Yes but, do we really need CASA.
NO...!!! Not as it currently rots.
People here should read Australian Aviation Advertiser... "To hell with the Rules"
Why is there 'strict liability' and a penalty for everything, because the psuedo-wankery legal dept in CASA want it that way.
A penalty ... and a CRIMINAL one at that !.. for having incomplete lines in yr log book,for something that has no relation to the definition of criminal intent or has any inkling of public abhorance of such immoral action.! And nothing to do with safety.. and this level of 'crime' was never suposed to fall in the criminal bin in the first place.! But CASA does THEIR thing and fcuk everybody else, Attorney General, Minister, Government, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. And the Industry
And strict liabilty is NOT a requirement of Government.
How's this from the 'model litigant'. One AWI lodges a (false) allegation against me for " illegal maintenance"
This goes to the Manager (sic- very sick) of Compliance and Enforcement or Enforcement and Investigation, whatever,... she couldnt even decide on her bloody title, but on the basis of that one statement SHE decides as judge, jury and executioner that I am guilty of a crime.
I decline to pay the penalty of $500 plus 3 demerit pints because I believe I am innocent and have done nothing wrong.
Off to the DPP it goes...AWI's statement corroborated by another 2 AWIs
that werent even involved and their SWORN statements are all basically the same .... and ALL LIES. So we have perjury and conspiracy to pervert etc..
If my name had been Dick Smith,( very well cashed up and high profile,) this would never have see the light of day, because CASA doesnt have the balls.(And some years ago a CASA person made that very statement)
But with an ordinary individual,... whoopee!, heave ho the taxpayers dollars, ..we have an easy "hit" here.
All this is nothing new.. after more than 50 years involved in aviation I dont think CASA is...I KNOW CASA is a cesspit of bureaucartic buggery,( by some, not all).
I could quote you stories of corruption and collusion that would make yr hair stand on end... but they'll keep for a major media push.
Meanwhile, back to the grindstone... trying to seek justice.
Will we ever get relief from CASA?. Only if an asteroid leaves Canberra as a smoking hole, and the odds of that happening are astronomical.
Why is there 'strict liability' and a penalty for everything, because the psuedo-wankery legal dept in CASA want it that way.
A penalty ... and a CRIMINAL one at that !.. for having incomplete lines in yr log book,for something that has no relation to the definition of criminal intent or has any inkling of public abhorance of such immoral action.! And nothing to do with safety.. and this level of 'crime' was never suposed to fall in the criminal bin in the first place.! But CASA does THEIR thing and fcuk everybody else, Attorney General, Minister, Government, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. And the Industry
And strict liabilty is NOT a requirement of Government.
How's this from the 'model litigant'. One AWI lodges a (false) allegation against me for " illegal maintenance"
This goes to the Manager (sic- very sick) of Compliance and Enforcement or Enforcement and Investigation, whatever,... she couldnt even decide on her bloody title, but on the basis of that one statement SHE decides as judge, jury and executioner that I am guilty of a crime.
I decline to pay the penalty of $500 plus 3 demerit pints because I believe I am innocent and have done nothing wrong.
Off to the DPP it goes...AWI's statement corroborated by another 2 AWIs
that werent even involved and their SWORN statements are all basically the same .... and ALL LIES. So we have perjury and conspiracy to pervert etc..
If my name had been Dick Smith,( very well cashed up and high profile,) this would never have see the light of day, because CASA doesnt have the balls.(And some years ago a CASA person made that very statement)
But with an ordinary individual,... whoopee!, heave ho the taxpayers dollars, ..we have an easy "hit" here.
All this is nothing new.. after more than 50 years involved in aviation I dont think CASA is...I KNOW CASA is a cesspit of bureaucartic buggery,( by some, not all).
I could quote you stories of corruption and collusion that would make yr hair stand on end... but they'll keep for a major media push.
Meanwhile, back to the grindstone... trying to seek justice.
Will we ever get relief from CASA?. Only if an asteroid leaves Canberra as a smoking hole, and the odds of that happening are astronomical.
Backhand:
1. The role of the regulator is to regulate. The role of enforcement should be separated or you end up with the current system where CASA is judge, jury and executioner. That conclusion is not open to conjecture, it is simple, straight forward, common sense that is enshrined in almost all legislation except that involving CASA.
