Do they encourage aviation?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'straya!
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do they encourage aviation?
My question to you guys and girls... does CASA actually encourage aviation in this country?
With the difficulties and costs of actually gaining your licence, and then in my experience flying in the charter and scenic realm... I can only say that CASA have not been an easy organization to communicate with. It's almost like the next CAR will be - "Do not go flying."
Some of my mates who fly in America say the FAA is really good.
With the difficulties and costs of actually gaining your licence, and then in my experience flying in the charter and scenic realm... I can only say that CASA have not been an easy organization to communicate with. It's almost like the next CAR will be - "Do not go flying."
Some of my mates who fly in America say the FAA is really good.
Obvious answer from experience - NO
Could I help if I joined Casa - NO
First priority in Casa is to not rock the boat
2nd priority - set up your super
3rd priority - sit out the frustration to retirement
4th priority - try and arrive at retirement intact
Could I help if I joined Casa - NO
First priority in Casa is to not rock the boat
2nd priority - set up your super
3rd priority - sit out the frustration to retirement
4th priority - try and arrive at retirement intact
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think to be fair CASA has suffered the fate of many government departments (State & Federal) over the past 15 or 20 years. (no I am not from CASA) - amongst other things they have been effected by.
- Changes to superannuation laws in the 80's? allowed people to take their post tax contributions? Alot left govt organisations at this time.
- Reduction in numbers with redundancies and the like with the view of cost reductions.
- Subsequent restructures with lots of people changing jobs.
- Subsequent lack of new people coming into the organisation (No training for the future).
- Fear of litigation.
- The need for cost recovery. (Hats off to CASA for recognising that the costs were unrealistic in some cases)
Without looking at the last point, what does all this people movement mean?
-People moving into a job which they may not have had contact with before (in the past the movement was into a role similar or above their level) where there were others around to help them.
-Lots of new positions, everyone trying to learn their new position.
-Lack of exposure/training on items that may be a bit different.
-Those with any experience retiring / leaving the organisation without having passed on all of their experience / knowledge.
So from this we have people who are working towards defining their job roles and at times not able to make a hard decision or even are fearful of something a bit different as they may have the finger pointed at them for making a decision (so the old "sorry wont approve that" attitude arrives).
(I am sure we could add more)
- Changes to superannuation laws in the 80's? allowed people to take their post tax contributions? Alot left govt organisations at this time.
- Reduction in numbers with redundancies and the like with the view of cost reductions.
- Subsequent restructures with lots of people changing jobs.
- Subsequent lack of new people coming into the organisation (No training for the future).
- Fear of litigation.
- The need for cost recovery. (Hats off to CASA for recognising that the costs were unrealistic in some cases)
Without looking at the last point, what does all this people movement mean?
-People moving into a job which they may not have had contact with before (in the past the movement was into a role similar or above their level) where there were others around to help them.
-Lots of new positions, everyone trying to learn their new position.
-Lack of exposure/training on items that may be a bit different.
-Those with any experience retiring / leaving the organisation without having passed on all of their experience / knowledge.
So from this we have people who are working towards defining their job roles and at times not able to make a hard decision or even are fearful of something a bit different as they may have the finger pointed at them for making a decision (so the old "sorry wont approve that" attitude arrives).
(I am sure we could add more)
Add to the list above was the abolishment of the CASA flying wing. When they had lost own shrike/F28 etc many people left as they could not fly and be in CASA.
Similar things have happened to many government departments over the years; losing the hands on side of things leads to fewer, less engaged staff mired in paperwork.
Similar things have happened to many government departments over the years; losing the hands on side of things leads to fewer, less engaged staff mired in paperwork.
Gee, it's easy to pick on CASA isn't it? Their job is to ensure safe flying through regulation, follow up of incidents, audits, ramp checks etc. If they do too much regulation, auditing etc, they're picked on for being heavy handed. Do too little and they're picked on at the first accident. It can't be an easy juggling act.
