourable member for his question. We have been pursuing quite a bold and aggressive program of aviation reforms, and a key element of that is airspace reform. Whilst it has been acknowledged that in Australia for many years we have had the best upper level airspace system in the world, it is also the case that in relation to low level airspace there is room for improvement in Australia. Properly carried forth, those reforms can produce improved safety outcomes and a more economically competitive environment, particularly for light aviation, and we want to see light aviation in Australia continue to grow and to enjoy better growth prospects, frankly, than perhaps has been the case in recent years. We are seeking to reform the present system in a way that will make it easier to use, reduce costs for the industry and for the travelling public, and at the same time maintain the highest possible safety standards.
To progress this, I established a special aviation reform group, comprising the chairman of CASA, Ted Anson; the chairman of Airservices Australia, John Forsyth; the secretary of my department; the head of the Air Force, Air Marshal Angus Houston; and Mr Dick Smith. They have been reporting on how best to harmonise Australia’s airspace arrangements with best international practice, and it has been an engaging process.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ANDERSON—I am glad that the opposition is so interested and supportive. The group reported at the end of March and recommended the adoption of the American national airspace system, NAS. On 13 May the government considered it and agreed with the recommendation. We set up an implementation group. That is well and truly under way, established and operating out of Fairbairn with the cooperation and help of Defence. The implementation of NAS will proceed in three stages. I am delighted to be able to say that the first two elements of stage 1 took effect on 28 November. We are now formally embarked on airspace reform in Australia. The third element, which will involve new procedures for the climb into E airspace will be introduced in March 2003. The aviation reform group is currently finalising the timing for stages 2 and 3, and I expect to be advised shortly in relation to this.
That is only one element of our aviation reform program. A couple of weeks ago I announced major changes in relation to CASA that will involve the establishment of a regulatory reform task force and new, enhanced and fairer enforcement procedures which have been very widely welcomed by industry. I welcome that. They have been welcomed too, I think, by CASA, recognising that they will improve relationships between the regulator and the aviation industry and the players in it. I note too, and welcome, the opposition’s support. We are also moving to corporatise Airservices Australia, which, incidentally, has just announced a cut in the costs of its services, a welcome boost to aviation at a time when it needs all the competitive pressures being brought to bear that are possible. That, incidentally, amounts to a very significant real reduction in its charges over recent years—always something to be glad of. So there is a lot happening in aviation. We have a very forward looking reform agenda, but I am particularly pleased to be able to tell the House that airspace reform—long needed, in my view, in this country—is now under way and cannot be stopped.
Mr JOHN COBB (2.32 p.m.)—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of progress the government has made in airspace reform? What benefits to the travelling public will flow from these reforms, and are further reforms being undertaken?
Mr ANDERSON—I thank the honourable member for his question. We have been pursuing quite a bold and aggressive program of aviation reforms, and a key element of that is airspace reform. Whilst it has been acknowledged that in Australia for many years we have had the best upper level airspace system in the world, it is also the case that in relation to low level airspace there is room for improvement in Australia. Properly carried forth, those reforms can produce improved safety outcomes and a more economically competitive environment, particularly for light aviation, and we want to see light aviation in Australia continue to grow and to enjoy better growth prospects, frankly, than perhaps has been the case in recent years. We are seeking to reform the present system in a way that will make it easier to use, reduce costs for the industry and for the travelling public, and at the same time maintain the highest possible safety standards.
To progress this, I established a special aviation reform group, comprising the chairman of CASA, Ted Anson; the chairman of Airservices Australia, John Forsyth; the secretary of my department; the head of the Air Force, Air Marshal Angus Houston; and Mr Dick Smith. They have been reporting on how best to harmonise Australia’s airspace arrangements with best international practice, and it has been an engaging process.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ANDERSON—I am glad that the opposition is so interested and supportive. The group reported at the end of March and recommended the adoption of the American national airspace system, NAS. On 13 May the government considered it and agreed with the recommendation. We set up an implementation group. That is well and truly under way, established and operating out of Fairbairn with the cooperation and help of Defence. The implementation of NAS will proceed in three stages. I am delighted to be able to say that the first two elements of stage 1 took effect on 28 November. We are now formally embarked on airspace reform in Australia. The third element, which will involve new procedures for the climb into E airspace will be introduced in March 2003. The aviation reform group is currently finalising the timing for stages 2 and 3, and I expect to be advised shortly in relation to this.
