CASA Scores TRIFECTA!!!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: on the ground
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey CC
PNG DCA could be a case study for CASA as far as regs go. When I was over there the last amendment to the regs seemed to have been in about 1974 and things seemed to be functioning OK. Your publications branch (note 4) has a distinct familiarity to the two wontoks running the printing press under the DCA building in Moresby. I still laugh my head off thinking back to when I was trying to get a copy of a map out of them between flights from Pop.
Like the cut of your jib there old chap!!
PNG DCA could be a case study for CASA as far as regs go. When I was over there the last amendment to the regs seemed to have been in about 1974 and things seemed to be functioning OK. Your publications branch (note 4) has a distinct familiarity to the two wontoks running the printing press under the DCA building in Moresby. I still laugh my head off thinking back to when I was trying to get a copy of a map out of them between flights from Pop.
Like the cut of your jib there old chap!!
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawyers? Now we’re getting somewhere.
Nipper, you are wrong, in my opinion. The "wife and kids" test is much more valid. Any time anything goes badly wrong, it is self-evident that with hindsight the best option wasn't taken. But if it were taken after weighing up the facts as known to you at the time, and using all your experience and knowledge, then it was perhaps a wrong decision but not necessarily a poor one. Lawyers in courtrooms looking for a favourable outcome for their client and "journalists" for populist TV programs looking for a sensational story don't care about that difference.
What has this to do with the argument? Quite simply CASA are put in the position of having to cover their @rses; if they fail to insist on rigid adherence to the regulations, (drafted by lawyers) any bush lawyer can crucify them in court. There is really no leeway for commonsense; they are not given that authority. In this, aviation is hardly unique.
Please understand that I make this observation as an explanation, not an excuse. There is no escape from legalese, so we are left with addressing the content of the regulations, and surely this is where the two sides can come together without hostility? In the “bush mail” or “scheduled sightseeing” scenarios mentioned above, for example, why in God’s name is the regulation there in the first place? Why does a check list have to be laminated? Or contain a company logo? Etc…..
Why cannot an enlightened and motivated cross-section of industry at all levels sit down and frame regulations that can protect those needing to be protected without destroying the livelihood of somebody else not remotely linked? Once the regulations are agreed upon, then let the lawyers in to draft them and let the regulator police them in the agreed form. No problem.
I have to go now, I'm going to the Easter Bunny's house to play.
If after your accident/incident you were interviewed by 60 minutes could you put your hand on your heart and say what I did was the best option? If the answer is no, regardless of any regulations, you probably made a poor decision.
What has this to do with the argument? Quite simply CASA are put in the position of having to cover their @rses; if they fail to insist on rigid adherence to the regulations, (drafted by lawyers) any bush lawyer can crucify them in court. There is really no leeway for commonsense; they are not given that authority. In this, aviation is hardly unique.
Please understand that I make this observation as an explanation, not an excuse. There is no escape from legalese, so we are left with addressing the content of the regulations, and surely this is where the two sides can come together without hostility? In the “bush mail” or “scheduled sightseeing” scenarios mentioned above, for example, why in God’s name is the regulation there in the first place? Why does a check list have to be laminated? Or contain a company logo? Etc…..
Why cannot an enlightened and motivated cross-section of industry at all levels sit down and frame regulations that can protect those needing to be protected without destroying the livelihood of somebody else not remotely linked? Once the regulations are agreed upon, then let the lawyers in to draft them and let the regulator police them in the agreed form. No problem.
I have to go now, I'm going to the Easter Bunny's house to play.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the J curve
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binnocs well said but, can we substitute the word Content for Intent, after all it is the intention of the rules which was the reason for for thier implementation in the first place.
At al
What has happend is that we have all forgoten, well maybe in this thread we can see some have'nt, the reason for the rule in the first place. McArthur Job says it so well in his first book (AIRCRASH) the rules are (were) a result of lessons hard learnt in the blood of those who first tried it.
Today we have a modern industry and maybe the rules have not kept up with this, but genraly the intent is still to stop us from doing something silly to ourselvs, or pax (SLF or M+K) and the insurance company.
I aggree with Cooda, its time for a reconsideration of the WAY we regulate, but not for the reason that we regulate. (I don't own a backhoe, but I will bring my shovel when the time comes). To question Coodas quote, When the Revolution comes" (abot the lawers, but the logic is still the same), well then, WHEN is the revolution comming???.
Its not, and we need to fix that first, we need strong representation and leadership from within the pilot/operator/engineer body.
Unfortunatly, to answer Binnocs last question the reason we don't have this strong bipartisan body is thanks to DICK S. He went out of his way to ensure that the individual organisations were torn apart and made to work against each other, yes you remember when he was Pres of AOPA. Funny but he went from there to CASA Chairman and look at the fuc&up that was when there were no strong bodys to stand up to him.
I am there and will be in the front ranks of the revolution, but I am not the leader.
Will you please stand up and we (I), will rally behind you.
Gaunty, put down that red, its TIME.
At al
What has happend is that we have all forgoten, well maybe in this thread we can see some have'nt, the reason for the rule in the first place. McArthur Job says it so well in his first book (AIRCRASH) the rules are (were) a result of lessons hard learnt in the blood of those who first tried it.
