Does CASA Have Serious Problems?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Qld
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR 253 is the head of power for the requirements of CAO 20.11 (ie. the annual proficency tests). If an operator specifies more frequent tests for his crews in his particular Ops Manual, then, as I see it, the requirements of CAR 215(9) would apply and an RCA could be issued on the grounds that there is a non-compliance with the instructions in the OM.....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA has never "Approved" Ops Manuals. They only ever "Accept" them. Something to do with the legal problems if a company does something in the Ops Manual and hava an accident. CASA "Approved" it, so it must be OK!
The trouble is that if there is no AOC or OC, or Ops Manual, the industry would go berserk! Even with massive restrictions, we still find ways to circumvent the system to our own advantage, to try to make bucket loads of money. Never works. Self Regulation wouldn't and couldn't work. Get used to more stringent rules in the future.
Due to a small proportion of the industry, we all have to pay for it.
TBT
The trouble is that if there is no AOC or OC, or Ops Manual, the industry would go berserk! Even with massive restrictions, we still find ways to circumvent the system to our own advantage, to try to make bucket loads of money. Never works. Self Regulation wouldn't and couldn't work. Get used to more stringent rules in the future.
Due to a small proportion of the industry, we all have to pay for it.
TBT
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leftie, not wanting to be pedantic or be like the spelling police, but:
An RCA is only a Request for Corrective Action. Not usually associated with a legislative instrument/document. Probably a spelling mistake or something equally inane.
A Non- Conformance Notice is issued where an action does not conform to a document (eg Op's Manual).
You will receive a Non-Compliance Notice if there is something that does not comply with the law in whatever form.
Torres, I fully endorse you comments re the Military or Civil backgrounds of CASA staff, there are good and bad from each.
The East-West LOCO will know the ex F28 driver that caused all the angst in Torres Strait (and elsewhere).
I also know that the Caribou driver you refered to is not the current CEO of CASA.
tipsy
An RCA is only a Request for Corrective Action. Not usually associated with a legislative instrument/document. Probably a spelling mistake or something equally inane.
A Non- Conformance Notice is issued where an action does not conform to a document (eg Op's Manual).
You will receive a Non-Compliance Notice if there is something that does not comply with the law in whatever form.
Torres, I fully endorse you comments re the Military or Civil backgrounds of CASA staff, there are good and bad from each.
The East-West LOCO will know the ex F28 driver that caused all the angst in Torres Strait (and elsewhere).
I also know that the Caribou driver you refered to is not the current CEO of CASA.
tipsy
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oldrotorhead, thank you.
so from these four examples, 1) CAO 20.11 training, 2) the definition of "Legislation", 3) no definition for " Fixed Terminal" and 4) RCA for not signing licence, some confusion may be experienced ?.
1) CAO 20.11 mandates, using head of power CAR 253, that training is to be conducted at periods not exceeding 12 months, which CASA has decreed as the period between training that would allow a acceptable level of currency
CASA allows you to do it more frequently if you like, but will hang you on a apparently oscure CAR ( 215 (9) ) reference, if an operator was to try to be proactive.
Will this RCA ensure safer aviation, i think not.
i would imagine the reference to any other than the maximum period would be removed from their COM, so such for CASA and the industry working together.
2) Definition of "Legislation", does this cover other document such as CASA Flight safety type material, how about the AOCM, is this legislation, perhaps it draws its head of power from some where ?.
3) Definition of " Fixed Terminal ", well at great cost to many operators some remote "Mail Runs" have been forced to align to RPT standards, even though they do not meet the basic criteria for RPT, as defined within CAR 206, i.e. its own head of power.
Quote from Torres:
There is no legal definition of the term "fixed terminals" within the present legislative framework. However, Creamie would point out that certain judges have ascribed a meaning to the term, based on fallacious advice from CASA Counsel, which I am sure he would now determine are precedents.
End Quote.
4) not signing flight crew licence invalidates licence, theres not even a head of power for that one.