I would have thought the job of promoting flying is up to the likes of Federation of Aero Clubs, AOPA and probably most importantly, all of us.
I would have thought the job of promoting flying is up to the likes of Federation of Aero Clubs, AOPA and probably most importantly, all of us.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
topdrop
simply, yes. Look at it this way, an unregulated free for all would probably result in a high accident/fatality rate, and a negative perception by the public of aviation therefore unless you are one of the last of the hard bitten thrill seekers, you "don't go there". In the long ago it used to be exactly that.
Stallie identifies one of the problems within, one can only wonder why they no longer have their own aircraft, perhaps it was that maniac drive to reducing "unecessary costs".
does CASA actually encourage aviation in this country?
CASA's role
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was established on 6 July 1995 as an independent statutory authority. Under section 8 of the, Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA is a body corporate separate from the Commonwealth.
CASA's primary function is to conduct the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia and the operation of Australian aircraft overseas. It is also required to provide comprehensive safety education and training programmes, cooperate with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and administer certain features of Part IVA of the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959.
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, made under authority of the Civil Aviation Act, provide for general regulatory controls for the safety of air navigation. The Civil Aviation Act and CAR 1988 empower CASA to issue Civil Aviation Orders on detailed matters of regulation. The CASRs 1998 empower CASA to issue Manuals of Standards which support CASR by providing detailed technical material.
Other legislation affecting CASA in the exercise of its powers include the:
* Air Navigation Act 1920
* Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997
* Auditor-General Act 1997
* Ombudsman Act 1976
* Freedom of Information Act 1982
* Privacy Act 1988
* Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
* Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
The Chief Executive Officer manages CASA, and is responsible to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was established on 6 July 1995 as an independent statutory authority. Under section 8 of the, Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA is a body corporate separate from the Commonwealth.
CASA's primary function is to conduct the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia and the operation of Australian aircraft overseas. It is also required to provide comprehensive safety education and training programmes, cooperate with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and administer certain features of Part IVA of the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959.
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, made under authority of the Civil Aviation Act, provide for general regulatory controls for the safety of air navigation. The Civil Aviation Act and CAR 1988 empower CASA to issue Civil Aviation Orders on detailed matters of regulation. The CASRs 1998 empower CASA to issue Manuals of Standards which support CASR by providing detailed technical material.
Other legislation affecting CASA in the exercise of its powers include the:
* Air Navigation Act 1920
* Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997
* Auditor-General Act 1997
* Ombudsman Act 1976
* Freedom of Information Act 1982
* Privacy Act 1988
* Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
* Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
The Chief Executive Officer manages CASA, and is responsible to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.
Stallie identifies one of the problems within, one can only wonder why they no longer have their own aircraft, perhaps it was that maniac drive to reducing "unecessary costs".
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not believe it is CASA's responsibility to encourage aviation in Australia. Its there job to keep it safe.
Its down to the aviation industry to promote aviation as they benefit from the resultant increase in sales from such promotional activity.
Adding 'encouraging aviation' to CASA's role is only going to generate another range of costs that would need to be recovered from someone...
Its down to the aviation industry to promote aviation as they benefit from the resultant increase in sales from such promotional activity.
Adding 'encouraging aviation' to CASA's role is only going to generate another range of costs that would need to be recovered from someone...
The answer to your question must always be no.
The Civil Aviation Act empowers CASA to regulate aviation in Australia and Australian registered aircraft overseas. For CASA to encourage or promote aviation in Australia would contravene it's mandate, although it is empowered to "facilitate" in certain circumstances.
Conversely, the US FAA has always had a dual mandate by legislation: to promote aviation; and to regulate aviation. That regulatory mandate to promote aviation stems from the 1920's when the US Government pioneered air mail services within the country.
Theoretically at least, Australian legislation is the "will of the people" so you can't blame CASA if it abides by it's legislation and does not promote aviation.
The USA is, to my knowledge, the only ICAO state that requires it's regulator to also promote aviation. Certainly the UK and Europe both provide regulatory only legislation, the same as Australia.