Today we have a modern industry and maybe the rules have not kept up with this, but genraly the intent is still to stop us from doing something silly to ourselvs, or pax (SLF or M+K) and the insurance company.
I aggree with Cooda, its time for a reconsideration of the WAY we regulate, but not for the reason that we regulate. (I don't own a backhoe, but I will bring my shovel when the time comes). To question Coodas quote, When the Revolution comes" (abot the lawers, but the logic is still the same), well then, WHEN is the revolution comming???.
Its not, and we need to fix that first, we need strong representation and leadership from within the pilot/operator/engineer body.
Unfortunatly, to answer Binnocs last question the reason we don't have this strong bipartisan body is thanks to DICK S. He went out of his way to ensure that the individual organisations were torn apart and made to work against each other, yes you remember when he was Pres of AOPA. Funny but he went from there to CASA Chairman and look at the fuc&up that was when there were no strong bodys to stand up to him.
I am there and will be in the front ranks of the revolution, but I am not the leader.
Will you please stand up and we (I), will rally behind you.
Gaunty, put down that red, its TIME.
Binos
Couldn't put it better myself.
Anyone from the regulatory side care to comment?
What's happened to Lead Balloon? He started this
Why cannot an enlightened and motivated cross-section of industry at all levels sit down and frame regulations that can protect those needing to be protected without destroying the livelihood of somebody else not remotely linked?
Anyone from the regulatory side care to comment?
What's happened to Lead Balloon? He started this
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I must say I'm disappointed. LB offered me a top regulatory job if I could provide a workable change to Reg 206 (Maybe it should also be called Reg PA32/C402/PA31-350. Why should the poor old C206 take all the blame?) The rewrite took about two minutes (see previous post.) Anyway, neither Lead Ballon, the Minister, the Opposition spokesperson nor Cheryl Kernot has rushed to the phone to summon me to Canberra, nor had Lead Balloon sent a Commonwealth driver round with a briefcase full of cash, so I take it the problem remains unresolved.
Oh well, I never really wanted to be a non-accountable parasite anyway.
Oh well, I never really wanted to be a non-accountable parasite anyway.
Grandpa Aerotart
Ground Hog When I left PNG in 1999 we hadn't had anything other than the odd 'hand amendment' out of PNG DCA in 10 years.
Naviads that broke didn't get fixed as with most of the rest of the aviation infrastructure, most of it had only had three coats of paint since independence in '75.
We were all out there flying our rings off doing 3000 or 4000 sectors a year each(in the bush) and having remarkably few accidents all said and done. Not to mention PNG DCA making the odd direct attempt on our lives with badly designed IAL procedures. We had to inform them of approximately where we would hit the terrain if flown as published.
If several hundred pilots and support staff (engineering etc) can do that in a country the Sir Charles Kingsford Smith said the aeroplane was unsuited for, what could be achieved in dead flat, mostly fine weather Australia?
8+ years of bush flying and almost 5 with PX, all of it essentially unregulated in any way shape or form leaves me with a short fuse when it comes to stupidity on the part of pilots or CASA types.
The fact that I lost 30+ contempories, many good friends, killed in those years is a testament to how difficult PNG is to fly in, not to the lack of an effective DCA.
I wouldn't mind seeing a regulator along the lines of my version above, utopian as it may sound. Failing that I firmly believe we would not be a hell of a lot worse off with nothing at all.
Fairly quickly the Lawyers would weed out the weak sisters as the terrain did in PNG. Darwinian I know but does anyone really think CASA in it's current form makes a huge impact on safety?
I once sacked a pilot because he was completely hopeless. Wouldn't even put the effort in to learn what I and his other Training Captains tried to impart. He had an ATPL, Instructors rating, Command I/R and 1600 odd hours and yet could not fly to any known standard, not even Pre solo standard. I was so concerned about him I rang the CASA FOI from where he had been flying. He wouldn't/couldn't do anything, and the bottom dwelling operation he had been working for was a known shonky operator!
I get on well with the CASA guys I deal with and I believe there are good guys working there, but the system has them beat. Nothing will change until the Industry unites though, at present like our Politicians we have the CASA we deserve.
Chuck.
Naviads that broke didn't get fixed as with most of the rest of the aviation infrastructure, most of it had only had three coats of paint since independence in '75.
We were all out there flying our rings off doing 3000 or 4000 sectors a year each(in the bush) and having remarkably few accidents all said and done. Not to mention PNG DCA making the odd direct attempt on our lives with badly designed IAL procedures. We had to inform them of approximately where we would hit the terrain if flown as published.
If several hundred pilots and support staff (engineering etc) can do that in a country the Sir Charles Kingsford Smith said the aeroplane was unsuited for, what could be achieved in dead flat, mostly fine weather Australia?
8+ years of bush flying and almost 5 with PX, all of it essentially unregulated in any way shape or form leaves me with a short fuse when it comes to stupidity on the part of pilots or CASA types.
The fact that I lost 30+ contempories, many good friends, killed in those years is a testament to how difficult PNG is to fly in, not to the lack of an effective DCA.
I wouldn't mind seeing a regulator along the lines of my version above, utopian as it may sound. Failing that I firmly believe we would not be a hell of a lot worse off with nothing at all.