2. There is absolutely nothing "diverse" or "unique" about Australian aviation. Your statement is a direct and deliberate attempt to suggest that comparisons between CASA, JAR, FAA and other regulators, all of which conclusively demonstrate that CASA is a complete failure by international standards, are somehow irrelevant for the simple reason that Australia is "special".
Let me tell you something sonny, the last persons who used that excuse on me were the senior executive management of Telecom (Telstras predecessor). I authored much of their confidential report on privatisation of telecommunications when the subject was first mooted by Government in 1986. As a senior consultant in corporate strategy at Coopers and Lybrand I examined all the International indicators of telecommunications peformance and every single one of them indicated that Telecom was hopelessly inefficient and way over-manned.
Their response was that Telecom was "special" because of the "diverse" and "unique" nature of Australia and my comparisons were therefore irrelevant. History proved me right.
Your attempt to even advance this argument conclusively demonstrates that CASA is a basket case. Thirty five pages of FAA regs for maintenance and CASA advances a Two Hundred Fifty page tome for the same purpose???? Just who do you think you are kidding?
3. You then intimate that "Natural justice" and "procedural fairness" be afforded to CASA (which is what your request for evidence is about). That makes you a ****ing hypocrite, since frequent and ongoing cases before the AAT conclusively demonstrate that CASA does not and never will afford natural justice and procedural fairness to anyone in the Aviation industry because it is not in CASA's narrow and perverted interests to do so.
Lets be quite clear on this : CASA makes Australian Aviation less safe than it should be through its deliberate and systematic pursuit of the self interest of its staff.
"Safety" is not an excuse for corruption.
tmpffisch
Quote:
I think Kharon doesn't understand the role of CASA, let alone can pose a decent argument.
An obviously antagonistic question posed to incite invective against the Regulator.
KimWestt
For years DOT then CAA and more recently CASA created a regulation regime that recognises the diversity and uniqueness of Australian aviation.
Recent changes emphasise the safety regime that is the new paradigm for our business models.
Sometimes it can be unfair on an individual, but beer breathe on the Ramp is always going to attract attention, do you know for sure whether CASA stood him down or was it a requirement of the company DAMP program to ensure uncompromised safety.
Rose_Thorns
Well spare me your rhetoric, some evidence for those emotive, selfserving anecdotes about destruction of industry by the monolithic uncaring bureaucracy please.
Quote:
I think Kharon doesn't understand the role of CASA, let alone can pose a decent argument.
An obviously antagonistic question posed to incite invective against the Regulator.
KimWestt
For years DOT then CAA and more recently CASA created a regulation regime that recognises the diversity and uniqueness of Australian aviation.
Recent changes emphasise the safety regime that is the new paradigm for our business models.
Sometimes it can be unfair on an individual, but beer breathe on the Ramp is always going to attract attention, do you know for sure whether CASA stood him down or was it a requirement of the company DAMP program to ensure uncompromised safety.
Rose_Thorns
Well spare me your rhetoric, some evidence for those emotive, selfserving anecdotes about destruction of industry by the monolithic uncaring bureaucracy please.
2. There is absolutely nothing "diverse" or "unique" about Australian aviation. Your statement is a direct and deliberate attempt to suggest that comparisons between CASA, JAR, FAA and other regulators, all of which conclusively demonstrate that CASA is a complete failure by international standards, are somehow irrelevant for the simple reason that Australia is "special".
Let me tell you something sonny, the last persons who used that excuse on me were the senior executive management of Telecom (Telstras predecessor). I authored much of their confidential report on privatisation of telecommunications when the subject was first mooted by Government in 1986. As a senior consultant in corporate strategy at Coopers and Lybrand I examined all the International indicators of telecommunications peformance and every single one of them indicated that Telecom was hopelessly inefficient and way over-manned.
Their response was that Telecom was "special" because of the "diverse" and "unique" nature of Australia and my comparisons were therefore irrelevant. History proved me right.
Your attempt to even advance this argument conclusively demonstrates that CASA is a basket case. Thirty five pages of FAA regs for maintenance and CASA advances a Two Hundred Fifty page tome for the same purpose???? Just who do you think you are kidding?
3. You then intimate that "Natural justice" and "procedural fairness" be afforded to CASA (which is what your request for evidence is about). That makes you a ****ing hypocrite, since frequent and ongoing cases before the AAT conclusively demonstrate that CASA does not and never will afford natural justice and procedural fairness to anyone in the Aviation industry because it is not in CASA's narrow and perverted interests to do so.
