50 operators closed down.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALARM at ALARP?
Outcome based legislation is based at operator's becoming more proactive in managing risk to As Low As Reasonably Practicable rather than the broad-brush prescriptive legislation that exists today.
As long as the regulator sees that there is at least an equivalent level of safety to operations under existing legislation and there is justification supplied and argued effectively by the operator for the change then it will be accepted. FRMS is a case in point.
As long as the regulator sees that there is at least an equivalent level of safety to operations under existing legislation and there is justification supplied and argued effectively by the operator for the change then it will be accepted. FRMS is a case in point.
Quote:
Basically, any incident will be criminalised.
.... where does it say that?
Basically, any incident will be criminalised.
.... where does it say that?
Have a look at the "new" maintenance rules to see how it is done, with all the largely un-consulted Manual of Standards "made" as regulation by Legislative Instrument.
Every company's Exposition ( French for manual) has to describe in excruciating detail how every function in a maintenance procedure is to be carried out, and any variation detected will be a strict liability criminal offense.
flying spike,
If you think what is being described is outcome (more correctly -performance based) based regulation, you obviously have no understanding of outcome/performance based regulation.
In a country that has suffered aviation legislation prescriptive and criminalized like nowhere else, what we are seeing is prescriptive strict liability criminal law regulation like never before.
Sunfish has got it correct.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled
As a business owner and operator I am worried to death about the new maintenance regulations.
From what the AMROBA members have told me, the maintenance regs are a massive shift in a different direction to the operational regs.
That said, there is massive panic about the Ops Regs that I think is unjustified. Given that maintenance is not my field, perhaps I my understanding of Maintenance regs is limited?
If it s so bad (and I accept there are many with that opinion), why isn't there more said about it? Why isn't AOPA doing more about it? (Oh that's right they're the Private Pilots club, not the operators club)
I have only so much emotion to invest in my business and there's no point wasting it on things I can't change
From what the AMROBA members have told me, the maintenance regs are a massive shift in a different direction to the operational regs.
That said, there is massive panic about the Ops Regs that I think is unjustified. Given that maintenance is not my field, perhaps I my understanding of Maintenance regs is limited?
If it s so bad (and I accept there are many with that opinion), why isn't there more said about it? Why isn't AOPA doing more about it? (Oh that's right they're the Private Pilots club, not the operators club)
I have only so much emotion to invest in my business and there's no point wasting it on things I can't change
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead slead
I will bow to your obviously superior understanding of outcome based legislation if you can explain it to me so even I can understand. Or if I can put it another way, just why is it you believe the sky is falling?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He likes you bowing to him 
And he explained it to you.......in French, no less.
I once had a LAME do some work on my aircraft. When he put the priming lines back on there were a few 'extra' crimps. It was only by chance that I spotted the fuel p!ssing all over the exhaust pipe (cold thank Christ) A student was priming while I was closing the cowl. If I hadn't seen that somebody WOULD have primed while the exhaust was hot in the future.
This wasn't an 'accident'
This LAME could have done with an 'Exposition' detailing how to ensure he didn't burn the aircraft to peices.
Bit of 'strict liability' may have seen him fix his f@ck up rather than send some priming line down in the mail with a 'sorry mate'
And he explained it to you.......in French, no less.
I once had a LAME do some work on my aircraft. When he put the priming lines back on there were a few 'extra' crimps. It was only by chance that I spotted the fuel p!ssing all over the exhaust pipe (cold thank Christ) A student was priming while I was closing the cowl. If I hadn't seen that somebody WOULD have primed while the exhaust was hot in the future.
This wasn't an 'accident'
This LAME could have done with an 'Exposition' detailing how to ensure he didn't burn the aircraft to peices.
Bit of 'strict liability' may have seen him fix his f@ck up rather than send some priming line down in the mail with a 'sorry mate'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rose colored "vision splendid".
Spikey, Spikey, Spikey, I want a pint of whatever your having, must be good stuff. Only a CASA zealot or a naive newcomer to the industry would even give two minutes of credence to your "Babes in toy land" beliefs. Benefit of doubt rule applied, once.
"As long as the regulator sees that there is at least an equivalent level of safety to operations under existing legislation and there is justification supplied and argued effectively by the operator for the change then it will be accepted. FRMS is a case in point".
Bollocks. Who defines the "equivalent" level of safety, who decides if it is justified, who decides if an argument is effective, who decides to accept the changes, the bloody reg's don't. So, it's left even more wide open to individual interpretation, arse covering inevitably follows. Stupid changes enforced to make the Administrator feel warm and comfy. Nothing even remotely like your whimsical scenario will occur as long as there is stark reality, human nature and one serviceable aircraft on the planet.
Read Sunfish for reality fix, read Lead Sled for the 'way things are' fix. Take a back bearing on that, then talk to some operators, if they know and trust you, you'll get a shock. Then come back and tell us a 'true' believers tale of truth, justice and the Australian CASA way.
"As long as the regulator sees that there is at least an equivalent level of safety to operations under existing legislation and there is justification supplied and argued effectively by the operator for the change then it will be accepted. FRMS is a case in point".
Bollocks. Who defines the "equivalent" level of safety, who decides if it is justified, who decides if an argument is effective, who decides to accept the changes, the bloody reg's don't. So, it's left even more wide open to individual interpretation, arse covering inevitably follows. Stupid changes enforced to make the Administrator feel warm and comfy. Nothing even remotely like your whimsical scenario will occur as long as there is stark reality, human nature and one serviceable aircraft on the planet.
Read Sunfish for reality fix, read Lead Sled for the 'way things are' fix. Take a back bearing on that, then talk to some operators, if they know and trust you, you'll get a shock. Then come back and tell us a 'true' believers tale of truth, justice and the Australian CASA way.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spike,
If CASA thinks we, the industry asked for these changes, you know with even more subjective grey areas, they got it quite wrong.
Lets not even look at the criminalisation for the moment.
For many years the "industry" has been complaining about the subjective nature of the current legislation, and how guidance material is used as legislation (AOCM, MOS).
Two FOI's / AWI's will "interpret" the same scribble in current legislation in two very very different ways, and through what appears at times to be underhanded tactics, will enforce these.
This is why there is a great deal of mistrust between a very large proportion of the industry and CASA.
Imagine if the Police could arrest and fine you just because they didn't like what you were doing, irrespective of having broken an actual written in black and white law.
As has been pointed out so many times it is boring to read about, CAR 206 and many other regulations have been interpretted, mis-interpretted, explained, re-explained and so on, yet there is still a huge amount of uncertainty as to what it actually means, and worst of all, enforced differently depending of who is talking and what their personal opinion happens to be on that particular day.
In my humble opinion the first step in clearing up these issues would be to remove the OLC and turn their office space into something more useful like a childcare centre or broom closet.
Clear, concise and prescriptive legislation is what is required, in plain english would be even better, not opaque and criminalising blanket type legislation. The later will foster the hiding of issues and the destruction of safety through evolution of procedures.
It really should not be that hard ?, sure, the regulatory reform process has cost how much and dragged on for how long is it now ?, and achieved exactly what ?.
If CASA thinks we, the industry asked for these changes, you know with even more subjective grey areas, they got it quite wrong.
Lets not even look at the criminalisation for the moment.
For many years the "industry" has been complaining about the subjective nature of the current legislation, and how guidance material is used as legislation (AOCM, MOS).
Two FOI's / AWI's will "interpret" the same scribble in current legislation in two very very different ways, and through what appears at times to be underhanded tactics, will enforce these.
This is why there is a great deal of mistrust between a very large proportion of the industry and CASA.
Imagine if the Police could arrest and fine you just because they didn't like what you were doing, irrespective of having broken an actual written in black and white law.
As has been pointed out so many times it is boring to read about, CAR 206 and many other regulations have been interpretted, mis-interpretted, explained, re-explained and so on, yet there is still a huge amount of uncertainty as to what it actually means, and worst of all, enforced differently depending of who is talking and what their personal opinion happens to be on that particular day.
In my humble opinion the first step in clearing up these issues would be to remove the OLC and turn their office space into something more useful like a childcare centre or broom closet.
Clear, concise and prescriptive legislation is what is required, in plain english would be even better, not opaque and criminalising blanket type legislation. The later will foster the hiding of issues and the destruction of safety through evolution of procedures.
It really should not be that hard ?, sure, the regulatory reform process has cost how much and dragged on for how long is it now ?, and achieved exactly what ?.
Last edited by Stink Finger; 24th Jan 2011 at 04:10.
It is going to take not one, but three or four major hull losses with great loss of life before there is any possibility of substantive change, and even then that change will probably be in the wrong direction, further criminalising Aviation activity.
Whoever dreamed up the structure of Australian Aviation legislation, and the regulations made under them has cost Australia hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, in costs. Those costs are not only compliance costs and attempts at obtaining natural justice and procedural fairness, but more importantly opportunity costs - investments that were never made - opportunities gone begging because of the complexity of attempting to comply with badly written draconian legislation and regulations, interpreted by mean spirited, narrow minded individuals.
By way of example, discussion with one of the owners of Gippsland Aeronautics revealed that CASA put up every obstacle it possibly could against the certification of the GA8 Airvan - and you wonder why there isn't a thriving aviation based manufacturing industry in this country?
In my own limited case, if I knew a few years ago what I know now about CASA, I would have saved my money and not bothered with a pilots licence. As it is, I have been looking at acquiring an LSA designed kit aircraft to build for entertainment and limited transport and I still can't get any certainty about operational limitations. The only certainty I can get is that RAA is limited to 544kg, and will most probably continue in that manner till hell freezes over.
I've talked to a maintenance manager regarding CASA and regulations and compliance. I asked him what do do about something I had done some years ago that I now realised was "non compliant" (not directly safety related). He shrugged his shoulders and just said "Forget about it. If they decide to get you for something, it won't matter whether you were compliant or not, they will simply find something else to hang you with".
The way the regulations are structured is a diabolical lawyers delight. Everything is prohibited. Everything is a "strict liability" offence. Aviation is then only enabled by "exceptions" to the blanket prohibition.
What then happens is that there is a great yawning chasm where specific information on how to comply with the exemptions should be.
The outcome is that you are automatically guilty of an offence if your method of compliance with the exemption is judged by an individual to be insufficient. This is unjust, unfair, corrupt, crooked and stupid.
Of course if you are a CASA lawyer, such a state of affairs has much to recommend it because they structure of the legislation and regulations is such that it provides you with a constant stream of referrals since every non conformance detected is a prosecutable criminal offence.
There is no question of "Mens Rea" - Guilty mind, involved once strict liability is invoked. There is no question of a motive at all. This leaves public servants free to prosecute based on their personal whim, no matter what CASA's "enforcement Policy" says - and even that involves, through its "show cause" process, a complete denial of natural justice.
The Commonwealth Law website is down, which means I can't post examples of what I mean.
Whoever dreamed up the structure of Australian Aviation legislation, and the regulations made under them has cost Australia hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, in costs. Those costs are not only compliance costs and attempts at obtaining natural justice and procedural fairness, but more importantly opportunity costs - investments that were never made - opportunities gone begging because of the complexity of attempting to comply with badly written draconian legislation and regulations, interpreted by mean spirited, narrow minded individuals.
By way of example, discussion with one of the owners of Gippsland Aeronautics revealed that CASA put up every obstacle it possibly could against the certification of the GA8 Airvan - and you wonder why there isn't a thriving aviation based manufacturing industry in this country?
In my own limited case, if I knew a few years ago what I know now about CASA, I would have saved my money and not bothered with a pilots licence. As it is, I have been looking at acquiring an LSA designed kit aircraft to build for entertainment and limited transport and I still can't get any certainty about operational limitations. The only certainty I can get is that RAA is limited to 544kg, and will most probably continue in that manner till hell freezes over.
I've talked to a maintenance manager regarding CASA and regulations and compliance. I asked him what do do about something I had done some years ago that I now realised was "non compliant" (not directly safety related). He shrugged his shoulders and just said "Forget about it. If they decide to get you for something, it won't matter whether you were compliant or not, they will simply find something else to hang you with".
The way the regulations are structured is a diabolical lawyers delight. Everything is prohibited. Everything is a "strict liability" offence. Aviation is then only enabled by "exceptions" to the blanket prohibition.
What then happens is that there is a great yawning chasm where specific information on how to comply with the exemptions should be.
The outcome is that you are automatically guilty of an offence if your method of compliance with the exemption is judged by an individual to be insufficient. This is unjust, unfair, corrupt, crooked and stupid.
Of course if you are a CASA lawyer, such a state of affairs has much to recommend it because they structure of the legislation and regulations is such that it provides you with a constant stream of referrals since every non conformance detected is a prosecutable criminal offence.
There is no question of "Mens Rea" - Guilty mind, involved once strict liability is invoked. There is no question of a motive at all. This leaves public servants free to prosecute based on their personal whim, no matter what CASA's "enforcement Policy" says - and even that involves, through its "show cause" process, a complete denial of natural justice.
The Commonwealth Law website is down, which means I can't post examples of what I mean.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, wouldn't be luverly.
If, the ATSB used it's new legal muscles and had a look into the systemic failures which are directly attributable to the CASA. A truth meter would be a gift from above.
Stuff like arbitrary:- ordering / approving (of course verbal ) changes to AFM check systems, I can think of three that I know of, not little "Grobs" either.
Offering a choice (play nice or loose your brief) of useless simulator OEI, or the real thing, during training for aircraft with no certified OEI performance. The ATSB are lucky to have (the only time in history) a surviving crew of a OEI training prang. There are questions that need to asked at the highest level on that episode.
Mandatory de stabilizing of final approach (blue line or bust). OEI decision height, no Joyce, not for us, not today.
Demanding, despite AFM warning stalling aircraft which the manufacturer states, categorically should only be done by qualified test pilots under tightly controlled conditions.
Approving check systems which don't get within a bulls roar of the AFM and then; in one place approving 'procedural' check systems and wildly decrying the same procedure 300 miles away.
One guy insisting an aircraft be operated under 20.7.4 another insisting the same aircraft must be operated multi crew, while the left hand is merrily spruking CAO 20.7.1B. just down the track.
It's a cynical joke, you need to restructure the asylum before giving the inmates a nice shiny, sharp new toy to use. Although, then again, they may just cut themselves. All those in favor of tough love, hands up.
If the pollies can't or wont do it, perhaps the ATSB can. This time bomb (not if but when) has a real potential to create a political nightmare for the incumbent Minister. Remember SEAVIEW, that should have brought down a government, never mind the hapless suit stuffed in the 'hot seat'. Poison chalice. You bet.
Fetch the buggy Joyce, but leave the rocks, Tempus fugit.
Stuff like arbitrary:- ordering / approving (of course verbal ) changes to AFM check systems, I can think of three that I know of, not little "Grobs" either.
Offering a choice (play nice or loose your brief) of useless simulator OEI, or the real thing, during training for aircraft with no certified OEI performance. The ATSB are lucky to have (the only time in history) a surviving crew of a OEI training prang. There are questions that need to asked at the highest level on that episode.
Mandatory de stabilizing of final approach (blue line or bust). OEI decision height, no Joyce, not for us, not today.
Demanding, despite AFM warning stalling aircraft which the manufacturer states, categorically should only be done by qualified test pilots under tightly controlled conditions.
Approving check systems which don't get within a bulls roar of the AFM and then; in one place approving 'procedural' check systems and wildly decrying the same procedure 300 miles away.
One guy insisting an aircraft be operated under 20.7.4 another insisting the same aircraft must be operated multi crew, while the left hand is merrily spruking CAO 20.7.1B. just down the track.
It's a cynical joke, you need to restructure the asylum before giving the inmates a nice shiny, sharp new toy to use. Although, then again, they may just cut themselves. All those in favor of tough love, hands up.
If the pollies can't or wont do it, perhaps the ATSB can. This time bomb (not if but when) has a real potential to create a political nightmare for the incumbent Minister. Remember SEAVIEW, that should have brought down a government, never mind the hapless suit stuffed in the 'hot seat'. Poison chalice. You bet.
Fetch the buggy Joyce, but leave the rocks, Tempus fugit.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East of YRTI
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An independant view
And don't start me on Checklist stuff. As I understand it, and I guess I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, a Manufacturers Checklist forms part of the original certification for an aircraft. If, then, the checklist is changed, (at the demand of a CASA FOI), does that then compromise the basis upon which the original certification was founded.
What then, in a court of law, or indeed, a worst case scenario, in a coroners court?
"Sir/Maam, can you please explain why it is that you considered that your preferences in regards to a checklist are better than the Manufacturers published Checklist?"
Respondent puts thumb in mouth and sucks hard.
"Well - - - eerrrr - - -um!"
Oh yeah - that scenario is currently being visited upon portions of the GA sector, with seemingly no resolution in sight.
Basically, change the Manufacturers checklist to the way I want it, or your 217 org approval and other stuff probably won't happen.
There are many who are struggling to
aqueam servare mentum
What then, in a court of law, or indeed, a worst case scenario, in a coroners court?
"Sir/Maam, can you please explain why it is that you considered that your preferences in regards to a checklist are better than the Manufacturers published Checklist?"
Respondent puts thumb in mouth and sucks hard.
"Well - - - eerrrr - - -um!"
Oh yeah - that scenario is currently being visited upon portions of the GA sector, with seemingly no resolution in sight.
Basically, change the Manufacturers checklist to the way I want it, or your 217 org approval and other stuff probably won't happen.
There are many who are struggling to
aqueam servare mentum
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder.
Just how deeply set in the rot is.
No one seems (justifiably) to trust the Politicians to even break wind properly on "Air Safety" issues. They will run a mile when they get told "Well minister, on your head be it". The old chestnut dragged out to scare children and technical NFI 's. The ICAO and FAA audit would scare the crap out of me if I was remotely publicly (politically) connected at ministerial level, yet, that small ticking bomb seem to have been swept under the rug. We won the prize for the best crash comic didn't we, It's a bit tragic really.
It is sadly impossible for anyone to trust the Administrator any longer. Rules which were written in good faith, years ago to serve an industry and provide guidance to "wise men' seem to be being used as a weapon of destruction, rather than a starting point for safety compliance. . Particularly in the face of world best practice which everyone else seems to be able to manage. It's a bit tragic really.
Could the ATSB be an answer to the pagans prayer, possibly, but where are the resources coming from. The ATSB report to the Senate beggars belief. They only had resources available to investigate 70 issues out of some (from memory) 8000 odd. That, stand alone, is a political hot potato. The public should be screaming for answers. "Oh we had the report m' lud, but we just couldn't get off the Big Q case in time to discover that Bloggs died because of a major design fault. It's a bit tragic really.
Perhaps, there is a voice of reason somewhere out there, I know there is a toof fairy, had a beer with Santa Christmas Eve and cuppa with the Queen only last Tuesday, so perhaps it's possible. Next week I'm going to afternoon tea with an honest, caring politician who promises to bring the mad dogs to heel.
Selah.
No one seems (justifiably) to trust the Politicians to even break wind properly on "Air Safety" issues. They will run a mile when they get told "Well minister, on your head be it". The old chestnut dragged out to scare children and technical NFI 's. The ICAO and FAA audit would scare the crap out of me if I was remotely publicly (politically) connected at ministerial level, yet, that small ticking bomb seem to have been swept under the rug. We won the prize for the best crash comic didn't we, It's a bit tragic really.
It is sadly impossible for anyone to trust the Administrator any longer. Rules which were written in good faith, years ago to serve an industry and provide guidance to "wise men' seem to be being used as a weapon of destruction, rather than a starting point for safety compliance. . Particularly in the face of world best practice which everyone else seems to be able to manage. It's a bit tragic really.
Could the ATSB be an answer to the pagans prayer, possibly, but where are the resources coming from. The ATSB report to the Senate beggars belief. They only had resources available to investigate 70 issues out of some (from memory) 8000 odd. That, stand alone, is a political hot potato. The public should be screaming for answers. "Oh we had the report m' lud, but we just couldn't get off the Big Q case in time to discover that Bloggs died because of a major design fault. It's a bit tragic really.
Perhaps, there is a voice of reason somewhere out there, I know there is a toof fairy, had a beer with Santa Christmas Eve and cuppa with the Queen only last Tuesday, so perhaps it's possible. Next week I'm going to afternoon tea with an honest, caring politician who promises to bring the mad dogs to heel.
Selah.
Last edited by Kharon; 26th Jan 2011 at 03:07.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Over the Rainbow
Age: 52
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sensible, for Pprune.
It's about time. What a great day to kick off the 'revolution', Australia day.
Some folks fight for independence, what did we do ?, Eureka Stockade, that was about it wasn't it. Except for Ned of course.
Much better effort required this time.
Some folks fight for independence, what did we do ?, Eureka Stockade, that was about it wasn't it. Except for Ned of course.
Much better effort required this time.
Beware wolves in sheeps clothing and feeding the trolls egos people...
Rose, Kharon - whatever you wish to call yourself each log-in.... If you keep up with the emotive diatribe, Dorothy Dixers and red herrings you might be surprised who might decide to write a short essay about your recent life and times on here and let the greater Pprune community decide if they'll keep listening to you trying to be their bestest mayte...
I usually don't ever write something here unless it is something good about someone however your ego and actions (and funnily enough, the lack of them) have put a significant number of people in this industry offside, and ultimately including those who pulled your approvals recently.
Enough.
I usually don't ever write something here unless it is something good about someone however your ego and actions (and funnily enough, the lack of them) have put a significant number of people in this industry offside, and ultimately including those who pulled your approvals recently.
Enough.
Folks,
Read Sunfish's last post again, have a really good think about what he said, then read it again ----
------ Particularly about the opportunity costs ---- and there is the reason for the stunted aviation industry in Australia.
Once upon a time, there was a thriving parts and components manufacturing and overhaul business in Australia, now most of it has gone, unless the organisation is big enough to have EASA and FAA approvals.
As of now, Australian certification (CASA paper) is no longer acceptable in most of SE Asia ---- accounting in large part for the demise of the many small businesses once engage in this export industry.
Even the revamped US/AU Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement has given no real respite, thanks to CASA "discouragement".
CASA isn't the only example of a very negative regulatory body, but it is the worst, because it trades on the holy cow of "air safety".
Even the flight training sector is a pale shadow of what it should be, while the sector booms in NZ/CA/US etc., and significant training hear moves to EASA certified organisations.
In a country with a chronic balance of payments deficit in the traded good sector, it is economic lunacy for Government regulation to squeeze the life out of what little is left of exporters in the sector.
If you go back through the CASA annual reports, it is not to hard to pick up the collapse in numbers of Certificate of Approval holders ----- and not to hard to verify the increasing number of organisation FAA/EASA certified, to ensure their survival in the export market.
It's all about sovereign risk, and the sovereign risk of dealing with CASA is a huge incremental cost in doing aviation business based in Australia.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Jack R., do you really think more regulation will make an incompetent LAME into a competent one.
For those of you who don't understand, all Australian aviation regulation is (but doesn't need to be) criminal law.
Read Sunfish's last post again, have a really good think about what he said, then read it again ----
------ Particularly about the opportunity costs ---- and there is the reason for the stunted aviation industry in Australia.
Once upon a time, there was a thriving parts and components manufacturing and overhaul business in Australia, now most of it has gone, unless the organisation is big enough to have EASA and FAA approvals.
As of now, Australian certification (CASA paper) is no longer acceptable in most of SE Asia ---- accounting in large part for the demise of the many small businesses once engage in this export industry.
Even the revamped US/AU Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement has given no real respite, thanks to CASA "discouragement".
CASA isn't the only example of a very negative regulatory body, but it is the worst, because it trades on the holy cow of "air safety".
Even the flight training sector is a pale shadow of what it should be, while the sector booms in NZ/CA/US etc., and significant training hear moves to EASA certified organisations.
In a country with a chronic balance of payments deficit in the traded good sector, it is economic lunacy for Government regulation to squeeze the life out of what little is left of exporters in the sector.
If you go back through the CASA annual reports, it is not to hard to pick up the collapse in numbers of Certificate of Approval holders ----- and not to hard to verify the increasing number of organisation FAA/EASA certified, to ensure their survival in the export market.
It's all about sovereign risk, and the sovereign risk of dealing with CASA is a huge incremental cost in doing aviation business based in Australia.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Jack R., do you really think more regulation will make an incompetent LAME into a competent one.
For those of you who don't understand, all Australian aviation regulation is (but doesn't need to be) criminal law.
Last edited by LeadSled; 27th Jan 2011 at 01:40.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only for myself may I speak
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing sword is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you.
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing sword is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems I have a PM.
From and old and much valued friend. The heathen, Paganini and fools have never, ever valued the benefits civilization, like the three RRR 's, but for our counterproductive friends and comrades in exile (As you like it act 2 scene 1). The following (I apologize, from memory E&OE) are some eloquent words, from which much may be learned.
Alas! poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; (me mate of course). (Hamlet, scene i).
I'll speak to it though Hell itself should gape
And bid me hold my peace. (Hamlet, scene ii).
And, if you can get anywhere near truth, as a concept:-
This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Hamlet, Act I, scene. iii.
Heigh Ho, back to the salt mines.
.
How are the horses Lillum, you left them out the finale yesterday. Safe home mate.
Alas! poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; (me mate of course). (Hamlet, scene i).
I'll speak to it though Hell itself should gape
And bid me hold my peace. (Hamlet, scene ii).
And, if you can get anywhere near truth, as a concept:-
This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Hamlet, Act I, scene. iii.
Heigh Ho, back to the salt mines.
.How are the horses Lillum, you left them out the finale yesterday. Safe home mate.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It can, get quite hot in the kitchen
Come in and try it, we do Latin, English a bit of German (lap dancing optional - we still have a soup scon of pride). Have a bit of fun and when requested or required, a bit of "'eavy lifti'n.
But consider, the abilty to switch between multiple failures, can you understand "multiple concepts", find a laugh for the crew and get the wrekage home, in one piece; if not leave the kitchen, now, before you burn your precious paws.
No prisoners Joyce, none.
But consider, the abilty to switch between multiple failures, can you understand "multiple concepts", find a laugh for the crew and get the wrekage home, in one piece; if not leave the kitchen, now, before you burn your precious paws.
No prisoners Joyce, none.
Last edited by Rose_Thorns; 27th Jan 2011 at 09:45. Reason: Forgot a bit, as usual.