CASA integrity?
Thread Starter
CASA integrity?
Over 5 months ago I wrote to the CASA CEO, Bruce Byron, applying for a dispensation so I could do straight-in approaches (of less than 5 miles) and join on base at non-tower airports when it was safer to do so – as per the USA and other leading aviation countries. See here.
The following week I wrote to Malcolm Campbell, Team Leader of Flying Operations, mentioning the CEO’s directive as follows:
Once again I applied for a dispensation to conduct a straight in approach of less than five miles when it is safer to do so. Here is a copy of the letter.
Three months after the original letter to Bruce Byron, I wrote again on 15 April 2008 (see here). This letter contained a very apt question:
Six weeks after this letter, and some four months after my original letter, when it became apparent that I was going to get no answer from CASA, I arranged for my solicitor to write to CASA stating that we had briefed a QC, and if we didn’t get an answer within 7 days we would commence proceedings in the Federal Court. (See here).
At the stated 7 days, I instructed my solicitors to go ahead and prepare the documentation – as I never bluff, I always do what I say. The expensive documentation (see here) and affidavit (see here) were prepared and lodged on 11 June 2008. Remember, this is now some 22 weeks since the original letter to Bruce Byron, with no answer in any way.
Note particularly paragraph number 4 of the affidavit:
The following morning (that is, today) at about 10.00 am I received a letter from CASA from Mr Mick Quinn (Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Operations) answering the questions. Well, when I say answering the questions, not really answering them but at least replying. Note how no mention is made of Byron’s harmonisation directive.
This is of course after I have expended a considerable amount of money in the court action. The letter from CASA is here.
The question is whether this is ethical. I will be requesting that CASA pays my quite considerable legal costs, because if they had replied to me originally, or at least made a phone call to my solicitors and said a reply was being prepared, these high costs would not have been incurred.
I will keep you posted on what happens.
The following week I wrote to Malcolm Campbell, Team Leader of Flying Operations, mentioning the CEO’s directive as follows:
Where appropriate, the aviation safety regulation are to be aligned with the standards and practices of leading aviation countries, unless differences are required to address the Australian aviation environment and these differences can be justified on safety risk grounds. Where the standards and practices of the leading aviation countries vary, CASA will align its regulations with those that effectively address the safety risks in the most cost-effective manner.
Three months after the original letter to Bruce Byron, I wrote again on 15 April 2008 (see here). This letter contained a very apt question:
Is there anyone there who actually makes a decision?
At the stated 7 days, I instructed my solicitors to go ahead and prepare the documentation – as I never bluff, I always do what I say. The expensive documentation (see here) and affidavit (see here) were prepared and lodged on 11 June 2008. Remember, this is now some 22 weeks since the original letter to Bruce Byron, with no answer in any way.
Note particularly paragraph number 4 of the affidavit:
I sought CASA's approval to improve safety and efficiency, as well as for noise abatement. The current prescriptive requirements mean that at times when approaching to land I am forced to fly a single engine aircraft extra distance at low level over populated areas such as towns and schools, or over inhospitable terrain. An engine failure at that time could end in loss of life for those in the aircraft or on the ground. The approval would enable me to choose the safest and most direct route to the airport.
This is of course after I have expended a considerable amount of money in the court action. The letter from CASA is here.
The question is whether this is ethical. I will be requesting that CASA pays my quite considerable legal costs, because if they had replied to me originally, or at least made a phone call to my solicitors and said a reply was being prepared, these high costs would not have been incurred.
I will keep you posted on what happens.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm, where does the integrity(?) come in? You requested a procedure change without using the documented process and they said no. It's like suing Vicroads because they won't register your Lamborghini (or whatever richboy toy you turned up in) because you'd rather write your application on a live aardvark than the required form.
On the other hand, if we are talking about joining on the base leg if it seems safe to do so - I'm all for it
CASA inefficiency? Well that'd run.
On the other hand, if we are talking about joining on the base leg if it seems safe to do so - I'm all for it
CASA inefficiency? Well that'd run.
Last edited by jumpuFOKKERjump; 12th Jun 2008 at 05:27.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think its interesting - interesting in the sense that trying to get a reply, answer, information from either a government organisation or big business can be like pulling teeth. (Which is now the norm, rather than the exception)
Try getting an answer,reply, or some sense regarding breaking off from an instrument approach when visual........