Lets be quite clear on this : CASA makes Australian Aviation less safe than it should be through its deliberate and systematic pursuit of the self interest of its staff.
"Safety" is not an excuse for corruption.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
Another proponent of the unsubstantiated claims of bureaucratic corruption
interfering in "industry".
Spare me the "sonny" old man, your invective doesn't advance your argument one iota.
Your statement that the role of the Regulator is to regulate and NOT enforce is a self serving statement. All regulators regulate and enforce the rules, be they Aviation or other.
Your statement that I am a hypocrite for asking for evidence of the Regulator.s destruction of industry leaves me nonplussed to say the least; is there evidence or not??
Your understanding of the Law pertaining to CASA and enforcement leaves a lot to be desired and would suggest you educate yourself on these matters prior to posting about them.
Cheers
BH
Another proponent of the unsubstantiated claims of bureaucratic corruption
interfering in "industry".
Spare me the "sonny" old man, your invective doesn't advance your argument one iota.
Your statement that the role of the Regulator is to regulate and NOT enforce is a self serving statement. All regulators regulate and enforce the rules, be they Aviation or other.
Your statement that I am a hypocrite for asking for evidence of the Regulator.s destruction of industry leaves me nonplussed to say the least; is there evidence or not??
Your understanding of the Law pertaining to CASA and enforcement leaves a lot to be desired and would suggest you educate yourself on these matters prior to posting about them.
Cheers
BH
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my tribe
It is considered that the easiest way to gain knowledge is to listen.
Evidence,
If you cant hear, learn to read. Start with the courts and AAT transcripts and sworn evidence that would be enough.
But wait ! there's more. Multiple official records, thousands of reports, millions of dollars and years of demonstrated bungling. That aught to do it.
Expert editors, expert investigators, expert pilots, expert on operations.
This current crew could not find a pussy in a cat house with a searchlight.
Remove ego from ear hole, rose color glasses from face. Look about, ask any good officer, respect is hard earned, easily lost and almost irrecoverable.
Evidence,
If you cant hear, learn to read. Start with the courts and AAT transcripts and sworn evidence that would be enough.But wait ! there's more. Multiple official records, thousands of reports, millions of dollars and years of demonstrated bungling. That aught to do it.
Expert editors, expert investigators, expert pilots, expert on operations.
This current crew could not find a pussy in a cat house with a searchlight.Remove ego from ear hole, rose color glasses from face. Look about, ask any good officer, respect is hard earned, easily lost and almost irrecoverable.
The thing that is different about CASA is that it is user funded. I can't think of another regulatory body that operates under the user pays system. They have never been accountable for how they use my money or how efficiently they use it. Surely there is a way to collectively demand better performance for our money.
Basically, we fly US built aircraft, using US built radios to communicate in air that isn't aware of which country its over. I agree with Sunfish. There is nothing special about Australia. Except maybe that we have more favorable weather and terrain for aviation than nearly any other country. A fact that is never credited when there is a discussion about safety history.
I just got a Heavy truck licence. You reckon I can't do more damage with a 40t truck than a 2t twin? But the truck licence had no detailed medical, no security checks and overall cost less than an annual CIR renewal and was issues in a fraction of the time CASA took to process my medical.
I don't know what drives CASA, but I'm pretty sure its got nothing to do with safety.
Basically, we fly US built aircraft, using US built radios to communicate in air that isn't aware of which country its over. I agree with Sunfish. There is nothing special about Australia. Except maybe that we have more favorable weather and terrain for aviation than nearly any other country. A fact that is never credited when there is a discussion about safety history.
I just got a Heavy truck licence. You reckon I can't do more damage with a 40t truck than a 2t twin? But the truck licence had no detailed medical, no security checks and overall cost less than an annual CIR renewal and was issues in a fraction of the time CASA took to process my medical.
I don't know what drives CASA, but I'm pretty sure its got nothing to do with safety.
...and there is the fallacy of "user pays" writ large. It is the public at large that gain by aviation being (externally) regulated - not the user. If the public at large demands this type of regulator and regulation, then the public at large should be paying - i.e. out of consolidated revenue!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, and Customs got their fingers burned big time with the Mitford matter when (from memory) they were sued by a business that had been sent broke by slow cargo clearances. The business won and Customs substantially revised their clearance procedures.