Lets not even start to look at the commercial harm that has been perpetrated organisations under the Part 28 of the Act, " The delegate must be satisfied", is this based on a feeling in his/her water, the operator meeting the requirment before operating or will be able after receiving his/her AOC, how vague is that ?.
We need realistic person at the helm (TLFO) and implemented by experienced personable chaps/chapettes (FOI) in a supportive and open constructive non-arse covering environment.
As has been stated,
Quote from Tipsy:
Torres, I fully endorse you comments re the Military or Civil backgrounds of CASA staff, there are good and bad from each.
End quote.
so what is the missing ingredient to date in FNQ ?.
so from these four examples, 1) CAO 20.11 training, 2) the definition of "Legislation", 3) no definition for " Fixed Terminal" and 4) RCA for not signing licence, some confusion may be experienced ?.
1) CAO 20.11 mandates, using head of power CAR 253, that training is to be conducted at periods not exceeding 12 months, which CASA has decreed as the period between training that would allow a acceptable level of currency
CASA allows you to do it more frequently if you like, but will hang you on a apparently oscure CAR ( 215 (9) ) reference, if an operator was to try to be proactive.
Will this RCA ensure safer aviation, i think not.
i would imagine the reference to any other than the maximum period would be removed from their COM, so such for CASA and the industry working together.
2) Definition of "Legislation", does this cover other document such as CASA Flight safety type material, how about the AOCM, is this legislation, perhaps it draws its head of power from some where ?.
3) Definition of " Fixed Terminal ", well at great cost to many operators some remote "Mail Runs" have been forced to align to RPT standards, even though they do not meet the basic criteria for RPT, as defined within CAR 206, i.e. its own head of power.
Quote from Torres:
There is no legal definition of the term "fixed terminals" within the present legislative framework. However, Creamie would point out that certain judges have ascribed a meaning to the term, based on fallacious advice from CASA Counsel, which I am sure he would now determine are precedents.
End Quote.
4) not signing flight crew licence invalidates licence, theres not even a head of power for that one.
Lets not even start to look at the commercial harm that has been perpetrated organisations under the Part 28 of the Act, " The delegate must be satisfied", is this based on a feeling in his/her water, the operator meeting the requirment before operating or will be able after receiving his/her AOC, how vague is that ?.
We need realistic person at the helm (TLFO) and implemented by experienced personable chaps/chapettes (FOI) in a supportive and open constructive non-arse covering environment.
As has been stated,
Quote from Tipsy:
Torres, I fully endorse you comments re the Military or Civil backgrounds of CASA staff, there are good and bad from each.
End quote.
so what is the missing ingredient to date in FNQ ?.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR,
These points of inconsistency are just the tip of the ice berg.
I would agree with the guys earlier, there are some good and some bad in casa, not from any particular background.
Being compliant is not even in the same category as safe, safe appears to be an after thought,
1. ass covered - check,
2. paper work in order - check and ......ummm...,
3. Safe.
Re: RPT " Mail Runs", the aerodromes are not certified, most do not meet the CAO 82.3 app3 ( how many strips on the Cape are 1600 metres long, very few), the aircraft do not meet the CAO 20. 7 performance requirments and the type of operation does not meet the basics to qualify for RPT IAW CAR 206 ( 1-fixed terminals "and" 2-fixed prices "and" 3-available to the General public "and" 4-on a fixed schedule), so, yes a joke.
My answer to your question: Bad Management, the AM's, to date, appear to have a rather short shelf life, and still the problem remains, mmmmmm ?.
These points of inconsistency are just the tip of the ice berg.
I would agree with the guys earlier, there are some good and some bad in casa, not from any particular background.
Being compliant is not even in the same category as safe, safe appears to be an after thought,
1. ass covered - check,
2. paper work in order - check and ......ummm...,
3. Safe.
Re: RPT " Mail Runs", the aerodromes are not certified, most do not meet the CAO 82.3 app3 ( how many strips on the Cape are 1600 metres long, very few), the aircraft do not meet the CAO 20. 7 performance requirments and the type of operation does not meet the basics to qualify for RPT IAW CAR 206 ( 1-fixed terminals "and" 2-fixed prices "and" 3-available to the General public "and" 4-on a fixed schedule), so, yes a joke.