Fairly quickly the Lawyers would weed out the weak sisters as the terrain did in PNG. Darwinian I know but does anyone really think CASA in it's current form makes a huge impact on safety?
I once sacked a pilot because he was completely hopeless. Wouldn't even put the effort in to learn what I and his other Training Captains tried to impart. He had an ATPL, Instructors rating, Command I/R and 1600 odd hours and yet could not fly to any known standard, not even Pre solo standard. I was so concerned about him I rang the CASA FOI from where he had been flying. He wouldn't/couldn't do anything, and the bottom dwelling operation he had been working for was a known shonky operator!
I get on well with the CASA guys I deal with and I believe there are good guys working there, but the system has them beat. Nothing will change until the Industry unites though, at present like our Politicians we have the CASA we deserve.
Chuck.
Thread Starter
I’ve been overseas for a while on business, so I do apologise for not providing timely responses to your responses.
CoodaShooda. I’m not quite sure how my starting a post critical of CASA can be construed as my being uncritical of CASA. And I’m not a regulator.
There is a reasonably simple and entirely accurate answer to the question “what is the regulator’s role” in the case of CASA. Unfortunately, a substantial part of the aviation industry is unwilling or unable to understand or accept that role. Because CASA comprises many people from the industry, it suffers from the same handicap.
Did I say “corrupt”?
The symbiosis to which I referred smelt and looked corrupt, but in most cases wasn’t. However, it did mean that the incompetent operators, the poorly managed operators, and the operators without sufficient demand for their services, were kept in the industry at an enormous opportunity cost to the community and the better operators. (Don’t worry though. According to a recent CASA press release, all of this is on the way back in again.)
Measured over a period of 6 years, 5 out of 6 businesses in the real world go broke. But aviation seems to have more than its fair share of participants who think they should be kept in the air no matter how incompetent they are, now matter how poorly managed they are, and no matter whether there are sufficient customers willing and able to pay sufficient money for the services they provide.
Gaunty’s fighting a gallant battle in other threads to, in essence (and Gaunty will correct me if I’m wrong), convince people that mathematics applies to aviation.
If it would cost you $X to provide an air service in accordance with the rules, and you can’t find enough customers to pay you at least $X for that service, then you’ve either got to break the rules or cajole CASA into exempting you from them, and/or get the government to subsidise you. Or you go broke. There are no other alternatives.
In the real world, the blood alcohol level in most places is 0.05. It’s arbitrary in one sense, in that the difference between 0.04999999999 and 0.05 is a mere 0.00000000001, yet the effect of that extra scintilla of BAL is a criminal conviction, loss of licence and a fine. However, society has drawn a line: this far, and no further.
We don’t accept any excuses any more. But I was only over by a bit; But I am perfectly capable of driving after a few beers, I’ve done it for years and never had an accident; But I only had to go 1 kilometre; But you should be out catching the real criminals; But I’ve been driving for decades more than you, sonny, so what would you know.
The response is: watch your fingers, the cell door’s closing.
What do we get in aviation? Every rule’s an argument, and there to be bent. But I was only a few kilos over weight, and I’ve never had an accident at that weight; You’ve turned a blind eye to this for years, why can’t you do it again? You’ve given me that exemption before, why can’t I have it again? But I only need the extension for a few hours; You’re telling me it’s safe for me to fly for X hours, but not safe to fly for X hours and 1 minute? But this is not a real crime. But I’ve been flying for decades and I’ve got no respect for you.
Aviation thinks it’s special. And that’s why it’s especially traumatic when it’s reminded that it isn’t.
There is an article by a person who claims to be an expert on all matters aviation in a recent edition of a magazine of an association that purports to represent lots of aviators. The article commences with:
[Capitals in original article.]
So what? There’s nothing in the Navigation Act to require any shipping in Australia. There’s nothing in the Road Traffic Acts to require any road transport in Australia. There’s nothing Trade Practices Act to require any trade in Australia. There’s nothing in the ....
What would this expert have the parliament do? Amend the Civil Aviation Act to say “there shall be aviation in Australia”; or that “CASA shall cause aviation to occur in Australia”?
Here’s an idea: Let’s get the parliament to pass an Act that says all Australian citizens shall win lotto.
The article then contains a raft of assertions, including this gem:
[Capitals in original article.]
What worries me is that I’m pretty sure this guy genuinely believes that what he says is entirely accurate. What worries me more is that lots of other people may believe it too.
Walking Eagle. Yours was a surprising and disappointing response. While I have no doubt that you could do a job of equivalent standard to the current Director’s performance, you’ve demonstrated that your agitation for changes in the rules is a little disingenuous. For years we’ve heard from you how awful the existing rules are and how incompetent the rule makers are, yet what do you propose as your draft alternative? An existing regulation, and, what’s more, the very regulation that is at the heart of the problem about which the author of “Crucifixion by CASA” was writing! You’d fix his problem by leaving the rule that’s the cause of his problem, in place.
And as for your mock disdain for employment in CASA: oh dear. It must be your identical twin, masquerading as you, who was interviewed for the DD’s job.