Howvever, it took a law suit and Senate inquiry to make them do that. I can't see CASA being any different, until someone successfully sues them for ruining their business. Unfortunately law suits take a lot of money and most aviation businesses who believe they have been unfairly treated by CASA simply don't have the ready cash.
Howvever, it took a law suit and Senate inquiry to make them do that. I can't see CASA being any different, until someone successfully sues them for ruining their business. Unfortunately law suits take a lot of money and most aviation businesses who believe they have been unfairly treated by CASA simply don't have the ready cash.
Lets be quite clear on this : CASA makes Australian Aviation less safe than it should be through its deliberate and systematic pursuit of the self interest of its staff.
Sunfish has got this more right than, I suspect, even he knows.
We kid ourselves about Australia's air safety record, as an unvarnished detailed examination of publicly available accident and incident statistics will show.
We keep telling ourselves how good we are, because we have never lost a jet aircraft --- a very small proportion of the civil register by numbers.
Indeed, as some of you will understand, Australian aviation is so small (just to quote one single US airline, South West has 630+ B737) that a single fatal accident to, say, a B737, would put Australia into the "African" category for air safety results.
We seem to have developed the ability to ignore all the other accidents that occur, including fatals.
An undeniable fact ( if you bother with the facts, as opposed to national stereotypes and vision blinkered by personal prejudice) is that, in every ICAO category, the US bests the rest of the world in air safety outcomes.
Imperfect as the US may be, they are getting something "righter" about aviation than Australia, and have always done so. In fact, 50 years ago, the US was marginally better than Australia, but with only minor improvement in Australia, and greatly improved air safety outcomes in US, the gap is now quite significant.
A strong case can be made that the major reason for any improvement in Australia, in recent years, is not better standards of operation or more "regulation", but the shrinkage of significant sectors of aviation operation.
The only aviation category in which Australia leads the world is in "regulation", by weight, volume or word count, take your pick.
Tootle pip!!
Blackhand, your reply, asking for "evidence", is risible. There is more than enough in AAT rulings against CASA to substantiate everything I have said.
I note that you cannot attack my statement that Australia is not so "Diverse" and "Unique" that FAA rules would not be applicable, at a fraction of the cost of CASA. I've heard that argument before. If anything the American and European models are far more diverse that Australia since, among other things they deal with far worse weather conditions and traffic congestion than Australia ever faces.
If anything we could take a small subset of FAA regs and produce something infinitely better than CASA at a fraction of its cost.
Come on, you will have to fo better than pious requests for "evidence". By the way, what ever happened to CASA as "model litigator?"
I wonder what would happen if a CASA official wandered into the Lufthansa heavy maintenance base canteen in Hamburg and saw the LAMES all downing Two steins of beer at lunchtime?
I note that you cannot attack my statement that Australia is not so "Diverse" and "Unique" that FAA rules would not be applicable, at a fraction of the cost of CASA. I've heard that argument before. If anything the American and European models are far more diverse that Australia since, among other things they deal with far worse weather conditions and traffic congestion than Australia ever faces.
If anything we could take a small subset of FAA regs and produce something infinitely better than CASA at a fraction of its cost.
Come on, you will have to fo better than pious requests for "evidence". By the way, what ever happened to CASA as "model litigator?"
I wonder what would happen if a CASA official wandered into the Lufthansa heavy maintenance base canteen in Hamburg and saw the LAMES all downing Two steins of beer at lunchtime?
Last edited by Sunfish; 1st Nov 2010 at 04:48.
Imperfect as the US may be, they are getting something "righter" about aviation than Australia, and have always done so. In fact, 50 years ago, the US was marginally better than Australia, but with only minor improvement in Australia, and greatly improved air safety outcomes in US, the gap is now quite significant.
In this context, the Australian air safety record is a joke.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The matters raised in the article "To hell with the rules" in the aviation Advertiser should be enough to warrant an enquiry. A couple of hundred million bucks plus down the toilet, I was going to say of Taxpayers money, but in our user pays system, actually our money, with not a damn thing to show for it, except regulations nobody understands or impossible to comply with. I agree with those who say CASA's main function is to author rules that place protection of the government from liability at any cost, and to hell with safety, as long as we can blame someone else.
Perhaps a serious look at CASA's charter compared with the FAA's may shed some light on why the FAA works and CASA dosnt, words like promote and foster come to mind, Added to this, very healthy associations like AOPA, and the NBA who can direct millions of letters onto politicians desks the minute the FAA goes a tad too far.
