Pitch & Break
While it can be expected that any Government institution would close ranks and look after its own, other institutions such as the Ombudsman do take a more independent view.

Creampuff could have also suggested placing information (not conjecture) with the federal police (official corruption), the ACCC (third party forcing?), State Consumer Affairs (ditto), your local MP, the Shadow Minister, the Minister himself and your State MP. (In the latter case State labour Governments are usually only too happy to sink the boot into Liberal Commonwealth governments. ;) )

Much better to have a group raising similar allegations, as this is harder for the agency to refute.

And,of course, if you get nowhere with the 'official channels', there's alway TV current affairs shows.

Regrettably, it takes a lot of time, money and stamina to pursue Government corruption and (with apologies to Sir Humphrey) there's always the dunghill factor to consider....
"What do you get when you clean up a dunghill? You're left with nothing but you're covered in dung."

This is possibly why good men stay quiet and corruption flourishes.

:mad:

Give the guy a chance

Just recently Woomera banned a certain WA guy for ringing my employer and trying to cause trouble. A few years back Mr Munro instgated a Ministerial against me to, in my opinion, shut me up. All that was frivolous, hurtful and unnecessary.

Now you guys sure seem to have a gripe, so I have taken the content of this post up with Mick Toller. He was aware of the allegations and is looking into the matter. He said he will let me know.

Until then how about we give this unfortunately very identifiable, ex-Pusser, Leut, Grumman pilot a fair go.

I think innocent until proven guilty should apply, even here!!!!

Never give a sucker an even break (famous last words)
 

Snarek,

Please forgive me for sounding just a bit cynical, but would you care to explain just why should we give this chap a chance?
For several years, the ATO scheme in this country has been in disarray and uncertainty. Many professional, long-standing CFI's and the likes have worked their butts off in GA and the cream for them is to eventually become Independent ATO's with both the prestige and recognition associated with that role. They have been denied ATO'ships for several years now with CASA claiming
a: The scheme is to be done away with,
b: There are too many already,
c: No more will be issued until such time as the way-ahead is clear.
etc etc etc
Now out of the blue, a Qantas Captain working part-time in GA walks straight into an ATO'ship others more qualified and suitable have waited for for years probably because of a friendship - give us a break?:mad:
Fortunately, the 'old-boys-club' doesn't cut the mustard out here in the big, wide world ( not any longer anyway!);)

Probably because he deserves the same 'innocent until proven guilty' treatment we all expect.

However if this is true, then do him. He must go. Simple really.

I think snarek has gone the right way, ask the question in the right place. In the interim I suggest you guys who are hurting over this put your money where your mouth is. Get the evidence, name names and put your names to the letter. Then send in to snarek (just spell the name backwards and look on the AOPA page).

No one can take up something like this based on an allegation on an anaymous forum.

Chuck

Oh I understand the cynicism all right. One FOI just shut my favourite areo club down for a month because he wouldn't let them have an interim CFI. There was a very well qualified CFI available to do it, the club was allowed an interim a year ago, the club has a Grade 2 who is up to Grade 1 standard (just no CFI to sign him off). Just not this time.

Regulation by whim and fancy must stop!!!!

But, in this case just as in your FOI case, the other side of the story must be heard. In the Bankstown case I will wait for what Mr Toller has to say. If you let me know who you are by PPRUNE message I will tell you what is said and will respond on your behalf maintaining your anonimity.

If in the interim you wish to do as ULM suggests, which would be very useful, then send it to me at PO Box 3060 Belconnen ACT 2617.

I do need to know who is making the claims and who they are made against. I will not pass the names of the alledgers on without their permission. But if there is a case, to prosecute it you must come out.

AK

What Claptrap!
 

Snarek and Ulm,
I do not agree totally. Most of us have jobs to protect in this industry and to name ourselves in an issue of conflict with CASA would be (and often is) commercial suicide.
I have brought the matter to the attention of the right people through this forum and it should be investigated. Others have also highlighted problems and I think that is enough. Nobody in their right mind is going to expose themselves to the possible retributions that could be metered out by our friendly FOI?
I for one do not want to take any more risk than is absolutely necesssary to have the facts aired. If the regulator decides to do nothing, then I might consider another tac..................advise I have is the Regulator will be doing something about this case, thankfully for all.;)

Gaunty


http://aoconline.icemedia.com.au


In the end there will only be one consultant remaining - CASA

601

Thanks I was aware of that project and it is about time.

I would like to think that I may have had some influence on it's inception, some time back, in concept in any event.

It will only work though, if it is sufficiently "friendly" to not require the use of the ubiquitous "consultant" to complete succesfully.

Yup, but now I'm going to go full circle and say I'm not at all sure how I feel about that at the moment.:rolleyes:

Delicious irony isn't it.

Was it Malcolm in the Middle who said,
Life wasn't meant to be easy. :D ?

P & B

If CASA have you so cowed that you are afraid to openly complain, then they win. :(

Gaunty. Have you asked AOPA to support the AOC on line thingy???

Chuck

Who in CASA has the job of writing the Operations Manual for the aoconline?

Will he/she have to submit it to all the FOIs and AWIs throughout the country to get individual interperation on the CARs and CAOs.

Or are they going to go through all the OM they have from all the operators and then get input from all the FOIs and AWIs.