My answer to your question: Bad Management, the AM's, to date, appear to have a rather short shelf life, and still the problem remains, mmmmmm ?.
LHR.
Go back into antiquity and read the pre 1987 ANR 197 to 203. All will be revealed! Then accept the ANR's are no longer valid..... and CAR 206, on it's own without inclusion of certain phrases in the definitions, really has little meaning.
leg·is·la·tion
No problems there. Certain CASA employees seem to have problems with the definitions.... In Far North Queensland, CASA staff make them up as they go along.... Just like what happened in the Torres Strait. 
Stop asking sensible and sane questions...........
Go back into antiquity and read the pre 1987 ANR 197 to 203. All will be revealed! Then accept the ANR's are no longer valid..... and CAR 206, on it's own without inclusion of certain phrases in the definitions, really has little meaning.
leg·is·la·tion
Pronunciation: "le-j&s-'lA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the making or giving of laws; specifically : the exercise of the power and function of making rules that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of the state
2 : the enactments of a legislator or legislative body
3 : a matter of business for or under consideration by a legislative body <recently proposed legislation>
Function: noun
1 : the making or giving of laws; specifically : the exercise of the power and function of making rules that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of the state
2 : the enactments of a legislator or legislative body
3 : a matter of business for or under consideration by a legislative body <recently proposed legislation>
Stop asking sensible and sane questions...........
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex military pilots can be good or bad, but the military philosophy is totally out of place in civil aviation.
We pay the military to be ready to enforce, dominate, destroy,kill and intimidate That is their job. And we also have a huge psychological program which tells them they are the best, god's gift to the world, infallible, and anyone who challenges them will be severely dealt with.
I have seen the miliary mafia operate.
There is no place in civil aviation for this distorted thinking.
Our regulator should be a service provider which is helpful, knowledgeable and should have the respect of the industry. Like the police.
The word "safety" should be removed from their title unless they pay some attention to it. It is an emotive tool that is misused to scare pollies and the public. They seem to pay more attention to commercial regulation of the industry. Also the word "authority" should be replaced by the word"service"
.Let's stop trying to fool the public that all air services are the same as long as they are scheduled. We always needed three levels of commercial aviation and we still do. People of the outback are being denied good low capacity airservices because of the distorted thinkig of our regulators. Military style thinking.
We pay the military to be ready to enforce, dominate, destroy,kill and intimidate That is their job. And we also have a huge psychological program which tells them they are the best, god's gift to the world, infallible, and anyone who challenges them will be severely dealt with.
I have seen the miliary mafia operate.
There is no place in civil aviation for this distorted thinking.
Our regulator should be a service provider which is helpful, knowledgeable and should have the respect of the industry. Like the police.
The word "safety" should be removed from their title unless they pay some attention to it. It is an emotive tool that is misused to scare pollies and the public. They seem to pay more attention to commercial regulation of the industry. Also the word "authority" should be replaced by the word"service"
.Let's stop trying to fool the public that all air services are the same as long as they are scheduled. We always needed three levels of commercial aviation and we still do. People of the outback are being denied good low capacity airservices because of the distorted thinkig of our regulators. Military style thinking.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stinky,
Another point that illustrates is, lets compare the friday mail run out of Cairns to a Bungles Scenic Flight out of Kununurra:
1) Mail Run out of Cairns
Fixed Terminals, no, for example: Rutland Station, standing in the middle of a paddock with a 1000 m dirt strip with cows and horses milling about
Fixed Times - yes, once per week at a forecast time.
General Public - Station staff generally, in the past tourist have paid for the ride ( no different in essence to a Kununurra Bungle scenic Flight ).
Fixed Prices - Yes
2) Bungles Scenic Flight out of Kununurra
Fixed Terminals - Yes, in and out of Sling Air or Alligator terminals.