It would seem our lot can tell the elected government to go to hell, what chance do we have.
Maybe we could subcontract the whole business to the FAA, the poor old Yanks seem to need a bit of help with their economy, and the savings we would make would sure help ours. Then again what would we do with all those redundent CASA guys, have to retrain them to wreck some other industry.
Perhaps a serious look at CASA's charter compared with the FAA's may shed some light on why the FAA works and CASA dosnt, words like promote and foster come to mind, Added to this, very healthy associations like AOPA, and the NBA who can direct millions of letters onto politicians desks the minute the FAA goes a tad too far.
It would seem our lot can tell the elected government to go to hell, what chance do we have.
Maybe we could subcontract the whole business to the FAA, the poor old Yanks seem to need a bit of help with their economy, and the savings we would make would sure help ours. Then again what would we do with all those redundent CASA guys, have to retrain them to wreck some other industry.
because we have never lost a jet aircraft
"because we have never lost an RPT jet aircraft"
There has been two jet losses in Qld, one in the NT and as old age is creeping on, maybe more in other States.
601.........
Don't forget, there was the Norfolk Island jet loss too!
QF1 doesn't come too far off being a hull loss either, despite what the QF spin doctors said at the time.
Add turbo-propeller hull losses in recent years, and Australia's safety record starting to look pretty shabby...........thanks CASA.
Add the 'near misses' reported on by the ATSB since, say, 2000, and it's looking pretty ominous (and there's quite a few that involve RPT jet aircraft, I can assure you).............thanks also CASA.
What all this SHOUD demonstrate to the electorate, AND to the idiot Ministers who have been responsible for aviation in Australia over the past 20 years or so, is that we have a totally dysfunctional and effete regulatory authority here in Australia that's completely out-of-control, competely out-of-touch with the realities of meaningful regulatory reform, is totally past its use-by-date, and that Australia's air safety record as a consequence is of real concern.
Don't forget, there was the Norfolk Island jet loss too!
QF1 doesn't come too far off being a hull loss either, despite what the QF spin doctors said at the time.
Add turbo-propeller hull losses in recent years, and Australia's safety record starting to look pretty shabby...........thanks CASA.
Add the 'near misses' reported on by the ATSB since, say, 2000, and it's looking pretty ominous (and there's quite a few that involve RPT jet aircraft, I can assure you).............thanks also CASA.
What all this SHOUD demonstrate to the electorate, AND to the idiot Ministers who have been responsible for aviation in Australia over the past 20 years or so, is that we have a totally dysfunctional and effete regulatory authority here in Australia that's completely out-of-control, competely out-of-touch with the realities of meaningful regulatory reform, is totally past its use-by-date, and that Australia's air safety record as a consequence is of real concern.
What we have now is a "don't ask, don't tell" safety regime.
When I first engaged with aircraft and airlines, the attitude was that safety was too important to associate it with penalties, let alone criminal penalties.
The idea was that if a mistake was made it was reported as a learning experience.
Not any more.
Even a Two hundred hour PPL neophyte like me now knows that.
When I first engaged with aircraft and airlines, the attitude was that safety was too important to associate it with penalties, let alone criminal penalties.
The idea was that if a mistake was made it was reported as a learning experience.
Not any more.
Even a Two hundred hour PPL neophyte like me now knows that.
To put it another way, If you are an employee of CASA, your next career move should be to join the scum in Macquarie Bank.
..And I've dealt with them and I know what I'm talking about.
..And I've dealt with them and I know what I'm talking about.
601,
Of course, you are quite correct, that one in FNQ wiped out most of the Mareeba
Council. Slipped my mind.
Siuya,
If the reference to Norfolk is to the Westwind, there were no fatalities, was there another? The Citation written off at Lord Howe was, from memory, a private flight.
Of course, in our figuring, the wheels up in the DCA DH-125 isn't counted, either, or all the Viscounts lost, or the DC-3/4/6 and a few more, including the Connie at Mauritius. Or sundry Metro and Queen/ Kingairs, PA-31s --- etc, etc.
At one stage, Mick Toller came out with a statement that Australia was "twice as safe" as the US. This was based on a complete misreading of a Boeing "hull loss" study that ignored anything smaller than a B737/A320.
Ignoring all the RPT fatalities, because they are "not jets", and all accidents where there are no fatalities, is a great way to produce "world leading safety outcomes".