The Civil Aviation Act empowers CASA to regulate aviation in Australia and Australian registered aircraft overseas. For CASA to encourage or promote aviation in Australia would contravene it's mandate, although it is empowered to "facilitate" in certain circumstances.
Conversely, the US FAA has always had a dual mandate by legislation: to promote aviation; and to regulate aviation. That regulatory mandate to promote aviation stems from the 1920's when the US Government pioneered air mail services within the country.
Theoretically at least, Australian legislation is the "will of the people" so you can't blame CASA if it abides by it's legislation and does not promote aviation.
The USA is, to my knowledge, the only ICAO state that requires it's regulator to also promote aviation. Certainly the UK and Europe both provide regulatory only legislation, the same as Australia.
Last edited by Torres; 22nd Apr 2007 at 09:15.
I agree the answer to your question must be NO. If your question was "are they killing GA?" then the answer would be YES.
CASA focuses too much on the small things and GA. They should direct more of their effort to RPT. In my view that's what the public expects. They didnt show well in the Lockhart River report. They were wandering around at Avalon East during the airshow supposedly looking for maintenance issues. They should have been at the Jetstar terminal checking out what goes on there. (No criticism of Jetstar intended or implied - just the issue of where CASA should focus their energy).
CASA focuses too much on the small things and GA. They should direct more of their effort to RPT. In my view that's what the public expects. They didnt show well in the Lockhart River report. They were wandering around at Avalon East during the airshow supposedly looking for maintenance issues. They should have been at the Jetstar terminal checking out what goes on there. (No criticism of Jetstar intended or implied - just the issue of where CASA should focus their energy).
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost of licence
Regarding the cost of getting your licence, in the UK the CAA charge 714 Pounds (sorry don' know where the pound is) just to have an ATO come along for your flight. So that's 714 pounds for your commercial test and other 714 pounds for your I/R skills test. That doesn't include the cost of having your actual licence issued, which I think is another couple of hundred quid.
There are 14 ATPL exams to pass at 62 pounds per exam, whereas I think we still pay $60.
I can't comment on the other matters raised, but in regards to charges and costs, we're miles ahead here!
I have a few spare “₤” signs you can have!
UK₤714.00 = Aus$1,709.45
UK₤62.00 = Aus$148.46
Tail Wheel
There are 14 ATPL exams to pass at 62 pounds per exam, whereas I think we still pay $60.
I can't comment on the other matters raised, but in regards to charges and costs, we're miles ahead here!
I have a few spare “₤” signs you can have!
UK₤714.00 = Aus$1,709.45
UK₤62.00 = Aus$148.46
Tail Wheel
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As mentioned in a previous post, the FAA have some responsibility to "encourage" aviation, which I think is a very broad brush and it would certainly be nice to see something along those lines in Oz.
However! They should not "discourage" aviation, which is what I believe they do now by default.
In real terms the CASA is really the CARA, substituting "regulatory" for "safety".
You can have all the regulations in the world and it does not ensure any degree of safety whatsoever. Training and education ensure a higher level of safety than any rule or penalty.
Remember, you can be 100% compliant and not 100% safe. On the other hand you can be as safe as possible and not compliant.
What the law makers don't realise is that the regs etc in many cases actually provide a negative to safety in aviation. At the CASA FLOT conference a few years back, one of the statements made said that the biggest risk to air safety in Australia was the Attorneys Generals Department for the way it demanded the rules and regs be written. Nothing has changed in that regard!
A famous quote from an FOI some years back was along the lines that if he had his way he would come to work with some bolt cutters and cut everyone’s PC off the air and make the FOIs get out of the office and do what they are paid to do, and not spend all day doing admin because CASA can't provide staff for that purpose! The result is FOIs that are working (!) to ensure their retirement, with resulting poor administration within CASA and poor or non-existant standardisation in the field.
In my mind it all starting going down hill when the FOI (Examiners of Airmen we called them back then!) stopped doing flight tests.