Fixed Times - 6am, 930am, and 230pm everyday
General Public - any johnny that walks in off the street
Fixed Prices - As per the brouchure
Conclusion:
It is ludicrous to suggest these Bungle Scenic flights are an RPT service, but the scenic flight out of Kununurra closer conforms to the basic criteria for RPT ( refer CAR 206 ) than the mail run flights into and out of the Cape or Torres Airstrips.
in addition none of the aircraft meet RPT performance requirements, C207, C206, C208, PA31, BN2.
This also a little baffling !.
Another point that illustrates is, lets compare the friday mail run out of Cairns to a Bungles Scenic Flight out of Kununurra:
1) Mail Run out of Cairns
Fixed Terminals, no, for example: Rutland Station, standing in the middle of a paddock with a 1000 m dirt strip with cows and horses milling about
Fixed Times - yes, once per week at a forecast time.
General Public - Station staff generally, in the past tourist have paid for the ride ( no different in essence to a Kununurra Bungle scenic Flight ).
Fixed Prices - Yes
2) Bungles Scenic Flight out of Kununurra
Fixed Terminals - Yes, in and out of Sling Air or Alligator terminals.
Fixed Times - 6am, 930am, and 230pm everyday
General Public - any johnny that walks in off the street
Fixed Prices - As per the brouchure
Conclusion:
It is ludicrous to suggest these Bungle Scenic flights are an RPT service, but the scenic flight out of Kununurra closer conforms to the basic criteria for RPT ( refer CAR 206 ) than the mail run flights into and out of the Cape or Torres Airstrips.
in addition none of the aircraft meet RPT performance requirements, C207, C206, C208, PA31, BN2.
This also a little baffling !.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 3rd Jan 2005 at 06:26.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIPSY
RCA's are the main weapon used by CASA to revoke AOC's, approvals, ratings, licences etc.
Although, as you correctly state, it is a "Request for Corrective Action", it is actually a gotcha that will be used against you.
It has replaced the NCN "non Compliance Notice" to give the appearance of a less intimidating document.
Nonetheless, when you front the AAT, the judiciary will be impressed at the number of RCA's issued to you
and CASA will use this to demonstrate that you are a risk to safety.
That some of the RCA's are extremely frivolous is of no concern,
FOI's are required, in some offices , to collect as many as possible.
It makes the court work better in their favour as they will be used to discredit someone.
RCA's are the main weapon used by CASA to revoke AOC's, approvals, ratings, licences etc.
Although, as you correctly state, it is a "Request for Corrective Action", it is actually a gotcha that will be used against you.
It has replaced the NCN "non Compliance Notice" to give the appearance of a less intimidating document.
Nonetheless, when you front the AAT, the judiciary will be impressed at the number of RCA's issued to you
and CASA will use this to demonstrate that you are a risk to safety.
That some of the RCA's are extremely frivolous is of no concern,
FOI's are required, in some offices , to collect as many as possible.
It makes the court work better in their favour as they will be used to discredit someone.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap'n Starlight you have hit the nail squarely on the head
QUOTE
It makes the court work better in their favour as they will be used to discredit someone.
UNQUOTE
CASA is a regulatory authority and is only interested in
1: Enforceable Legislative Powers
2: Preferably with punitive measures
it has no interest in safe operations. Safe, Compliant operators never enhance the tough regulatory image 'cos they don't finish up in a court and allow the OLC's "resource pool" to play Perry Mason,
As a QA Auditor I am disgusted at the abominable manner in which FOI's and AWI's ply their 'craft'.
Properly implemented and managed, a QA audit program is a powerful and inexpensive safety and business enhancement tool. Unfortunately these same audit skills having fallen into the hands of the FOI/AWI ranks, some of whom have bastardised and brought into disrepute an otherwise usefull process.
Regulators the world over are naturally viewed with some degree of jaundice by those they purport to regulate, there are some however that are actually a pleasure to deal with, and then there is CASA.
tipsy
QUOTE
It makes the court work better in their favour as they will be used to discredit someone.