As to Qantas VH-OJH, despite rumours to the contrary, that B747-438 was nowhere near a write-off, a decision that insurance underwriter make, not the airline that leases the aircraft.
The cost of the rebuild was about 40% of the market valuation, and when it was finished, it was such a good job that it became one of the best performers in the fleet, with a fuel flow better than book, and about 1.2% better than before the golfing episode --- and it was one of only 2 or 3 in the whole fleet that didn't need any rudder trim in cruise --- I know, I did enough hours on it, before and after.
There are around 10 (maybe more) US operators that are, each in isolation, bigger than the whole Australian RPT/large Charter fleet combined.
Tootle pip!!
Of course, you are quite correct, that one in FNQ wiped out most of the Mareeba
Council. Slipped my mind.
Siuya,
If the reference to Norfolk is to the Westwind, there were no fatalities, was there another? The Citation written off at Lord Howe was, from memory, a private flight.
Of course, in our figuring, the wheels up in the DCA DH-125 isn't counted, either, or all the Viscounts lost, or the DC-3/4/6 and a few more, including the Connie at Mauritius. Or sundry Metro and Queen/ Kingairs, PA-31s --- etc, etc.
At one stage, Mick Toller came out with a statement that Australia was "twice as safe" as the US. This was based on a complete misreading of a Boeing "hull loss" study that ignored anything smaller than a B737/A320.
Ignoring all the RPT fatalities, because they are "not jets", and all accidents where there are no fatalities, is a great way to produce "world leading safety outcomes".
As to Qantas VH-OJH, despite rumours to the contrary, that B747-438 was nowhere near a write-off, a decision that insurance underwriter make, not the airline that leases the aircraft.
The cost of the rebuild was about 40% of the market valuation, and when it was finished, it was such a good job that it became one of the best performers in the fleet, with a fuel flow better than book, and about 1.2% better than before the golfing episode --- and it was one of only 2 or 3 in the whole fleet that didn't need any rudder trim in cruise --- I know, I did enough hours on it, before and after.
There are around 10 (maybe more) US operators that are, each in isolation, bigger than the whole Australian RPT/large Charter fleet combined.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
This would be due to the fact that I agree with you that the regulatory reform has taken far too long, although my preference would be for the NZ suite of rules.
Cheers
BH
I note that you cannot attack my statement that Australia is not so "Diverse" and "Unique" that FAA rules would not be applicable,
Cheers
BH
Last edited by blackhand; 1st Nov 2010 at 21:17.
Thank you for your measured comment Blackhand. Some of mine are over the top.... I've been reading a few AAT rulings.
I am still however of the opinion that I'm probably unwittingly committing some form of criminal offence every time I fly, thanks to the form of the regulations and nothing else.
For example, If I had finally flown to the MotoGp at Phillip Island, when the forecast included "inter, rain showers, 4000 (vis)" as well as "Inter, rain showers, 5000", am I committing the offence of flying in IMC?
I note I had Tooradin, Leongatha and Tyabb as potential alternates.
I also now think I know that forgetting to note an oil addition on the MR is a criminal offence, as is failure to write total time after last flight of day.
I am still however of the opinion that I'm probably unwittingly committing some form of criminal offence every time I fly, thanks to the form of the regulations and nothing else.
For example, If I had finally flown to the MotoGp at Phillip Island, when the forecast included "inter, rain showers, 4000 (vis)" as well as "Inter, rain showers, 5000", am I committing the offence of flying in IMC?
I note I had Tooradin, Leongatha and Tyabb as potential alternates.
I also now think I know that forgetting to note an oil addition on the MR is a criminal offence, as is failure to write total time after last flight of day.
Moderator
Leadie
I think Stan wiped out most of the Cairns City Council, not Mareeba Shire? Long time ago now.
There was also the B707 in Bass Strait, but that was not a civil aircraft.
Whilst not a hull loss with injuries, the AN B747 at Sydney certainly had the potential to turn very messy!
The short answer to the thread title is that every country must have a competent regulator and appropriate regulation.
Sadly Australia has neither.
....that one in FNQ wiped out most of the Mareeba Council.
There was also the B707 in Bass Strait, but that was not a civil aircraft.
Whilst not a hull loss with injuries, the AN B747 at Sydney certainly had the potential to turn very messy!
The short answer to the thread title is that every country must have a competent regulator and appropriate regulation.
Sadly Australia has neither.