After the industry has been told that an operator should write their own OM, are we now expected to accept that one fits all?

Why not put an OM in the CARs as a schedule.

Then we could do away with the rewrite of the CARs because all we would have to do is operate in accordance with our CASA supplied OM.

601

Oh dear, a heretic in our midst, that is much too rational and logical to ever get up.:D

Besides it's too much like the dreaded simpleton FAA system.

They used to burn people like you at the stake after tearing off their fingernails one by one, and damning your chidren forever to servitude:p :eek: http://community.airattack.co.uk/ima...es/flaming.gif

Sir Humphrey is spinning in his grave as we speak.

Creampuff where are you when we need you.:D :D

Gaunty

I like to be at a BBQ every now and then, but not the centre of attention!

But do you want open slather?
 

I suppose in theory you could have a default ops manual, a la Schedule 5 for maintenance of class B aircraft and the default constitution for corporations in the corporations law.

A few impediments though.

First, it would make the rules thicker. Although I don’t see that as a problem in principle, there are many who equate less with good and more with bad. Ain’t humans strange animals?

Secondly, I and some others subscribe to the quaint view that those who want a licence to risk fare paying passengers’ lives in aircraft should demonstrate an understanding of the rules that apply to the activity and explain the way in which they (the licence holder) propose to comply with those rules. A compliance statement and operations manual is one means by which to go some way of doing both.

But neither document means anything if the applicant has merely copied or bought them from someone else. It’s no different from copying or buying someone else’s exam summary. Having the documents does not, as if by osmosis, impart the knowledge or experience. It works the other way ‘round: if you’ve got sufficient knowledge and experience, it’s easy to produce the documents.

The analogy is in my view a good one. If you know the subject, you pass the exam. You learn the subject by summarising it. If you have summarised properly, the summary becomes superfluous. The document is the by-product of a learning process, not knowledge.

Thirdly, the older and wiser will tell you that every operator has unique local circumstances that should be dealt with uniquely in their operations manual. An operator of a flying school on the coast in the higher latitudes needs to manage different risks than a charter operator in the desert. (I suppose the ‘default’ manual could have a tailor-able section. )

But, if we are going to have a ‘default’ ops manual and similar ‘off-the-shelf’ documents such as organisational structures and duty statements, then the sole criterion for gaining an AOC will be $$$$. It will be no different from incorporating a company: fill out the application form, and pay the incorporation fee.

Wasn’t someone suggesting a limitation on the number of operators, not open slather?

?????
 

Could someone please fill me in.......what eventually happened to the bloke who got the Independant ATO'ship and his FOI mate?:o

But do you want open slather

I suppose in theory you could have a default ops manual, a la Schedule 5 for maintenance of class B aircraft and the default constitution for corporations in the corporations law.

A few impediments though.

First, it would make the rules thicker. Although I don’t see that as a problem in principle, there are many who equate less with good and more with bad. Ain’t humans strange animals?

Secondly, I and some others subscribe to the quaint view that those who want a licence to risk fare paying passengers’ lives in aircraft should demonstrate an understanding of the rules that apply to the activity and explain the way in which they (the licence holder) propose to comply with those rules. A compliance statement and operations manual is one means by which to go some way of doing both.

But neither document means anything if the applicant has merely copied or bought them from someone else. It’s no different from copying or buying someone else’s exam summary. Having the documents does not, as if by osmosis, impart the knowledge or experience. .........

eeeeerm....................... hang on somebody already said that. Don't you just hate it when that happens:D :D :cool:

Gaunty: I concur entirely!

Snarek: You are probably unaware of the futility of your (albeit well-intentioned) strategy. Mr Toller is the only individual on the planet who can make someone an ATO. It was Mr Toller who decided to make this person an ATO! I’ll bet you pennies to the Brooklyn Bridge that after reviewing the matter, he decides that his decision was OK.

Update
 

Have heard that this particular approval/delegation has either been revoked or is to be revoked soon but I bet a dime to a $ that it will be reissued once all the heat dies down - any takers?

Creampuff;

Mr Toller may well 'sign off' an ATO but seriously - do you think he would personally review every candidate?.

He would be only acting on the advice of people lower in the chain to have already done just that.

Mr Toller did not decide to make the man an ATO - that was already done for him. And as with most CEO's in any walk of life, Mr Toller has a certain amount of trust in the people lower down, who in this case, placed the candidate's application in front of him (with a big tick and smiley face).

Pitch & Break; Maybe - when he leaves Qantas and is ready to contribute to G.A. rather than be a leach.

As for ol' mate in SE QLD; It looks like there is now a possible ATO slot available. :rolleyes:

Valid points R-F-G. but...
 

Mr Toller is ultimately responsible for the decision.

The key point is that, even assuming Mr Toller made this person an ATO by simply 'pencil whipping' a recommendation that had been put on the pile in his in tray, Mr Toller's still responsible for the decision. He will look very silly if he now says, in effect, that he doesn't really pay much attention to the relative merits of the people to whom he delegates extraordinarily important powers under the CARs.

R-F-G,
On the issue of Qantas; I thought they had a policy about their pilots doing 'other' flying? As I understand it, there are restrictions on how many hours they can fly 'off the job' annually and a strict policy on just what sort of flying they can do? Anyone know the current policy?:cool: