50 operators closed down.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boys and girls..........its not what you know but who you know. If you are in the "click", the blinkers are soon in place. Look at the guy who ran YSCH-YLHI for many many years. They called him private pilot airlines. All just because he was a member of the "in" crowd. The rules and regs discussed here are only to keep the honest people that way....honest. Might write a book one day on 35 yrs and 14k plus hrs in the industry....and then be assassinated 
!!
!!
flying-spike,
Sit back and take a big breath ---- if it is who I think it is, the bloke you are taking at/to probably knows as much about Australian aviation regulation ---- as it is --- and how it might be in the future ---- than most in the industry.
No matter how devoutly some in CASA might wish it otherwise, CASA do not have the power to enforce future regulations that have not been made.
What seems to be going on in Queensland has nothing to do with a future Part 119/121/135, but new "policy" interpretation of CAR 206. These operators would all be far better of with the proposed Part 135, than the situation they are now facing.
It is a wonderful measure of the stupidity of our approach to aviation regulation, to even suggest that you can have the same intrinsic safety levels in a C-172, or a FAR 23 twin, as you can with a multi-engine FAR 25 aircraft.
To suggest that this can be achieved by loading up small sightseeing operations with all the very expensive administrative overhead that surround s any RPT organisation---- and thereby achieve the same "safety standards" --- doesn't say much about the intelligence of those involved in this latest nonsense ---- including those of you in the aviation community who apparently think this latest CASA move will enhance air safety outcomes, except by grounding a significant proportion of the operators.
GA takes another big hit!!
And yet, as little as two years ago, we were going to fall into line with US, and small sightseeing/joyride operations would be operated under the then proposed Part 91.
Folks, don't forget, the present AOC legislation was only ever intended for RPT, not charter, but its application has been extended by the CASA micro managers well beyond the original intentions.
Tootle pip!!
Sit back and take a big breath ---- if it is who I think it is, the bloke you are taking at/to probably knows as much about Australian aviation regulation ---- as it is --- and how it might be in the future ---- than most in the industry.
No matter how devoutly some in CASA might wish it otherwise, CASA do not have the power to enforce future regulations that have not been made.
What seems to be going on in Queensland has nothing to do with a future Part 119/121/135, but new "policy" interpretation of CAR 206. These operators would all be far better of with the proposed Part 135, than the situation they are now facing.
It is a wonderful measure of the stupidity of our approach to aviation regulation, to even suggest that you can have the same intrinsic safety levels in a C-172, or a FAR 23 twin, as you can with a multi-engine FAR 25 aircraft.
To suggest that this can be achieved by loading up small sightseeing operations with all the very expensive administrative overhead that surround s any RPT organisation---- and thereby achieve the same "safety standards" --- doesn't say much about the intelligence of those involved in this latest nonsense ---- including those of you in the aviation community who apparently think this latest CASA move will enhance air safety outcomes, except by grounding a significant proportion of the operators.
GA takes another big hit!!
And yet, as little as two years ago, we were going to fall into line with US, and small sightseeing/joyride operations would be operated under the then proposed Part 91.
Folks, don't forget, the present AOC legislation was only ever intended for RPT, not charter, but its application has been extended by the CASA micro managers well beyond the original intentions.
Tootle pip!!
Most of Part 135 is ok but the following is "new" and "interesting":
The future requirements for joyflight operations just seems confusing and contradictory 
# the requirement for all aircraft that operate under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) when carrying 6 or more passengers to be equipped with a Terrain Awareness Warning System class B (TAWS B); 
# pilot experience requirements replaced by requirements for the operator to train its pilots for their unique operation and certify them as competent before undertaking unsupervised flights - this will apply to inexperienced pilots as well as those new to an operator (essentially moving away from flight hours as the qualifier and applying a competency based process)
;
# all flight crew members to be subject to recurrent training and checking requirements, scaled to the nature and complexity of the operation;
...
# pilot experience requirements replaced by requirements for the operator to train its pilots for their unique operation and certify them as competent before undertaking unsupervised flights - this will apply to inexperienced pilots as well as those new to an operator (essentially moving away from flight hours as the qualifier and applying a competency based process)
;# all flight crew members to be subject to recurrent training and checking requirements, scaled to the nature and complexity of the operation;
...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waren 9 35 years to do 14k hours? Where do I get a job like that?!
. The "great times". Flying training all day (6 days) and finish with a night mail run which went for 4 hrs EVERY night but sat /sun. Rain/hail/snow or moonlight !!
. The "great times". Flying training all day (6 days) and finish with a night mail run which went for 4 hrs EVERY night but sat /sun. Rain/hail/snow or moonlight !!
Once again, CASA gives itself unfettered discretion to do exactly what it likes:
From CASA website:
And from Leafblowers quote:
Starting from the bolded words at the top;
Exactly what is required? Does the legislation spell out, in words of one syllable, how an operator determine exactly what they need to do to comply in advance? and without any "interpretation" from CASA?
Who decides what is "innovative", "unforeseen", "Appropriate" and "warranted" CASA? How do they do this? How does this "protect" anyone?
Who decides what is "unique?" The CASA tea lady?
Who decides which "scale" to use.
If these regulations were from a flea bitten African or Middle Eastern Country I think I could be forgiven for thinking that their deliberately opaque and imprecise wording was designed to allow officials to extract the maximum possible bribes from operators.
However since I wouldn't accuse CASA of such motivation, all I can think of is that the regulations are written to maximise the "psychic income' of officials be giving them unfettered powers to extract the maximum of suffering and fear out of operators.
To put it another way; It is exactly this type of lack of certainty that increases the risk of having anything to do with aviation. In my own case, and while its trivial, it is keeping me from shelling out for a kit aircraft, since "operating conditions" that vitiate the purpose of having the aircraft can be imposed at the whim of CASA, and there is no crystal clear guidance as to exactly what I have to do to avoid having "operating conditions" imposed, it's up to the whim of CASA on the day.
From CASA website:
New CASR Parts 119, 121, 129, 131, 133 and 135 will be drafted also to authorise CASA to require, by legislative instrument, additional types of passenger-carrying activities to comply with the requirements of these Parts. This would enable CASA to protect ‘passengers’ by responding quickly to innovative and unforeseen arrangements put in place by operators and ensure appropriate standards are applied to all passenger-carrying activities that warranted regulation to that level.
# pilot experience requirements replaced by requirements for the operator to train its pilots for their unique operation and certify them as competent before undertaking unsupervised flights - this will apply to inexperienced pilots as well as those new to an operator (essentially moving away from flight hours as the qualifier and applying a competency based process) ;
# all flight crew members to be subject to recurrent training and checking requirements, scaled to the nature and complexity of the operation;
# all flight crew members to be subject to recurrent training and checking requirements, scaled to the nature and complexity of the operation;
Starting from the bolded words at the top;
Exactly what is required? Does the legislation spell out, in words of one syllable, how an operator determine exactly what they need to do to comply in advance? and without any "interpretation" from CASA?
Who decides what is "innovative", "unforeseen", "Appropriate" and "warranted" CASA? How do they do this? How does this "protect" anyone?
Who decides what is "unique?" The CASA tea lady?
Who decides which "scale" to use.
If these regulations were from a flea bitten African or Middle Eastern Country I think I could be forgiven for thinking that their deliberately opaque and imprecise wording was designed to allow officials to extract the maximum possible bribes from operators.
However since I wouldn't accuse CASA of such motivation, all I can think of is that the regulations are written to maximise the "psychic income' of officials be giving them unfettered powers to extract the maximum of suffering and fear out of operators.
To put it another way; It is exactly this type of lack of certainty that increases the risk of having anything to do with aviation. In my own case, and while its trivial, it is keeping me from shelling out for a kit aircraft, since "operating conditions" that vitiate the purpose of having the aircraft can be imposed at the whim of CASA, and there is no crystal clear guidance as to exactly what I have to do to avoid having "operating conditions" imposed, it's up to the whim of CASA on the day.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the "Vibe" Your Honour
It is supposedly a move a way from the overly prescriptive regs, you know the ones that a lot of operators say don't suit their particular operation to, within broader requirements, having the operator specifiy their requirements, giving reasonable justification to CASA, so that CASA and the travelling public are assured of an equivalent level of safety.
It is called "Outcome based legislation"
You (the bulk of industry) asked for it, you are getting it!
It is called "Outcome based legislation"
You (the bulk of industry) asked for it, you are getting it!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
I'm sure you've already thought of it, but why not
1. Get a NZ licence via the TTMRA
2. Get your kit plane and paint ZK on it instead of VH.
3. Live and fly in 'Straya happily ever after
...........?
Anyone see any holes?
I'm sure you've already thought of it, but why not
1. Get a NZ licence via the TTMRA
2. Get your kit plane and paint ZK on it instead of VH.
3. Live and fly in 'Straya happily ever after
...........?
Anyone see any holes?
It is supposedly a move a way from the overly prescriptive regs, you know the ones that a lot of operators say don't suit their particular operation to, within broader requirements, having the operator specifiy their requirements, giving reasonable justification to CASA, so that CASA and the travelling public are assured of an equivalent level of safety.
It is called "Outcome based legislation"
You (the bulk of industry) asked for it, you are getting it!
It is called "Outcome based legislation"
You (the bulk of industry) asked for it, you are getting it!
Jumping at shadows
I suggest some of you need to read more legislation.
The OHS legislation is a good example - it doesn't tell you how to have a safe workplace - it simply creates a legal obligation on an employer to provide a safe place of work, safe equipment, safe procedures, and appropriate training. You must also have a systematic approach to controlling risk within your organisation.
Yes, the OHS legislation in your state applies to your aviation business too.
...sounds a lot like a Safety Management System, doesn't it?
Under the NSW OHS law, an accident causing a serious injury or a fatality is prima facie evidence of a breach of the NSW OHS Act - you have failed to provide a safe place of work.
The CASRs will be taking the same approach - not telling you how to write an operations manual but telling you what the outcome needs to be.
Not telling you how many hours your pilots must have, but putting the onus on you to determine when they're competent.
Not telling you how much Check & Training you need, but putting the onus on you to have a system that is adequate for your size and scale of operation.
Incidents and accidents will be prima facie evidence of a system failure and yes, if you have an accident it's because your organisation did something wrong.
As for the "new" requirements - Good operators are doing this stuff already
The OHS legislation is a good example - it doesn't tell you how to have a safe workplace - it simply creates a legal obligation on an employer to provide a safe place of work, safe equipment, safe procedures, and appropriate training. You must also have a systematic approach to controlling risk within your organisation.
Yes, the OHS legislation in your state applies to your aviation business too.
...sounds a lot like a Safety Management System, doesn't it?
Under the NSW OHS law, an accident causing a serious injury or a fatality is prima facie evidence of a breach of the NSW OHS Act - you have failed to provide a safe place of work.
The CASRs will be taking the same approach - not telling you how to write an operations manual but telling you what the outcome needs to be.
Not telling you how many hours your pilots must have, but putting the onus on you to determine when they're competent.
Not telling you how much Check & Training you need, but putting the onus on you to have a system that is adequate for your size and scale of operation.
Incidents and accidents will be prima facie evidence of a system failure and yes, if you have an accident it's because your organisation did something wrong.
As for the "new" requirements - Good operators are doing this stuff already
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East of YRTI
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horatio L: Andy RR- Ex FSO G etc. .
Haven't heard the real concern that the industry should be talkin about - and that is that the proposed/new piece of sh.. -woops - sorry - should read legislation, once again puts the industry totally into the hands of each and every CASA individual that might wish to pplace their own interpretation on each specific operation. So- although your operation might be kosher in Vic, go to Qld, and chances are that a different FOI would probably decide that what you are doing doesn't comply.
And don't even think of going anywhere near YSBK, your pilot will probably get done over because some FOI's mate reckoned there was booze on your breath about 6 months ago.
The industry should be insisting (IMHO) on a clear cut, unambiguous template that could be applied to all operations on a sliding scale. If the boxes are ticked, all over.
Yep, this has been on the cards for quite some time. If you chose to ignore it, then you will get what you asked for.
It would be far more effective if, and that is a BLOODY BIG if, the responsible players in the industry could band together and present the regulator with their own protocol that encompassed the new requirements.
The nay sayers and prophets of doom will, no doubt, tip a couple of truck loads of stuff onto this suggestion.
I would have only one observation - where are you now, and where are you going to be in 5 years time?
QUID FACIENDUM?
And don't even think of going anywhere near YSBK, your pilot will probably get done over because some FOI's mate reckoned there was booze on your breath about 6 months ago.
The industry should be insisting (IMHO) on a clear cut, unambiguous template that could be applied to all operations on a sliding scale. If the boxes are ticked, all over.
Yep, this has been on the cards for quite some time. If you chose to ignore it, then you will get what you asked for.
It would be far more effective if, and that is a BLOODY BIG if, the responsible players in the industry could band together and present the regulator with their own protocol that encompassed the new requirements.
The nay sayers and prophets of doom will, no doubt, tip a couple of truck loads of stuff onto this suggestion.
I would have only one observation - where are you now, and where are you going to be in 5 years time?
QUID FACIENDUM?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try this
"OK, then how about prescribing what the outcomes need to be and let the operators go about achieving this? Where does CASA's beloved strict liability fit into this philosophy anyway?"
What about, " Thou shalt not SCARE ANYBODY, HURT ANYBODY or BREAK ANYTHING
Prescriptive enough?
What about, " Thou shalt not SCARE ANYBODY, HURT ANYBODY or BREAK ANYTHING
Prescriptive enough?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horatio
You describe a situation where the law makers refuse to acknowledge that true accidents happen.