Thank you for your application, but on this occasion you were unsuccessful.
sobeit: No. If you read my post again, you will see that I did not say that CASA were the experts. In the scenario you described, there was one key handicap that hindered the person from being an expert regulator: he’s a pilot (as am I). That’s not to say he can’t acquire the necessary skills. It’s just to say that his piloting skills do not, of themselves, qualify him to be a regulator. Of anything.
jusapplehere. I do fret at the number of CASA employees who have no respect for the organisation for whom they work. It means they have no self-respect, because if they did, they would not keep working for the organisation. It also means that they spend their days and the taxpayer’s resources biting the hand that feeds them. Don’t you have any self-respect?
Chimbu: I think you’re on the right track.
CoodaShooda. I’m not quite sure how my starting a post critical of CASA can be construed as my being uncritical of CASA. And I’m not a regulator.
There is a reasonably simple and entirely accurate answer to the question “what is the regulator’s role” in the case of CASA. Unfortunately, a substantial part of the aviation industry is unwilling or unable to understand or accept that role. Because CASA comprises many people from the industry, it suffers from the same handicap.
Did I say “corrupt”?
The symbiosis to which I referred smelt and looked corrupt, but in most cases wasn’t. However, it did mean that the incompetent operators, the poorly managed operators, and the operators without sufficient demand for their services, were kept in the industry at an enormous opportunity cost to the community and the better operators. (Don’t worry though. According to a recent CASA press release, all of this is on the way back in again.)
Measured over a period of 6 years, 5 out of 6 businesses in the real world go broke. But aviation seems to have more than its fair share of participants who think they should be kept in the air no matter how incompetent they are, now matter how poorly managed they are, and no matter whether there are sufficient customers willing and able to pay sufficient money for the services they provide.
Gaunty’s fighting a gallant battle in other threads to, in essence (and Gaunty will correct me if I’m wrong), convince people that mathematics applies to aviation.
If it would cost you $X to provide an air service in accordance with the rules, and you can’t find enough customers to pay you at least $X for that service, then you’ve either got to break the rules or cajole CASA into exempting you from them, and/or get the government to subsidise you. Or you go broke. There are no other alternatives.
In the real world, the blood alcohol level in most places is 0.05. It’s arbitrary in one sense, in that the difference between 0.04999999999 and 0.05 is a mere 0.00000000001, yet the effect of that extra scintilla of BAL is a criminal conviction, loss of licence and a fine. However, society has drawn a line: this far, and no further.
We don’t accept any excuses any more. But I was only over by a bit; But I am perfectly capable of driving after a few beers, I’ve done it for years and never had an accident; But I only had to go 1 kilometre; But you should be out catching the real criminals; But I’ve been driving for decades more than you, sonny, so what would you know.
The response is: watch your fingers, the cell door’s closing.
What do we get in aviation? Every rule’s an argument, and there to be bent. But I was only a few kilos over weight, and I’ve never had an accident at that weight; You’ve turned a blind eye to this for years, why can’t you do it again? You’ve given me that exemption before, why can’t I have it again? But I only need the extension for a few hours; You’re telling me it’s safe for me to fly for X hours, but not safe to fly for X hours and 1 minute? But this is not a real crime. But I’ve been flying for decades and I’ve got no respect for you.
Aviation thinks it’s special. And that’s why it’s especially traumatic when it’s reminded that it isn’t.
There is an article by a person who claims to be an expert on all matters aviation in a recent edition of a magazine of an association that purports to represent lots of aviators. The article commences with:
There is NOTHING in the Civil Aviation Act to require ANY aviation in Australia.
So what? There’s nothing in the Navigation Act to require any shipping in Australia. There’s nothing in the Road Traffic Acts to require any road transport in Australia. There’s nothing Trade Practices Act to require any trade in Australia. There’s nothing in the ....
What would this expert have the parliament do? Amend the Civil Aviation Act to say “there shall be aviation in Australia”; or that “CASA shall cause aviation to occur in Australia”?
Here’s an idea: Let’s get the parliament to pass an Act that says all Australian citizens shall win lotto.
The article then contains a raft of assertions, including this gem:
Part of the answer is in the Act, which says that ALL flying in Australia MUST have an AOC. Then the Act exempts private flying.
What worries me is that I’m pretty sure this guy genuinely believes that what he says is entirely accurate. What worries me more is that lots of other people may believe it too.
Walking Eagle. Yours was a surprising and disappointing response. While I have no doubt that you could do a job of equivalent standard to the current Director’s performance, you’ve demonstrated that your agitation for changes in the rules is a little disingenuous. For years we’ve heard from you how awful the existing rules are and how incompetent the rule makers are, yet what do you propose as your draft alternative? An existing regulation, and, what’s more, the very regulation that is at the heart of the problem about which the author of “Crucifixion by CASA” was writing! You’d fix his problem by leaving the rule that’s the cause of his problem, in place.
And as for your mock disdain for employment in CASA: oh dear. It must be your identical twin, masquerading as you, who was interviewed for the DD’s job.
Thank you for your application, but on this occasion you were unsuccessful.
sobeit: No. If you read my post again, you will see that I did not say that CASA were the experts. In the scenario you described, there was one key handicap that hindered the person from being an expert regulator: he’s a pilot (as am I). That’s not to say he can’t acquire the necessary skills. It’s just to say that his piloting skills do not, of themselves, qualify him to be a regulator. Of anything.
jusapplehere. I do fret at the number of CASA employees who have no respect for the organisation for whom they work. It means they have no self-respect, because if they did, they would not keep working for the organisation. It also means that they spend their days and the taxpayer’s resources biting the hand that feeds them. Don’t you have any self-respect?