UNQUOTE
CASA is a regulatory authority and is only interested in
1: Enforceable Legislative Powers
2: Preferably with punitive measures
it has no interest in safe operations. Safe, Compliant operators never enhance the tough regulatory image 'cos they don't finish up in a court and allow the OLC's "resource pool" to play Perry Mason,
As a QA Auditor I am disgusted at the abominable manner in which FOI's and AWI's ply their 'craft'.
Properly implemented and managed, a QA audit program is a powerful and inexpensive safety and business enhancement tool. Unfortunately these same audit skills having fallen into the hands of the FOI/AWI ranks, some of whom have bastardised and brought into disrepute an otherwise usefull process.
Regulators the world over are naturally viewed with some degree of jaundice by those they purport to regulate, there are some however that are actually a pleasure to deal with, and then there is CASA.
tipsy
Bushy,
Military people are just the same as everyone else; you get some goats and some good guys.
The Hercs, choppers etc that are currently flying Tsunami relief are doing the typical Aussie military job of the last 15 years or so. The idea that there is some kind of instilled mindset to kill, destroy and so on is utter crap. Safety is the first priority.
Same with the 'God's gift' idea - also total bull. Some people, as in any walk of life, think they're a bit good; most just do their job.
There are quite a few ex military people in CASA so I can understand the feeling that there's some kind of old boys' network, and it sounds like you've had bad experiences with some of them, but how about keeping the sweeping generalisations out of your statements, unless you're just trying to sh!t stir.
Military people are just the same as everyone else; you get some goats and some good guys.
The Hercs, choppers etc that are currently flying Tsunami relief are doing the typical Aussie military job of the last 15 years or so. The idea that there is some kind of instilled mindset to kill, destroy and so on is utter crap. Safety is the first priority.
Same with the 'God's gift' idea - also total bull. Some people, as in any walk of life, think they're a bit good; most just do their job.
There are quite a few ex military people in CASA so I can understand the feeling that there's some kind of old boys' network, and it sounds like you've had bad experiences with some of them, but how about keeping the sweeping generalisations out of your statements, unless you're just trying to sh!t stir.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arm out the window,
you might want to read bushys post again,
quote from Bushy:
Ex military pilots can be good or bad, but the military philosophy is totally out of place in civil aviation.
end quote.
Bushy is more commenting on the military ethos, being ineffective in civil industry, i would agree with what bushy is saying.
you might want to read bushys post again,
quote from Bushy:
Ex military pilots can be good or bad, but the military philosophy is totally out of place in civil aviation.
end quote.
Bushy is more commenting on the military ethos, being ineffective in civil industry, i would agree with what bushy is saying.
No, I read it OK, I'm just referring to the idea that there's some kind of 'military style thinking' that can be used to describe how someone operates.
I was military and now in GA, and the same style of thinking and operating that I always had works for me, that is, work hard, fly safely and treat everyone as you would like to be treated yourself; well accepted and regarded, I like to think; the same would be able to be said for a lot of people who have moved into the private sector.
I'm just objecting to Bushy's use of this so-called 'military philosophy' to describe what's wrong with CASA; from what's being described in these posts it doesn't sound much like the culture that existed when I was in the military, which I would describe as 'get the job done efficiently and safely using the generally OK but sometimes limited resources that you've got'.
His post is basically saying that your standard military ethos is to produce intimidating killers who are up themselves! That's a generalisation if I ever heard one, and I object to it.
I fully agree that people who hold positions of responsibility in CASA should be well acquainted with a wide range of civil ops, which many ex-military people wouldn't necessarily be, so maybe employing a disproportionate number of them has been the root of some problems, if that's the case.
I was military and now in GA, and the same style of thinking and operating that I always had works for me, that is, work hard, fly safely and treat everyone as you would like to be treated yourself; well accepted and regarded, I like to think; the same would be able to be said for a lot of people who have moved into the private sector.
I'm just objecting to Bushy's use of this so-called 'military philosophy' to describe what's wrong with CASA; from what's being described in these posts it doesn't sound much like the culture that existed when I was in the military, which I would describe as 'get the job done efficiently and safely using the generally OK but sometimes limited resources that you've got'.
His post is basically saying that your standard military ethos is to produce intimidating killers who are up themselves! That's a generalisation if I ever heard one, and I object to it.
I fully agree that people who hold positions of responsibility in CASA should be well acquainted with a wide range of civil ops, which many ex-military people wouldn't necessarily be, so maybe employing a disproportionate number of them has been the root of some problems, if that's the case.
hope this doesn't backfire on me, but how about ex mil foi's who take 1 1/2 hours to plan a 380 mile IFR trip without landings. i think the point some are making is that some of the guys that have come from mil backgrounds straight to casa do not have any idea what we have to do to get the job done legally.
i will add that the foi's that look after our region are approachable and good to work with. i also sympathise with them in that they are not allowed to do enough flying within their job, so any chance they get, they tend to file IFR twin, everywhere so as to keep up their IFR qualifications, rather than go VFR and smell the countryside.
i will add that the foi's that look after our region are approachable and good to work with. i also sympathise with them in that they are not allowed to do enough flying within their job, so any chance they get, they tend to file IFR twin, everywhere so as to keep up their IFR qualifications, rather than go VFR and smell the countryside.
Thread Starter
I don't know about the military pilots, but two out of the three the ex military aviation officers/engineers I've had the pleasure of working with (not with CASA) were absolute shockers.
Chips on their shoulders you couldn't see over, very very rigid personalities like east German border guards, obsessed with rules and perfection, and totally useless to boot.
I wonder if its just my bad luck or do they train them that way? Are there more of them like that?
Chips on their shoulders you couldn't see over, very very rigid personalities like east German border guards, obsessed with rules and perfection, and totally useless to boot.
I wonder if its just my bad luck or do they train them that way? Are there more of them like that?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They train em that way.
The 'ego boosting' that goes on leaves a brainwashed product incapable of even cpntemplating there may be a different way.
I have got rid of the last of mine as of 18 jan, I won't be hiring any more.
Max
The 'ego boosting' that goes on leaves a brainwashed product incapable of even cpntemplating there may be a different way.
I have got rid of the last of mine as of 18 jan, I won't be hiring any more.
Max
MB
Sorry you feel that way given the experiences you've had with ex-mil guys. Your comment
is almost worth comment.
bushy,
Are you talking about flying or what? I think I missed the program you're talking about.
Some comments on this thread are pretty inflammatory and wildly general so ya gotta expect a reaction.
Sorry you feel that way given the experiences you've had with ex-mil guys. Your comment
The 'ego boosting' that goes on leaves a brainwashed product incapable of even cpntemplating there may be a different way.
bushy,
We pay the military to be ready to enforce, dominate, destroy,kill and intimidate That is their job. And we also have a huge psychological program which tells them they are the best, god's gift to the world, infallible, and anyone who challenges them will be severely dealt with.
Some comments on this thread are pretty inflammatory and wildly general so ya gotta expect a reaction.
Last edited by Chronic Snoozer; 6th Jan 2005 at 17:33.
Thread Starter
Chron, both of these guys were ex RAAF engineering officers.
One used to boast about not having his first pair of shoes until he went to secondary school and was as mean as catsh!t to the point where his cost cutting totally disrupted the business and actually cost us money.
The other was a stickler for presentation of anything and obsessed by the organisations rules. In situations not covered by "the rules" or where we had to deal with uncertainty, he just froze up and did nothing - to our cost.
Both of them are still out there - one busy destroying a Kiwi public company after successfully finishing off an Australian one.
One used to boast about not having his first pair of shoes until he went to secondary school and was as mean as catsh!t to the point where his cost cutting totally disrupted the business and actually cost us money.
The other was a stickler for presentation of anything and obsessed by the organisations rules. In situations not covered by "the rules" or where we had to deal with uncertainty, he just froze up and did nothing - to our cost.
Both of them are still out there - one busy destroying a Kiwi public company after successfully finishing off an Australian one.