That is only one element of our aviation reform program. A couple of weeks ago I announced major changes in relation to CASA that will involve the establishment of a regulatory reform task force and new, enhanced and fairer enforcement procedures which have been very widely welcomed by industry. I welcome that. They have been welcomed too, I think, by CASA, recognising that they will improve relationships between the regulator and the aviation industry and the players in it. I note too, and welcome, the opposition’s support. We are also moving to corporatise Airservices Australia, which, incidentally, has just announced a cut in the costs of its services, a welcome boost to aviation at a time when it needs all the competitive pressures being brought to bear that are possible. That, incidentally, amounts to a very significant real reduction in its charges over recent years—always something to be glad of. So there is a lot happening in aviation. We have a very forward looking reform agenda, but I am particularly pleased to be able to tell the House that airspace reform—long needed, in my view, in this country—is now under way and cannot be stopped.
Tail-Wheel – it’s unfortunate you are apparently unable to overlook your prejudices and assess the argument rather than your (misguided) prejudices.
I think you’ll find that the company by whom Torres was employed was wound up by its creditors. A perfectly normal and mundane event when a company does not pay its bills, and public record.
Ho hum. Yes: I had a whyteboard with a list of all the operators who were going to be put out of business, come what may. Of course, that list could have been kept in my head or on a small piece of paper in my pocket. But instead, I put it on a whyteboard for all to see. My stupidity knows no bounds. And I shot JFK and I know where Jimmy Hoffa’s buried. Ho hum
The defining feature of aviation in Australia is the capacity of otherwise intelligent people to demonstrate, time and time again, their unerring willingness to ignore any fact that gets in the way of their prejudices.
"....we want to see light aviation in Australia continue to grow and to enjoy better growth prospects,...."
I think Anderson forget to tell CASA about his cunning plan!
Oh dear, Creampuff. Usual vintage rant and rave.
I think Anderson forget to tell CASA about his cunning plan!
Oh dear, Creampuff. Usual vintage rant and rave.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are also moving to corporatise Airservices Australia, which, incidentally, has just announced a cut in the costs of its services, a welcome boost to aviation at a time when it needs all the competitive pressures being brought to bear that are possible.
I guess the cut in the cost of services does not include increases in the cost of publications.
I wonder if Dick Smiths appointment to the special aviation reform group had something to do with D.S. not running against John Anderson in the seat of Gwydir.
I guess the cut in the cost of services does not include increases in the cost of publications.
I wonder if Dick Smiths appointment to the special aviation reform group had something to do with D.S. not running against John Anderson in the seat of Gwydir.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unable to overlook my prejudices? In a mythical organisation? Hardly Old Chap, I don't have any such prejudices!
Indeed, I don't really care either way.
Simply repeating the words of a mythical person (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) who confirmed the phantom white boards mythical existance and that it had been in his office.
I can hardly see how you can now claim credit for the phantom white board as your idea and in your previous office.
And you are a bit young to start boasting involvement in the demise of JFK. I doubt you were even a dirty thought in your father's mind when that occurred.
Indeed, I don't really care either way.
Simply repeating the words of a mythical person (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) who confirmed the phantom white boards mythical existance and that it had been in his office.
I can hardly see how you can now claim credit for the phantom white board as your idea and in your previous office.
And you are a bit young to start boasting involvement in the demise of JFK. I doubt you were even a dirty thought in your father's mind when that occurred.
Thread Starter
Tail_Wheel - “Don’t care either way”? 3 posts in 1 week on this thread, out of only 14 posts in over 4 years. Actions speak louder…
Justapplhere –We know that you think that the person you think I am is incompetent. Shall I alert the media?
A chap with your level of confidence in your own abilities should be able to knock these over before breakfast.
Cat got your tongue? Jet A1 got your brain?