Chimbu: I think you’re on the right track.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead Balloon
I have NEVER applied for a job in CASA, DCA, Department of Transport (Air Transport Group), CAA, or Dad's Army, and I do not have a twin brother.
As for classification of operations, there's nothing wrong with the structure of the regulation, it just needs to have all the troublesome bits excised. I am not an opponent of proper regulation, I am an opponent of fuzzy regulation which results in its exploitation by people with agendas unrelated to safety.
I have NEVER applied for a job in CASA, DCA, Department of Transport (Air Transport Group), CAA, or Dad's Army, and I do not have a twin brother.
As for classification of operations, there's nothing wrong with the structure of the regulation, it just needs to have all the troublesome bits excised. I am not an opponent of proper regulation, I am an opponent of fuzzy regulation which results in its exploitation by people with agendas unrelated to safety.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadballoon You win, that last post of yours is the most patronising pile of cr*p I have ever seen. Well done.
At least the rest of the people posting on this subject are geniune in their beliefs even if they may be "off the mark" in your highly exulted view.
At least the rest of the people posting on this subject are geniune in their beliefs even if they may be "off the mark" in your highly exulted view.
Sadly, I have only just discovered this thread and only skimmed it so far - but I will certainly read with great interest tomorrow! A subject which in the past was very dear to my heart!
The author of this piece of unmitigated crap has just demonstrated how out of touch he is with the Australian rural aviation industry.......
"That symbiosis has been part of the downfall of the Australian aviation industry.
Parts of the industry are so addicted to the regulator for exemptions and “flexibility” and excuses for their failure, that they cannot conceive of being treated like every other industry. Sad really."
"Exemptions became necessary due to the unworkable and inappropriate nature of the Regulations" to quote a previous CAA/CASA Director.
Lead Balloon, I’m sorry you are so uninformed and feel that way, but I will not be so contemptuous to use your phrase “Sad really”, even though in your case the term may be appropriate. Your turn of phrase is very familiar - have we met?
LB, you clearly demonstrated your abysmal lack of knowledge of rural mail services, rural aviation and the unique needs of rural Australians. Perhaps you should take a close look at what happened in Cape York and the Torres Strait between 1996 and 2000 and seek guidance and advice from the two very dedicated CASA employees who ultimately succeeded in sorting out the bungled mess created by incompetents from the CASA Cairns office, who seem to have since been promoted to a higher level of incompetence.
Walking Eagle – you are NOT to take the Director’s job. You know far too much!
The author of this piece of unmitigated crap has just demonstrated how out of touch he is with the Australian rural aviation industry.......
"That symbiosis has been part of the downfall of the Australian aviation industry.
Parts of the industry are so addicted to the regulator for exemptions and “flexibility” and excuses for their failure, that they cannot conceive of being treated like every other industry. Sad really."
"Exemptions became necessary due to the unworkable and inappropriate nature of the Regulations" to quote a previous CAA/CASA Director.
Lead Balloon, I’m sorry you are so uninformed and feel that way, but I will not be so contemptuous to use your phrase “Sad really”, even though in your case the term may be appropriate. Your turn of phrase is very familiar - have we met?
LB, you clearly demonstrated your abysmal lack of knowledge of rural mail services, rural aviation and the unique needs of rural Australians. Perhaps you should take a close look at what happened in Cape York and the Torres Strait between 1996 and 2000 and seek guidance and advice from the two very dedicated CASA employees who ultimately succeeded in sorting out the bungled mess created by incompetents from the CASA Cairns office, who seem to have since been promoted to a higher level of incompetence.
Walking Eagle – you are NOT to take the Director’s job. You know far too much!
Hey LB Welcome back.
On reviewing our respective posts, it seems we are definitely on different wavelengths. (Personally I blame this on the imperfect medium we are using and the lack of visual and aural cues. )
I don't recall accusing you of being uncritical of CASA. Your opening post was obviously a criticism.
However, your subsequent responses appeared to argue for the status quo as opposed to a need for change and caused some confusion about your actual position. Hence my comment about taking your comments at face value.
(My apologies for inferring that you are a regulator, by the way. However, is Torres correct in assuming that you were once with CASA?)
I am sorry also that, while others seem to understand what I've been trying to say, you are still missing the point.
I am not advocating change to featherbed the inept and incompetent.
I believe a regulated environment is preferable to an unregulated environment (check out the 'improved' deregulated dairy industry).
But, it does not appear that the current approach to aviation regulation in this country is as it could and should be.
You make the comment that society has "drawn the line" to justify what is or is not legal. And that apparently makes it 'right'.
I would suggest that 'society' very rarely gets to draw any lines. That is the realm of the regulator.
And, over time, the lines, while created in good intent, invariably become blurred. Thus can the regulator avoid difficult decisions by interpreting the blurs to suit and chanting "it is thus written, so shall it be".
Unfortunately, this process eventually excludes those for whom the regs were drafted in the first place - the PBI (Poor Bl**dy Industry).
But, of course, I don't work directly in the industry so I can't be called an expert, can I??
edited to pick up Torres later post.
