Question for CASA?
 

Have recently heard CASA awarded an ATO'ship to a Qantas chap from down Wollongong way to include IFR, multi-engine and Instructor type stuff! I think there are quite a few CFI's out there who have been waiting for their chance to become full ATO's that have a right to ask this question of CASA.........WHY!?
This guy does not earn any significant part of his living from GA and has effectively taken a rather lucritive niche position without putting in the hard-yards like the rest of us! Certainly not a case of 'what you know' but 'who you know'.
Just Not Good Enough CASA!
:mad:
Update: Have learned that our newest independant ATO is bestest buddies with another ex-Navy type who happens to be an FOI at BK (also happened to be boss for a bit just recently).
Also learned that CASA are reviewing some of the more-questionable decisions/approvals/delegations emanating from this office of recent times. :( About time I say.:D

If that's really true - there are going to be some really pissed off puppies.

Ol' mate held all ATO tickets until recently - until he moved to S/E Qld.

The CASA local office reason; "Too many ATO's australia wide".



:mad:

It is true.
 

He is neither a CFI or CP yet has been awarded ATO delegations....this is in an area already well serviced with an abundance of roving ATOS.
Any CFI or CP in the Sydney Basin area who has been waiting for years for these delegations has every right to pursue CASA vigorously on this one.
Is it any wonder GA is slowly coming to a grinding halt in this country when even the regulator can't support the industry honestly and even-handedly?:mad: :mad: :mad:

Rich-Fine-Green
 

Suggest your mate get on the phone to CASA and the Minister pronto.......the same excuse is being bandied around here in Sydney (and has been for years) and then out of the blue, they issue probably the first in a long while to some cl*wn not even working full-time in the industry. THREE GREENS sums it up nicely!:eek:

I know of someone who went for independent ATO delegations after previously being a CFI/CP with the usual delegations who was told that they could not consider him as there were already "enough ATO's" and they had to consider not spreading testing work too thinly.

So this had nothing to do with ability.

The prospective ATO went to chat with a legal friend who suggested that the CASA field office was engaged in unfair restriction of trade and that he may well win in court but lose in the long run.

Since when is it up to CASA to decide if there are sufficient ATO's? Will they soon decide there are enough CPL holders? Great mine will be worth more. I understand that a delegation is different but the principle is the same. CASA's role is to approve or otherwise an applicant. The whole structure and attitude is flawed.

Roll on the CASR's which create pilot examiners.

Not bad for your first post, bin for you.

We play the issue not the man around here.

What do ATOs actually do?
 

Mick Toller has openly stated that CASA is "doing a lot of flight checks."

The problem seems to be that then (about 2 years ago) and now, no reputable flight school can remember the last time anybody did one.

Not only that, but most schools are happy about that situation because they have no confidence that the whole process would benefit from the oversight of the quality of the kind of CASA people who would be likely to be involved.

CASA (to the best of anybody's knowledge) has NO guidelines for
a.) the conduct of flight tests by CASA officers,
b.) the oversight by CASA officers of flight tests from the back seat (and subsequent de-briefings and revies of assessment decisions.) OR
c.) the reassessment of a test candidate by a CASA test officer/FOI, following an ATO decision.

It is significant that a large number of former CASA FOIs are now doing something for a fee, that they never (or rarely) did on a salary; and that competent and highly experienced GA individuals are being told there's an over-supply and there's no room for them.

The worst affected are those competent and highly experienced GA people who will not pass a dud. As a result their business drops off, and eventually they're taken off the list.

If that's not corruption, there must be another name for it that I haven't heard.

Does this person intend to operate out of Wollongong? - Not suggesting there could be any possible connection with anything going on down there at all.

Wheeler, in answer to your questions;
YES, YES and YES.;)

Launcher21: C'mon mate - that's not fair. Do you know the man?, Do you know directly about any specific cases? Do you really think he would risk his position by getting involved in an ATO issue?

The reality is that the top few floors of CASA are only concerned with the 'paying passenger'.

General Aviation - which is where ATO's are involved, is barely a blip on their (CASA bigwig's) radar.

The corruption or let's be nicer - 'jobs for the boys' can only exist on a much lower level in CASA.

There is one ex-CASA FOI that was Sydney based, left CASA under questionable circumstances and on the way out the door, wrote himself every approval he could think of. The man now earns quite a good living as a consultant & ATO.

I will never name the man - even in this forum. However, I'm sure a number of those reading this know who I'm talking about.

BTW; My friend, who was an ATO until he moved to QLD, has to wait 3-4 weeks for a local ATO to be available. Obviously Too many ATO's in QLD.

casa has always been jobs for the boys, nothings changed. i am going to err on the side of conservatism and self preservation and only and say that some very borderline events have occurred behind their doors.

as an ato it is possible to travel anywhere in australian territories and test pilots for licences and ratings, after all we are licenced under a federal system.

who removed that privilege from the ato who moved from sydney to queensland?

a high time helicopter instrument instructor, cfi, ato, own long time flying school, wanted to start an instrument training course in se qld and was denied.

ex employee of same company started a new flying school in another state and got instrument approval immediately.

it is at the whim of the local foi's.

i could tell you blokes some stories. (maybe i will). ..... oneday.


:eek:

IMABELL

Just a thought and I might be wrong, often am:( , but I thought some ATOs were company specific and others were independent.