Try getting an answer,reply, or some sense regarding breaking off from an instrument approach when visual........
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Otamatata
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sympathise with the lack of response you have recieved to your request. The one question I have for you (and I freely admit at this point I have not read the documentation attached to your letter) is 'for what operational reason have you sought the dispensation that would allow you to be treated differently to all other users?'
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 34 South
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earth Shattering!!!
Geeez Dick.
This is really earth-shattering stuff.
Quick,,,,,go and get some airtime on some tv station. Let everyone know.
Sky is falling....sky is falling!!!!!!
Thanks So much Dick.
For bringing this unbelievable state of affairs to our attention.
What would we do without you Dick.
Thank God for Dick.
This is really earth-shattering stuff.
Quick,,,,,go and get some airtime on some tv station. Let everyone know.
Sky is falling....sky is falling!!!!!!
Thanks So much Dick.
For bringing this unbelievable state of affairs to our attention.
What would we do without you Dick.
Thank God for Dick.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: O/S
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DickyPearse
This might answer your question.
Its interesting to note that CASA's response cites safety in helping to separate aircraft in the traffic area.
I have seen no such evidence both here and in the United States. Surely too then they would be open to increasing the safety levels by allowing a join on base leg inside 5nm on those occasions safety warrants it.
This might answer your question.
I applied for a dispensation to conduct a straight in approach of less than five miles when it is safer to do so.
Its interesting to note that CASA's response cites safety in helping to separate aircraft in the traffic area.
Such an approach would reduce the opportunity for all pilots in the area to make a comprehensive assessment of the traffic and achieve appropriate separation and to enable the pilot flying the straight-in approach to give way to aircraft flying a standard circuit.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr Smith
I think you will find little sympathy on this forum for a private pilot who wants to be treated differently to everyone else.
Because of people like you and AOPA constantly frightening the horses, efforts by industry to improve CASA's service delivery (or rather, have someone enforce an improvement) are simply lost in the noise.
I presume that it is requests like yours that have held up our AOC variation application (submitted Jan 08) for 5 months, before an FOI has been able to turn his attention to it?
I expect that it is time-wasting applications like yours that mean we paid $5000+ to CASA in February to review our submitted documentation, for a simple application adding CHTR and a couple of types?
You have run a business Dick - fancy starting a business, renting premises, employing and training staff and entering into cross-hire arrangements (not to mention giving CASA $5000 to stick in the bank) and then waiting 7 months before you can turn a wheel?
Fortunately our primary task is AWK and it is ongoing - but as we try to build our business, Dick, I will not lose a minute's sleep for a self-promoting PPL who wants to cut corners nobody else can.
I think you will find little sympathy on this forum for a private pilot who wants to be treated differently to everyone else.
Because of people like you and AOPA constantly frightening the horses, efforts by industry to improve CASA's service delivery (or rather, have someone enforce an improvement) are simply lost in the noise.
I presume that it is requests like yours that have held up our AOC variation application (submitted Jan 08) for 5 months, before an FOI has been able to turn his attention to it?
I expect that it is time-wasting applications like yours that mean we paid $5000+ to CASA in February to review our submitted documentation, for a simple application adding CHTR and a couple of types?
You have run a business Dick - fancy starting a business, renting premises, employing and training staff and entering into cross-hire arrangements (not to mention giving CASA $5000 to stick in the bank) and then waiting 7 months before you can turn a wheel?
Fortunately our primary task is AWK and it is ongoing - but as we try to build our business, Dick, I will not lose a minute's sleep for a self-promoting PPL who wants to cut corners nobody else can.
Time to get a grip, fellers. Five miles on a visual approach. How do YOU measure it, Dick? With a GPS, I s'pose.How do I measure it. By looking out the window and eyeballing it.
So my "5" is your GPS 3.5. And as for my eyeball "5" at my weekend toy bugsmasher's 85 knots compared with a jet's absolutely accurate 5 - by the time he's got the call out the jet is at 3.5 anyway, unless he starts the call at 6.5 (which I try to remember do in my company jet anyway), but as I said, about then I am looking out the window and not at the GPS, even though it's got two of the things. For those who don't like my cowboy approach to this rule, who ya gonna call?