[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: CoodaShooda ]
On reviewing our respective posts, it seems we are definitely on different wavelengths. (Personally I blame this on the imperfect medium we are using and the lack of visual and aural cues.
)I don't recall accusing you of being uncritical of CASA. Your opening post was obviously a criticism.
However, your subsequent responses appeared to argue for the status quo as opposed to a need for change and caused some confusion about your actual position. Hence my comment about taking your comments at face value.
(My apologies for inferring that you are a regulator, by the way. However, is Torres correct in assuming that you were once with CASA?)I am sorry also that, while others seem to understand what I've been trying to say, you are still missing the point.
I am not advocating change to featherbed the inept and incompetent.
I believe a regulated environment is preferable to an unregulated environment (check out the 'improved' deregulated dairy industry).
But, it does not appear that the current approach to aviation regulation in this country is as it could and should be.
You make the comment that society has "drawn the line" to justify what is or is not legal. And that apparently makes it 'right'.
I would suggest that 'society' very rarely gets to draw any lines. That is the realm of the regulator.
And, over time, the lines, while created in good intent, invariably become blurred. Thus can the regulator avoid difficult decisions by interpreting the blurs to suit and chanting "it is thus written, so shall it be".
Unfortunately, this process eventually excludes those for whom the regs were drafted in the first place - the PBI (Poor Bl**dy Industry).
But, of course, I don't work directly in the industry so I can't be called an expert, can I??
edited to pick up Torres later post.
[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: CoodaShooda ]
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T
With respect, when you have been there and done that in the arena of which Lead Balloon speaks, then you would be qualified to recognise what may or may not be "a patronising pile of do". Until then however, whoever is going to be the next Minister for Transport awaits breathlessly for your instruction on how to cut to the chase, you should be boning up for that.
Torres
Mate, read more carefully before you crank up the old chainsaw, I think Lead Balloon might actually be on our side, at least keep your friends close and your enemies even closer
Hmmmm the tourist traffic must be fierce at the Winter Olympics, unless you are a mad ski fan it might be time to seek warmer climes for a bit
See you on the morrow then.
With respect, when you have been there and done that in the arena of which Lead Balloon speaks, then you would be qualified to recognise what may or may not be "a patronising pile of do". Until then however, whoever is going to be the next Minister for Transport awaits breathlessly for your instruction on how to cut to the chase, you should be boning up for that.
Torres
Mate, read more carefully before you crank up the old chainsaw, I think Lead Balloon might actually be on our side, at least keep your friends close and your enemies even closer
Hmmmm the tourist traffic must be fierce at the Winter Olympics, unless you are a mad ski fan it might be time to seek warmer climes for a bit
See you on the morrow then.
Thread Starter
Whoops. Sorry Paul; I mistook you for Bill.
T: You are the personification of the malaise that handicaps a fortunately small but nonetheless significant sector Australian aviation. On any occasion on which you are confronted with something you don’t like, you attack the messenger. There’s no learning; there’s no concession; there’s no accommodation of a divergence of opinions. It’s just: “T not like; T kill”. Bad news T: Cro-Magnons haven’t run the planet for millennia, and they’re not about to resume control.
If something I’ve said is wrong in fact or law, just explain where you think it’s wrong. If I’m wrong, I’ll apologise.
Bob whose fault is it that the operator that employed you in Cape York could not pay its bills when they became due? Let me guess: anybody but you or the operator. Somebody else is to always blame. Always.
CASA could only do so much to keep you on life support for so long, at enormous expense to the taxpayers and other operators. But mathematics yield to no one. Not even to governments.
T: You are the personification of the malaise that handicaps a fortunately small but nonetheless significant sector Australian aviation. On any occasion on which you are confronted with something you don’t like, you attack the messenger. There’s no learning; there’s no concession; there’s no accommodation of a divergence of opinions. It’s just: “T not like; T kill”. Bad news T: Cro-Magnons haven’t run the planet for millennia, and they’re not about to resume control.
If something I’ve said is wrong in fact or law, just explain where you think it’s wrong. If I’m wrong, I’ll apologise.
Bob whose fault is it that the operator that employed you in Cape York could not pay its bills when they became due? Let me guess: anybody but you or the operator. Somebody else is to always blame. Always.
CASA could only do so much to keep you on life support for so long, at enormous expense to the taxpayers and other operators. But mathematics yield to no one. Not even to governments.
Clinton, regarding your comment:
"Bob whose fault is it that the operator that employed you in Cape York could not pay its bills when they became due? Let me guess: anybody but you or the operator. Somebody else is to always blame. Always.
CASA could only do so much to keep you on life support for so long, at enormous expense to the taxpayers and other operators. But mathematics yield to no one. Not even to governments."
Perhaps the fact the 66 day grounding by CASA cost the company over $350,000 may have had something to do with the company's inability to meet it's debts. And for other PPRuNer's benefit, the Company was never found guilty of any offence in a court of law and CASA was eventually forced to reinstate the AOC.
CASA kept us on life support? Oh, come on Clinton, don't embellish the story with your own personal fantasies.
Incidentally, how's your mate Muddles?
I am not anti CASA, indeed I believe in a strong fair regulator. My faith was restored when CASA later sent two staff to the Straits to sort out the mess and mayhem caused by yourself and the other two CASA employees involved, one of whom, like yourself, is no longer with CASA.