If anything happens, someone somewhere must be at fault.
Oh dear.
You describe a situation where the law makers refuse to acknowledge that true accidents happen.
If anything happens, someone somewhere must be at fault.
Oh dear.
Accidents?
G'day Waren9,
All accidents and incidents are caused, proximally or distally, by the act or omission of a human being or a group of human beings.
Interestingly the British Medical Journal has an editorial policy of banning the word "accident" in the interests of emphasising that point - specifically, to focus attention on what would otherwise be referred to as an "accidental death" in surgery.
"True accidents". How would you learn from, or avoid, or mitigate the outcomes of a "true accident"?
All accidents and incidents are caused, proximally or distally, by the act or omission of a human being or a group of human beings.
Interestingly the British Medical Journal has an editorial policy of banning the word "accident" in the interests of emphasising that point - specifically, to focus attention on what would otherwise be referred to as an "accidental death" in surgery.
"True accidents". How would you learn from, or avoid, or mitigate the outcomes of a "true accident"?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fair go ?? I wonder.
Quote – Sunfish: "If these regulations were from a flea bitten African or Middle Eastern Country I think I could be forgiven for thinking that their deliberately opaque and imprecise wording was designed to allow officials to extract the maximum possible bribes from operators".
Quote – Sunfish: However since I wouldn't accuse CASA of such motivation, all I can think of is that the regulations are written to maximize the "psychic income' of officials be giving them unfettered powers to extract the maximum of suffering and fear out of operators.
This is a fair comparison to the system in Oz. Systemic corruption, writ large. Just not paid out in shekels or camels.
The 'Safety' catch cry allows the Administrative Authority to extract all manner of compromises, bully operators and tailor make operational 'standards' to suit the individual FOI who dreamed them up. This new system of interpretation will simply be subjected to further corruption. If it wasn't so, we wouldn't be getting it.
This will further allow individual officials to decide what is 'acceptable' to the administrator, no matter how well the reg's are written. Unless the department becomes responsible to the industry for enforced changes, provide written directives which can be supported by legislation and are required to justify and be responsible for increased costs, we remain doomed.
I am very much a supporter of clearly defined outcome based legislation and competency based qualification, but, the Administrator needs to be limited to compliance only, not operational management. Discussion, sure, every time BUT If the operator carries the can, the operator can make the decisions. The aged and venerable "think safety is expensive, try having an accident" always made good sense to me.
Until we (the industry) remove the latitude for personal preferences to be enforced, vendettas to be continued, proxy, arbitrary decisions to be made against the personal interpretation, or the preference of one person, or achieve a measure of control over the department administering the industry, regulatory abuse will continue on it's merry way, with the industry paying for it.
Selah.
Quote – Sunfish: However since I wouldn't accuse CASA of such motivation, all I can think of is that the regulations are written to maximize the "psychic income' of officials be giving them unfettered powers to extract the maximum of suffering and fear out of operators.
This is a fair comparison to the system in Oz. Systemic corruption, writ large. Just not paid out in shekels or camels.
The 'Safety' catch cry allows the Administrative Authority to extract all manner of compromises, bully operators and tailor make operational 'standards' to suit the individual FOI who dreamed them up. This new system of interpretation will simply be subjected to further corruption. If it wasn't so, we wouldn't be getting it.
This will further allow individual officials to decide what is 'acceptable' to the administrator, no matter how well the reg's are written. Unless the department becomes responsible to the industry for enforced changes, provide written directives which can be supported by legislation and are required to justify and be responsible for increased costs, we remain doomed.
I am very much a supporter of clearly defined outcome based legislation and competency based qualification, but, the Administrator needs to be limited to compliance only, not operational management. Discussion, sure, every time BUT If the operator carries the can, the operator can make the decisions. The aged and venerable "think safety is expensive, try having an accident" always made good sense to me.
Until we (the industry) remove the latitude for personal preferences to be enforced, vendettas to be continued, proxy, arbitrary decisions to be made against the personal interpretation, or the preference of one person, or achieve a measure of control over the department administering the industry, regulatory abuse will continue on it's merry way, with the industry paying for it.
Selah.
Sunfish
Basically, any incident will be criminalised.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All accidents and incidents are caused, proximally or distally, by the act or omission of a human being or a group of human beings.
Disagree mate. It would be true if man knew everything and was master of of his universe. We aren't, and we don't.
Granted, we know a lot about our environment and can control a lot of circumstances, but the fact remains we must acknowledge we dont know everything yet.
The premise you describe basically takes a zero tolerance to risk. It is not possible to get out of bed in the morning without taking some level of risk.
If the law makers do not accept any risk in aviation, they must ban it.