How will CASA or the county cops or whoever enforces this rule measure it from the ground? (non-controlled, non radar). They can't. And if they can't, they can't enforce the rule, and would have no hope of a prosecution. If the terrain is hostile, or complying with a rule would place your aircraft at risk, you don't need a reason to 'bend' that rule. Airmanship.
So my "5" is your GPS 3.5. And as for my eyeball "5" at my weekend toy bugsmasher's 85 knots compared with a jet's absolutely accurate 5 - by the time he's got the call out the jet is at 3.5 anyway, unless he starts the call at 6.5 (which I try to remember do in my company jet anyway), but as I said, about then I am looking out the window and not at the GPS, even though it's got two of the things. For those who don't like my cowboy approach to this rule, who ya gonna call?
How will CASA or the county cops or whoever enforces this rule measure it from the ground? (non-controlled, non radar). They can't. And if they can't, they can't enforce the rule, and would have no hope of a prosecution. If the terrain is hostile, or complying with a rule would place your aircraft at risk, you don't need a reason to 'bend' that rule. Airmanship.
Thread Starter
DickyPearse, you ask:
Note that my request for a dispensation was actually for all aircraft. My solicitor’s letter to CASA dated 23 May 2008 (see here) states:
Isn’t it interesting that if you want to fly into Bankstown from 2RN, the air traffic controllers will readily give you a straight in approach from Warwick Farm? No, that is not 5 miles, it is a little over 2 miles, but the controllers have decided that is the safest thing to do. The same thing happens at all tower airports.
However if you or I fly to a private country strip out near Coonabarabran, we cannot make a decision to join directly on base or to do less than a 5 mile final for a straight-in approach. In effect, the rules state that air traffic controllers know more than the pilot in relation to the safety of the aircraft.
for what operational reason have you sought the dispensation that would allow you to be treated differently to all other users?
Our client wishes to emphasise that the approval he seeks should be extended to all aircraft for safety reasons and that he does not make the application purely for his own benefit.
However if you or I fly to a private country strip out near Coonabarabran, we cannot make a decision to join directly on base or to do less than a 5 mile final for a straight-in approach. In effect, the rules state that air traffic controllers know more than the pilot in relation to the safety of the aircraft.
I fail to understand why this dispute escalated to the point of threatened legal action, or why CASA's integrity is in any way involved.
First of all, I am assuming we are talking about CTAF (R) airfields. If you aren't then as far as I know straight in approaches are illegal.
I also have personal experience (last week) of what it's like "arranging separation" with an oncoming aircraft on a straight in approach. Five miles is about 6 minutes at 80 knots.
In my case I was downwind for 35L at YMMB. Two Warriors called at Carrum inbound (5.4 miles) about a minute apart. I was ready to turn base at 3 miles (the Golf Course) when the always helpful Tower kindly queried if I thought I could fit between the two of them (they were by this time at 3 miles and a bit over four miles). I replied negative, widened out a bit and brought up the rear. Tower changed the landing order. No dramas.
This whole exercise, by my timing, took about four minutes from realising that there was someone doing a straight in approach, spotting the other aircraft, and analysing who was going to have to fit where to ensure separation. I fail to understand the point of reducing the time available to achieve this by reducing the five mile minima. I wonder how well the two of us would have done without a helpful tower?
It will be interesting reading the safety case since if you reduced it to three miles, which is round about the longitudinal distance from the threshold you are on base in a Piper or Cessna, you could conceivably announce your intentions just as an aircraft turning final arrived exactly where you are at 90 degrees to your course.
Anyway why bother? Just to save two minutes time?
First of all, I am assuming we are talking about CTAF (R) airfields. If you aren't then as far as I know straight in approaches are illegal.
I also have personal experience (last week) of what it's like "arranging separation" with an oncoming aircraft on a straight in approach. Five miles is about 6 minutes at 80 knots.
In my case I was downwind for 35L at YMMB. Two Warriors called at Carrum inbound (5.4 miles) about a minute apart. I was ready to turn base at 3 miles (the Golf Course) when the always helpful Tower kindly queried if I thought I could fit between the two of them (they were by this time at 3 miles and a bit over four miles). I replied negative, widened out a bit and brought up the rear. Tower changed the landing order. No dramas.
This whole exercise, by my timing, took about four minutes from realising that there was someone doing a straight in approach, spotting the other aircraft, and analysing who was going to have to fit where to ensure separation. I fail to understand the point of reducing the time available to achieve this by reducing the five mile minima. I wonder how well the two of us would have done without a helpful tower?