"Bob whose fault is it that the operator that employed you in Cape York could not pay its bills when they became due? Let me guess: anybody but you or the operator. Somebody else is to always blame. Always.
CASA could only do so much to keep you on life support for so long, at enormous expense to the taxpayers and other operators. But mathematics yield to no one. Not even to governments."
Perhaps the fact the 66 day grounding by CASA cost the company over $350,000 may have had something to do with the company's inability to meet it's debts. And for other PPRuNer's benefit, the Company was never found guilty of any offence in a court of law and CASA was eventually forced to reinstate the AOC.
CASA kept us on life support? Oh, come on Clinton, don't embellish the story with your own personal fantasies.
Incidentally, how's your mate Muddles?
I am not anti CASA, indeed I believe in a strong fair regulator. My faith was restored when CASA later sent two staff to the Straits to sort out the mess and mayhem caused by yourself and the other two CASA employees involved, one of whom, like yourself, is no longer with CASA.
Gee, Folks,
This is all good clean fun.
Regarding comments in a recent magazine to the effect that the CAA Act does not contain any requirement for any aviation in Australia. The way I read it, the author was mearly reporting the comments of a VERY, VERY senior "officer" of CASA. It didn't seem to me that it was a comment on the Act by that writer.
Early in the thread, there were references to both the Building and Construction Industry, and the Road Transport Industry, believe me,the modern day oversight of these vital industries is NOTHING like aviation.
I know, having worked in both.
I would suggest that the "regulation" of the aviation aviation industry in Australia is close to unique. And therein is the problem.
If the oversight of aviation was more like the rest of Australian industry, I doubt whether we would have had all the inquiries that have been held over the years.
What other "industry regulator" has been the subject of something like 14 major or significant inquiries in twenty years, ( and many smaller) yet the problems remain.
There is always an answer, I wonder how great the pain within industry will have to get, how much further economic damage has to be done to the Australian economy, before real action is taken.
Or maybe Peter Harbison's forecast will be proven correct, within 5 years ( from Feb/01)there will be no major Australian owned and based airline.
We are well down that track already.
And cabotage is already here.
Tootle pip!!
This is all good clean fun.
Regarding comments in a recent magazine to the effect that the CAA Act does not contain any requirement for any aviation in Australia. The way I read it, the author was mearly reporting the comments of a VERY, VERY senior "officer" of CASA. It didn't seem to me that it was a comment on the Act by that writer.
Early in the thread, there were references to both the Building and Construction Industry, and the Road Transport Industry, believe me,the modern day oversight of these vital industries is NOTHING like aviation.
I know, having worked in both.
I would suggest that the "regulation" of the aviation aviation industry in Australia is close to unique. And therein is the problem.
If the oversight of aviation was more like the rest of Australian industry, I doubt whether we would have had all the inquiries that have been held over the years.
What other "industry regulator" has been the subject of something like 14 major or significant inquiries in twenty years, ( and many smaller) yet the problems remain.
There is always an answer, I wonder how great the pain within industry will have to get, how much further economic damage has to be done to the Australian economy, before real action is taken.
Or maybe Peter Harbison's forecast will be proven correct, within 5 years ( from Feb/01)there will be no major Australian owned and based airline.
We are well down that track already.
And cabotage is already here.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled - (apparently no relation to Lead Balloon? 
)
I hope you don't mind me importing your post from the AUF AOC thread but I think it fits here too
"
Macro reform is possible and is being tried elsewhere, in other industries - with some success. The key is in co-regulation. But you need to have a supportive Minister and a workable, credible nucleus of industry and government players to drive it.
Hey Gaunty, you got any contacts in Minister Anderson's office?
)I hope you don't mind me importing your post from the AUF AOC thread but I think it fits here too
"
All,
Has it occurred to all the fans of AOC's and mountains of paperwork, all those tidy minded clerks with a pilot's licence, that the real answer is to get rid of AOC's for ALL GA flying.
Level the playing field by reducing costs for all, not artifically inflating costs for an AUF that is doing a good job.
Have a look at a few other countries, you might be surprised. Remember the G.O.D's, when an Operations Manual was little more than a statement that thou shall obey all the sundry Regs, Orders etc.
Has the vast expansion in paperwork and general bureaucratic micro management of GA resulted in an ever increasing standard of pilot, or better safety outcomes???
Has it hell.
Has it occurred to all the fans of AOC's and mountains of paperwork, all those tidy minded clerks with a pilot's licence, that the real answer is to get rid of AOC's for ALL GA flying.
Level the playing field by reducing costs for all, not artifically inflating costs for an AUF that is doing a good job.
Have a look at a few other countries, you might be surprised. Remember the G.O.D's, when an Operations Manual was little more than a statement that thou shall obey all the sundry Regs, Orders etc.
Has the vast expansion in paperwork and general bureaucratic micro management of GA resulted in an ever increasing standard of pilot, or better safety outcomes???
Has it hell.
Hey Gaunty, you got any contacts in Minister Anderson's office?
Thread Starter
Been busy with business again chaps. Sorry again for the delay.
For those who have not read the “CASA records and airlines” thread, let me declare again:
“Damn. I’ve been discovered. Good work Bob.