As a consquence, the fellow that moved to Q'ld may have lost his ATO privileges due to the fact that he had left the company for which he held an ATO.

I am sure there is someone out there who can clarify this point at least.:)

It doesn't surprise me that there is huge variance in the way the different CASA offices perform their functions. Too much is being left to the discretion of local FOIs who often as not appear to be holding grudges against particular operators and its not going to change until CASA is completely overhauled. Somehow, I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting.:mad: :mad:

I smell a big fat rat.



Why aren't we hearing the thundering of AOPAs VP Technical on this one.

It's a bloody disgrace.

I reckon Icarus, gaunty et al have hit the nail directly and firmly fair square on the head. More ATO's = More availablity (read not have to wait six weeks for an CIR test etc) = More competition for the available candidates = perhaps even cheaper testing in the future? (DO NOT read that I disagree with the pricing structure, but it only stands to reason, doesn't it)?

Might one sniff a scent of price fixing? :eek: :rolleyes:

I think perhaps a fitting line from a reasonably well known BBC drama...You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment......."

Transparency? ;)

Since the Civil Aviation Regulations conferred on CASA alone the power to decide to whom, when, and on what conditions the requisite delegations will or will not be granted.

They can’t. Unlike ATO delegations (the grant of which are at CASA’s discretion), a person is entitled to a CPL if and when she satisfies the criteria for the grant of the licence: CASA has no discretion.

It does. It does It does.

But, as usual, it’s too busy managing crises to deal with the important stuff.

Because unless you really know what you’re talking about, it’s very difficult to articulate the precise circumstances in which an unconditional discretion may be invalidly or improperly exercised.

Bet get a lawyer son; better get a real good one.

Turns out our newest independant ATO has just started an organisation named CATS which sells his superior services and vast experience to the industry by way of consultancy, testing and training. Add to this his survey operation which he does a fair amount of flying for.......................when does he get time for QANTAS(?) and I thought there was some serious restrictions on what Qantas aircrew employees could do in their spare time, flying wise?
;) He and his FOI pal evidently both flew Trackers in the Navy both reaching the dizziing heights of Lieutenant.:p

Know who you're talking about now.
 

The FOI in question pushes work this guys way all the time (especially Operations Manual and AOC applications) despite the CASA requirements that they are to remain neutral at all times when dealing with the public especially in these matters.
I know first-hand of one instance when the FOI made it clear that an operations manual from any other organisation would receive far less favourable processing than one from his mates organisation stating that he was a CASA recommended and favoured organisation for these services!
:confused:
Tell me nothing is crook in the Bankstown Office?:mad:

May or may not be exactly the way it is conveyed but it sure seems to be the way it works in reality or at the very least is perceived to be.

Consultants??

I’ve said it before here and at the very highest levels, I’ll say it again and keep saying it.

There has to be something very wrong with our regulator and regulatory system that not only ”requires” or “encourages” their existence but also provides the environment for a plethora of strolling aviation consultants of no fixed percentage to wax fat on it.

Having said that I would hasten to exclude those whose consultancies “value add” to their clients business by the provision of “unique and expert” services that they could not reasonably be expected to carry in house.

Otherwise it’s just plain “cronyism” once removed and all that that brings.

What “unique and expert” services are or should be needed to write an Operations Manual or AOC application, which are NOT set out in the MAOC and other “guideline” publications..
Further my experience tells me that there is MUCH an applicant can and will learn about his own skills and abilities and his business in that process.
Some of the more perspicacious may in fact delay or shelve their plans on the basis of not being able to make it in any event.
NO I cant or shouldn’t do this is as valid an answer as YES I can, to a prospective applicant given the appropriate decision making information and tools.
Handing it over to a “consultant” for a quick and easy fix does not enhance that process or produce anything meaningful that the regulator can use to assess the applicants real skills and ability.
In fact I suspect it probably increases the risk of ultimate failure.
Throwing money at a problematical situation until you solve it is the road to ruin.

You would need the Wisdom of Solomon to separate which of the skills and abilities belong to the applicant and which belong to the consultant.
Unless the consultant becomes embedded in the organization the application is meaningless.
You could issue the AOC subject to this being so but hey, there we go again.
Otherwise why not just construct a bunch of templates in which you insert your name rank and serial number, registration of aircraft and attach a cheque to receive by return mail the AOC or HCAOC.
It s simple then every body wins and we can just get on with it. :eek:
We work they keep a watchful eye.:rolleyes:

I used to think that the justification for ALL of the sturm und drang that has consumed the last 15 or so years in the road to simplification and clarification would be simplification and clarification.

If you need to hire a consultant to work it out, then by any standard of evidence you can apply, we have failed.
ABYSMALLY :mad:

Now; now gaunty. It’s everyone’s constitutional right to lose money risking other people’s lives in aircraft.

But to return to the subject of this thread: has anyone put pen to paper to complain about this alleged corruption? The illiterate or lazy don’t even have to write – the Ombudsman accepts oral complaints.

If this is really happening, what are you doing to fix it?

Creampuff,

Not a real lot anyone can do especially by complaining to either CASA or the Ombudsman.....the reply will be the same suggesting sour grapes and the like. The regulator will back the FOI on this one because despite what we think, there is a little bit of cohesion in the CASA organisation - at least a bit more than we display in GA!
Best that I can suggest is that schools and organisations should boycott the services of this and other Independent ATOs who short-circuit the system and cost valuable jobs to those more deserving.:(