Policy is not law – AAT buckets CASA decision
Thread Starter
Folks,
No names, no packdrill, but I was talking to a long time ago former Assistant Director of CASA, his comment about the Fice view on whether most of CAR 206 was about safety or commercial regulation ---- that it was all about commercial regulation.
The comment was: "We always knew that".
Tootle pip!!
PS: Contrary to what quite a few in CASA think, that the Seaview Inquiry recommended one standard of operation for all air transport, that is not what Judge Staunton said in the final Royal Commission report of CAA & Seaview Airlines.
What Judge Staunton effectively said was that charter or RPT operations in the same type of aircraft over the same routes should be operated to the same standard ----- a very different thing to saying there should be one standard for all "public transport" ---- something that is simply not possible, unless you are going to abandon all charter and small aircraft RPT operations to most of rural, regional and remote Australia.
The then chairman of the CASA Board, also a highly respected judge, Justice William Fisher, well understood the meaning of the Seaview recommendations.
No names, no packdrill, but I was talking to a long time ago former Assistant Director of CASA, his comment about the Fice view on whether most of CAR 206 was about safety or commercial regulation ---- that it was all about commercial regulation.
The comment was: "We always knew that".
Tootle pip!!
PS: Contrary to what quite a few in CASA think, that the Seaview Inquiry recommended one standard of operation for all air transport, that is not what Judge Staunton said in the final Royal Commission report of CAA & Seaview Airlines.
What Judge Staunton effectively said was that charter or RPT operations in the same type of aircraft over the same routes should be operated to the same standard ----- a very different thing to saying there should be one standard for all "public transport" ---- something that is simply not possible, unless you are going to abandon all charter and small aircraft RPT operations to most of rural, regional and remote Australia.
The then chairman of the CASA Board, also a highly respected judge, Justice William Fisher, well understood the meaning of the Seaview recommendations.
A number of CASA staff employed from the pre-1988 DCA era told me over a decade ago that CASA's interpretation of CAR206 was an "interpretation of convenience". They knew CAR206 had its roots in the pre 1988 ANRs, as Mr Fice suggests.
The internet provides various definitions of "aerial photography", including:
Not surprising, neither the Civil Aviation Act 1988 nor the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 provide any definition of the term "aerial photography" used in CAR206(1)(a)(iv).
I suspect an arbiter of Mr Fice's logical and rational reasoning would find "aerial photography" means operating a specially modified aircraft with fixed camera for the purposed of topographical mapping, generally requiring advanced piloting skills.
"Aerial photography" has no relationship to a photographer taking a photograph with a hand held camera out the side window of the aircraft. The difference between whether that photographer is an amateur or professional is irrelevant and is merely economic regulation by CASA, not safety regulation.
The internet provides various definitions of "aerial photography", including:
- Photographs of a part of the earth's surface taken by a camera mounted in an aircraft for mapping purposes. This usually consists of a series of overlapping vertical photos taken in strips which can form the basis for mapping. (Canadian Government definition.)
- A photograph of the Earth's surface taken with a camera that is mounted on the airplane. (US Government definition.)
Not surprising, neither the Civil Aviation Act 1988 nor the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 provide any definition of the term "aerial photography" used in CAR206(1)(a)(iv).
I suspect an arbiter of Mr Fice's logical and rational reasoning would find "aerial photography" means operating a specially modified aircraft with fixed camera for the purposed of topographical mapping, generally requiring advanced piloting skills.
"Aerial photography" has no relationship to a photographer taking a photograph with a hand held camera out the side window of the aircraft. The difference between whether that photographer is an amateur or professional is irrelevant and is merely economic regulation by CASA, not safety regulation.
Last edited by Torres; 29th Mar 2011 at 22:08.
Thread Starter
"Aerial photography" has no relationship to a photographer taking a photograph with a hand held camera out the side window of the aircraft. The difference between whether that photographer is an amateur or professional is irrelevant and is merely economic regulation by CASA, not safety regulation.
You will just love this one.
The wonderful line of logic runs thus: Only aircraft with a standard C.of A can be used for CAR 206/AOC purposes (not true), therefor Limited Cat. C.of A. or Experimental Exhibition cat. aircraft cannot be used as camera platforms, therefor the two favorite camera platforms (because you can open the canopy in flight) a T-6/Harvard or a T-28 cannot be used.