It will be interesting reading the safety case since if you reduced it to three miles, which is round about the longitudinal distance from the threshold you are on base in a Piper or Cessna, you could conceivably announce your intentions just as an aircraft turning final arrived exactly where you are at 90 degrees to your course.
Anyway why bother? Just to save two minutes time?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Dick
Directed traffic in a GAAP aerodrome with all players required to carry a radio vs a strip in the middle of nowhere and plenty of aircraft with NO radio.
This is why we have PROCEDURES - to give us half a chance of knowing what the other guy might be doing
My ab-initio ultralight students can understand this but aparrently you can't.
Why do you forever invent reasons to create a rukus?
Directed traffic in a GAAP aerodrome with all players required to carry a radio vs a strip in the middle of nowhere and plenty of aircraft with NO radio.
This is why we have PROCEDURES - to give us half a chance of knowing what the other guy might be doing
My ab-initio ultralight students can understand this but aparrently you can't.
Why do you forever invent reasons to create a rukus?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Otamatata
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note your efforts were for the benefit of all of us.
However in relation to your comment highlighted below, I believe that the potential dangers involved as a result of such a dispensation significantly outweigh the broader benefits.
However in relation to your comment highlighted below, I believe that the potential dangers involved as a result of such a dispensation significantly outweigh the broader benefits.
However if you or I fly to a private country strip out near Coonabarabran, we cannot make a decision to join directly on base or to do less than a 5 mile final for a straight-in approach. In effect, the rules state that air traffic controllers know more than the pilot in relation to the safety of the aircraft.
I am no lover of CASA, but I resent my taxes funding a legal defence over such a trivial matter. Dick, if I could have my way, you would have blown your legal costs and still would not get a reply from CASA, because the guy MY taxes are helping to fund is too busy doing important stuff, like raising standards in G.A. to include the subject of common-sense. (I wish)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
In effect, the rules state that air traffic controllers know more than the pilot in relation to the safety of the aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paradise
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if we are talking about joining on the base leg if it seems safe to do so
I always fly at least three legs of a circuit - its just that sometimes one or more legs follow on from one another in a straight line!
GG
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fellow ppruners, you need to understand something about administrative law which may make Dick's actions somewhat clearer. It has nothing to do with the matter contained in his application and everything to do with what CASA is supposed to do.
An administrative body, such as CASA, has certain powers given to it under the legislation and some of those powers include the authority to make a decision on certain matters. Note, the power is to make a decision, yes or no. It is not a power to sit on it's fat nether regions and not make a decision at all.
There is bags of case authority on the matter all of which points to the decision maker having to make a decision. I would think that Dick is probably on an odds on favourite to win here should it go that far.
An administrative body, such as CASA, has certain powers given to it under the legislation and some of those powers include the authority to make a decision on certain matters. Note, the power is to make a decision, yes or no. It is not a power to sit on it's fat nether regions and not make a decision at all.
There is bags of case authority on the matter all of which points to the decision maker having to make a decision. I would think that Dick is probably on an odds on favourite to win here should it go that far.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An administrative body, such as CASA, has certain powers given to it under the legislation and some of those powers include the authority to make a decision on certain matters. Note, the power is to make a decision, yes or no. It is not a power to sit on it's fat nether regions and not make a decision at all.
My research may be lacking, but after reading the threads within pprune and Dick's website I cannot see whether he consulted with anyone else within the industry.
I have witnessed a number of base joins at non-towered aerodromes I can only say they caused confusion and increased the risk for collision. My base join in a C172 will be in a different position to a Tecnam, Baron, Tigermoth or C208. However, if they all join a long final there will be more consistency. If they join crosswind they will all join in a similar position. Same with the 45 deg downwind.
As a flying instructor, my second issue with base joins is they occur at a time when the pilot (or low-hour, possibly solo student) is very pre-occupied with power/flap/configuration settings, not to mention the pitch/roll changes that cause momentary blind-spots.
GAAP base joins are different because ATC provide me and others with traffic advice.
Maybe I'm a little thick, but why can't you manoeuvre to join the downwind leg?
They are my reasons for opposing the base join. However, I have an open mind and am open to suggestions. Just because they do it in the US isn't the reason I'm looking for.