If labour get in this year, you can bet that B1 will be gone before the election results are known. Pity, not that I think that he does a good job, but another leadership change is not what CASA need or want. Sadly B1 does not seem to get out in the field much and there are many staff that have never seen him. (I seem to remember some statement that he would do that on a regular basis when he got the job??). Traditional jobs undertaken by past CEOs he seems to be unavailable for, which is not a good look in the industry that expect to see him out and about.
It all starts at the top and with the Minister, but it seems they all play politics and look after #1 with little regard for the big picture and the long term future of the industry and the standards of pilots and training. (don't get me started on general training standards!!)
Stats will tell you that every day is one closer to the type of accident we have never seen in Oz. Hopefully that will not occur, but if it does, you can bet they will all be running to the bunkers. Just watch the Coroner’s inquiry into Lockhart River.
If they spent more of their budget on training and standardisation, then maybe we would believe that they were in fact encouraging aviation!! No?
It would certainly be an improvement on what they do now!
However! They should not "discourage" aviation, which is what I believe they do now by default.
In real terms the CASA is really the CARA, substituting "regulatory" for "safety".
You can have all the regulations in the world and it does not ensure any degree of safety whatsoever. Training and education ensure a higher level of safety than any rule or penalty.
Remember, you can be 100% compliant and not 100% safe. On the other hand you can be as safe as possible and not compliant.
What the law makers don't realise is that the regs etc in many cases actually provide a negative to safety in aviation. At the CASA FLOT conference a few years back, one of the statements made said that the biggest risk to air safety in Australia was the Attorneys Generals Department for the way it demanded the rules and regs be written. Nothing has changed in that regard!
A famous quote from an FOI some years back was along the lines that if he had his way he would come to work with some bolt cutters and cut everyone’s PC off the air and make the FOIs get out of the office and do what they are paid to do, and not spend all day doing admin because CASA can't provide staff for that purpose! The result is FOIs that are working (!) to ensure their retirement, with resulting poor administration within CASA and poor or non-existant standardisation in the field.
In my mind it all starting going down hill when the FOI (Examiners of Airmen we called them back then!) stopped doing flight tests.
If labour get in this year, you can bet that B1 will be gone before the election results are known. Pity, not that I think that he does a good job, but another leadership change is not what CASA need or want. Sadly B1 does not seem to get out in the field much and there are many staff that have never seen him. (I seem to remember some statement that he would do that on a regular basis when he got the job??). Traditional jobs undertaken by past CEOs he seems to be unavailable for, which is not a good look in the industry that expect to see him out and about.
It all starts at the top and with the Minister, but it seems they all play politics and look after #1 with little regard for the big picture and the long term future of the industry and the standards of pilots and training. (don't get me started on general training standards!!)
Stats will tell you that every day is one closer to the type of accident we have never seen in Oz. Hopefully that will not occur, but if it does, you can bet they will all be running to the bunkers. Just watch the Coroner’s inquiry into Lockhart River.
If they spent more of their budget on training and standardisation, then maybe we would believe that they were in fact encouraging aviation!! No?
It would certainly be an improvement on what they do now!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Benny71? If you think you have it tough with CASA and the fees etc that they charge then don't even contemplate dealing with the CAA in UK! They aren't known as the 'Campaign Against Aviation' for nothing. Their fees are exhorbitent and the regulations draconian in places making it impossible for those with a family and mortgage to move on. As I understand it you can fly as a co-pilot on a 'twin' in Oz with just the IREX under your belt, here in the UK you have to have successfully completed the IR exams (if you've left it too long since sitting the same exams for your initial licence issue, can't remember radio and radar theory etc changing since then so why sit them again?) which will set you back about $AU2,500 for a correspondence course and a further $AU900 for the exams before you have to undertake the IR course at a cost of around $AU75,000. The only chance most have of getting an IR is to seek employment with the major offshore boys and work for them until the bond is repaid.