Bill McIntyre went one further, he claimed he had legal advice that, not only did you need a standard cat. photo. platform, but you could only take pics OF other standard cat. C.of A aircraft.
Presumably making all involved in the thousands of pics. of "warbirds" in many magazines guilty of strict liability offenses.
Why make life difficult, if you can make it bloody impossible.
That kind of thinking is alive and well in CASA today.
Tootle pip!!
r 206
Thank you Torres. Good to see others also gets the economic reg thing.
So I can be proud of my piloting skills then.
Was all quite simple really, GPS and all that; Mk 1 eyeball being redundant.
Altho to CASAs belief it was extremely dangerous, because.. and I quote..
"...what would happen if Mr x crashed into a school house" Exactly the same as anybody else, presumably. ??
".. he puts the aircraft on autopilot and goes down the back to operate the camera." !! You have to give these bul****ters top marks for imagination, a statement totally false and without a shred of evidence to back it up. Like Ive said before... any old BS will do, when CASA wants to make a "safety" case. The camera was set for 'auto' and all you did was push the start button UP FRONT.
".. and think of Mr xs aircraft as something he got off the dump, would you let your kids fly in that"? And with three or four hundred hourlies a year.. the WA CASA person displaying a similar IQ to the NQ ones who didnt even know what they were looking at either. WTF do they get them from???.
Just as well I wasn't in THAT clients office to hear this crap.!
I dont think these people who make these statements really know how lucky they are to be living in a free (sort of) and democratic (?) country, with mostly law abiding citizens.
Justice in many other countries is gained by very unpleasant means.
But I'll move on...to deal with the latest set of "story tellers".. legally.
So I can be proud of my piloting skills then.
Was all quite simple really, GPS and all that; Mk 1 eyeball being redundant.
Altho to CASAs belief it was extremely dangerous, because.. and I quote..
"...what would happen if Mr x crashed into a school house" Exactly the same as anybody else, presumably. ??
".. he puts the aircraft on autopilot and goes down the back to operate the camera." !! You have to give these bul****ters top marks for imagination, a statement totally false and without a shred of evidence to back it up. Like Ive said before... any old BS will do, when CASA wants to make a "safety" case. The camera was set for 'auto' and all you did was push the start button UP FRONT.
".. and think of Mr xs aircraft as something he got off the dump, would you let your kids fly in that"? And with three or four hundred hourlies a year.. the WA CASA person displaying a similar IQ to the NQ ones who didnt even know what they were looking at either. WTF do they get them from???.
Just as well I wasn't in THAT clients office to hear this crap.!
I dont think these people who make these statements really know how lucky they are to be living in a free (sort of) and democratic (?) country, with mostly law abiding citizens.
Justice in many other countries is gained by very unpleasant means.
But I'll move on...to deal with the latest set of "story tellers".. legally.
Originally Posted by Frank Arouet
Who needs evidence if we are exploring a hypothetical?
Originally Posted by LeadSled
PS: In the US, things like aerial photography, cloud seeding etc., generally where no passengers are carried for hire and reward, aircraft operate just under Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules.
Originally Posted by LeadSled
Large slabs of our "safety" regulation had their origins in regulating commercial operations, a legacy of DCA days, and nothing to do with "safety", but once they are on the books, it is very difficult to get rid of them, no bureaucracy ever gave up power without a fight.
Originally Posted by Torres
I suspect an arbiter of Mr Fice's logical and rational reasoning would find "aerial photography" means operating a specially modified aircraft with fixed camera for the purposed of topographical mapping, generally requiring advanced piloting skills.
"Aerial photography" has no relationship to a photographer taking a photograph with a hand held camera out the side window of the aircraft. The difference between whether that photographer is an amateur or professional is irrelevant and is merely economic regulation by CASA, not safety regulation.
"Aerial photography" has no relationship to a photographer taking a photograph with a hand held camera out the side window of the aircraft. The difference between whether that photographer is an amateur or professional is irrelevant and is merely economic regulation by CASA, not safety regulation.
ICAO "Annex 6 - Operation of Aircraft", describes aerial work as "An aircraft operation in which an aircraft is used for specialized services such as agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue, aerial advertisement, etc."