Justapplhere –We know that you think that the person you think I am is incompetent. Shall I alert the media?
A chap with your level of confidence in your own abilities should be able to knock these over before breakfast.
CASA issues an AD today, that must be complied with before further flight. Tesna Airlines will go broke if it can’t delay compliance with the AD. What specific rules, if any, need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that Tesna does not go broke? What power does the Minister have in relation to ADs?
CASA issues an AOC to ADNAY Airlines, and the AOC is expressed to expire on a date a year later. That date passes without CASA having issued a new AOC. What specific rules, if any, need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that ADNAY Airlines continues to operate? What power does the Minister have in relation to AOCs?
Bloggs Airlines’ Chief Pilot spits the dummy and leaves. What specific rules, if any need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that Bloggs does not go broke? What power does the Minister have in relation to Chief Pilots?
On how many occasions does CASA suspend unilaterally, without claiming an immediate threat to air safety may exist, given that the very power to suspend unilaterally turns on CASA’s belief that an immediate threat to air safety may exist?
In 25 words or less, state the precise and only circumstances in which you believe any licence or certificate should be suspended or cancelled.
Which body or court do you believe should decide whether a licence or certificate should be suspended or cancelled? If it’s someone other than CASA, what are the mandatory aviation-related selection criteria for persons to become members of that other body or court?
What aviation qualifications does the Minister have? If the Minister has no aviation qualifications, how can direct accountability to him achieve what you’re trying to achieve?
CASA issues an AOC to ADNAY Airlines, and the AOC is expressed to expire on a date a year later. That date passes without CASA having issued a new AOC. What specific rules, if any, need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that ADNAY Airlines continues to operate? What power does the Minister have in relation to AOCs?
Bloggs Airlines’ Chief Pilot spits the dummy and leaves. What specific rules, if any need to be changed, and how precisely would you change them, in order that Bloggs does not go broke? What power does the Minister have in relation to Chief Pilots?
On how many occasions does CASA suspend unilaterally, without claiming an immediate threat to air safety may exist, given that the very power to suspend unilaterally turns on CASA’s belief that an immediate threat to air safety may exist?
In 25 words or less, state the precise and only circumstances in which you believe any licence or certificate should be suspended or cancelled.
Which body or court do you believe should decide whether a licence or certificate should be suspended or cancelled? If it’s someone other than CASA, what are the mandatory aviation-related selection criteria for persons to become members of that other body or court?
What aviation qualifications does the Minister have? If the Minister has no aviation qualifications, how can direct accountability to him achieve what you’re trying to achieve?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK creampuff, what say I give you an actual real life event and seek your infinite wisdom.
Small viable aero club needs a temp CFI (just normal people flow, nothing sinister at all). One guy volunteers and it is all Ok, even CASA agree.
2 years later the same thing happens, the same guy is willing to fill in. This time it aint OK. The club suspends trading, costs it heaps (something I find CASA absolutely unable to comprehend ... cash flow!!!). Same personalities, same rules, different breakfast cereal perhaps.
Regulation by whim and fancy or what???
(oh, and where do you stand on the seatbelt fiasco???)
Chuck
Small viable aero club needs a temp CFI (just normal people flow, nothing sinister at all). One guy volunteers and it is all Ok, even CASA agree.
2 years later the same thing happens, the same guy is willing to fill in. This time it aint OK. The club suspends trading, costs it heaps (something I find CASA absolutely unable to comprehend ... cash flow!!!). Same personalities, same rules, different breakfast cereal perhaps.
Regulation by whim and fancy or what???
(oh, and where do you stand on the seatbelt fiasco???)
Chuck
Thread Starter
Ulm
Beats me.
I don’t know how “automatic stays on suspension decisions” (whatever that means) or the removal of the board will make any difference to the two scenarios you raised.
That’s my point.
justapplhere, who fancies himself as an expert, is going to explain it for us.
Justapplhere?
Beats me.
I don’t know how “automatic stays on suspension decisions” (whatever that means) or the removal of the board will make any difference to the two scenarios you raised.
That’s my point.
justapplhere, who fancies himself as an expert, is going to explain it for us.
Justapplhere?