Yes – I did leak that stuff to the media. I also suspended your AOC so that my shares in one of your competitors would rise. I also arranged the events on 11 September.
Better call the police ASAP. You’ve squeezed the confession out of me, in public, so there’s no way I can escape this time.
Clinton”
Feel free to lambaste me at will.
Bob, in the business I’m in, if the regulator had really done to me what you say CASA did to you, then I’d take [/i]them[/i] to court. Are you sure you’re telling us the whole story? I’m always a bit skeptical about the “I’m as clean as the driven snow but those bad government guys had it in for me” stories.
Good to see you support the quadrupling in size of CASA though. Two pet inspectors per operator, times about 1,000 AOC holders.
T and justapplhere: QED
sobeit I’m sorry about your friend. It’s a pity CASA could not take action in time. The Coroner will have a look at all that.
As I said earlier, there is a reasonably simple and entirely accurate statement of what CASA’s role is. As I also said earlier, one of the problems with aviation is that part of the aviation industry, including part of CASA, either fails to understand or accept that role.
I am heartened to see that you’ve worked out the correct answer to the equation. If you can’t afford to do it safely, then stop doing it.
CoodaShoda
Yes, this is an imperfect medium, and the mismatch of wavelengths is partly my fault. No, I’m not a regulator, and never have been.
I would genuinely enjoy a philosophical and jurisprudential discussion with you about where the grundnorm lies, and the source of legitimacy of laws, and what’s right and what’s wrong, but such a discussion is a manifestation of one of the chronic problems in the aviation industry.
A chap was recently convicted in the ACT magistrate’s court for breach of the civil aviation regulations. One of his arguments was that no Australian law was valid. When that failed, he argued that the civil aviation regulations were not valid. When that failed, he trotted out all that stuff you hear from Bob.
If a bloke goes in front of a magistrate and says
“Your worship, that blood alcohol level was actually the idea of bloke in the department of transport who’s a teetotalling wowser, he’s had it in for me for years and I had driven safely every night after a few beers and down in Bamaga the cops let you go and I didn’t vote for this government anyway,”
what do you think the magistrate’s response is? If the magistrate has the time, she will say words to the effect that she doesn’t give a toss what the defendant thinks about who, what or why the law was made and who’s been let get away with it and what the defendant thinks about it. The line’s been drawn in the form of a valid law. If the defendant does not like it, write a letter to your MP and change your vote if you like. Until then, watch your fingers. Next.
LeadSled said it all:
I don’t argue for the status quo in aviation. I argue for the status quo to be imposed on aviation.
For those who have not read the “CASA records and airlines” thread, let me declare again:
“Damn. I’ve been discovered. Good work Bob.
Yes – I did leak that stuff to the media. I also suspended your AOC so that my shares in one of your competitors would rise. I also arranged the events on 11 September.
Better call the police ASAP. You’ve squeezed the confession out of me, in public, so there’s no way I can escape this time.
Clinton”
Feel free to lambaste me at will.
Bob, in the business I’m in, if the regulator had really done to me what you say CASA did to you, then I’d take [/i]them[/i] to court. Are you sure you’re telling us the whole story? I’m always a bit skeptical about the “I’m as clean as the driven snow but those bad government guys had it in for me” stories.
Good to see you support the quadrupling in size of CASA though. Two pet inspectors per operator, times about 1,000 AOC holders.
T and justapplhere: QED
sobeit I’m sorry about your friend. It’s a pity CASA could not take action in time. The Coroner will have a look at all that.
As I said earlier, there is a reasonably simple and entirely accurate statement of what CASA’s role is. As I also said earlier, one of the problems with aviation is that part of the aviation industry, including part of CASA, either fails to understand or accept that role.
I am heartened to see that you’ve worked out the correct answer to the equation. If you can’t afford to do it safely, then stop doing it.
CoodaShoda
Yes, this is an imperfect medium, and the mismatch of wavelengths is partly my fault. No, I’m not a regulator, and never have been.
I would genuinely enjoy a philosophical and jurisprudential discussion with you about where the grundnorm lies, and the source of legitimacy of laws, and what’s right and what’s wrong, but such a discussion is a manifestation of one of the chronic problems in the aviation industry.
A chap was recently convicted in the ACT magistrate’s court for breach of the civil aviation regulations. One of his arguments was that no Australian law was valid. When that failed, he argued that the civil aviation regulations were not valid. When that failed, he trotted out all that stuff you hear from Bob.
If a bloke goes in front of a magistrate and says
“Your worship, that blood alcohol level was actually the idea of bloke in the department of transport who’s a teetotalling wowser, he’s had it in for me for years and I had driven safely every night after a few beers and down in Bamaga the cops let you go and I didn’t vote for this government anyway,”
what do you think the magistrate’s response is? If the magistrate has the time, she will say words to the effect that she doesn’t give a toss what the defendant thinks about who, what or why the law was made and who’s been let get away with it and what the defendant thinks about it. The line’s been drawn in the form of a valid law. If the defendant does not like it, write a letter to your MP and change your vote if you like. Until then, watch your fingers. Next.
LeadSled said it all:
I would suggest that the "regulation" of the aviation aviation industry in Australia is close to unique. And therein is the problem.