I do not think it is necessary to define what each of these operations are when the common meaning and usage of the words is more than adequate to cover the broad range of activities. The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines aerial as "relating to or using aircraft" and photography as "the process of making a permanent record of an image on light-sensitive film or some other sensitized material using visible light, X-rays, or some other form of radiant energy. "
To try and limit photography to "topographical mapping" would exclude a lot of the technology that is used today, and future technological advances, for example multi spectrum scanners and receivers are used for vegetation density index mapping (i.e. used in farming to decide when to harvest crops or by police looking for drug crops in a natural reserve) and LADIR.
ICAO does not refer to only "operating a specially modified aircraft" for any aerial work operation. You are claiming "interpretation of convenience" by CASA, your comments I would argue are also an "interpretation of convenience" to suit the stance you are taking.
The rules for taking photos from an Aircraft in Australia are no different to what is required overseas, and the requirements are not onerous. Aroa could easily legalise their work under the rules by hiring an instructor and aircraft from a flying school. Most flying schools are permitted to conduct photography and surveying under their AOCs.
The requirements to conduct aerial work extend beyond just "commercial" regulation, the aircraft needs to have a different airworthiness standard, and the pilot needs to have a different licence category, and fuel requirements are differnt. To ensure that the aircraft and pilot meet this requirement, CASA (as well as ICAO) require aerial work to be undertaken under an AOC, and the AOC holder is required to have adequate insurance.
This thread has drifted somewhat from a discussion on charter operations being hired by an interposed entity that advertises and sells seats, to trying to justify the blatant disregard of the rules by a PP(A)L holder wanting to conduct single pilot photography business.
The former is clearly a case of an organisation trying to work within the rules, the latter is a blatant disregard for the rules for their own economic gain that could potentially be putting the populated areas when they are flying over at risk.
Originally Posted by LeadSled
Only aircraft with a standard C.of A can be used for CAR 206/AOC purposes (not true), therefor Limited Cat. C.of A.
That would be like using an "aerial work" aircraft for "charter" operations, the requirements (e.g. instruments installed and needing to be serviceable) are different. BTW some T6 aircraft can have a normal CoA, they are covered under the Type Acceptance Certificate A253 http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...nload/a253.pdf .
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh;
Bloody pedant. The word "if" makes it hypothetical and to pander, (look that word up), to your ego, it was Stan, not Dick if you prefer.
I understand CASA were once given charge of a case where incriminating evidence strangely went missing. Perhaps if that person had the presence of mind to take photo's of it he may be able to wipe some smug looks off some smug faces. But then again, that would probably be a strict liability offense by some retrospective measure today.
One can't help but wonder about Wilga elevators and CASA claims when discussing incriminating photographs and arrogance.
If Dick takes photo's during his round the world helicopter fligh
I understand CASA were once given charge of a case where incriminating evidence strangely went missing. Perhaps if that person had the presence of mind to take photo's of it he may be able to wipe some smug looks off some smug faces. But then again, that would probably be a strict liability offense by some retrospective measure today.
One can't help but wonder about Wilga elevators and CASA claims when discussing incriminating photographs and arrogance.
Thread Starter
Folks,
In part SWH is correct, but it is not the whole story, as a careful reading of the Fice decision shows --- read the history lesson about protection of TAA, which had precisely naught to do with ICAO, and everything to do with post WWII Labor believing in Government owned monopolies for large slabs of the commercial activities of the nation, including transport (rail, air and sea), telecommunications, power and banking, not an exhaustive lift.
No country is required to implement all ICAO SARPs for domestic operation, although it is convenient for air transport. Don't forget "filing a difference" make Australia "compliant", and Australia files probably more than any other country.
The FAA approach to "hire and reward" is significantly different to Oz, for example a jump pilot here can be paid as a PPL, not so the US. Indeed, the FAA takes such a narrow view that a member of a formation team at Oshkosh cannot accept free "smoke oil" from sponsors, unless the pilot has a CPL, even if the aircraft is experimental exhibition certificate aircraft.Indeed, a PPL cannot even accept a free can of Coke and a hamburger from the organizers of an airshow.
The comments about C.of A./Certificate v. MR is off beam for the aircraft to which I was referring, and the curious interpretations of a former CASA senior exec.
All Limited Cat. aircraft in Oz. are maintained to a CASA approved maintenance schedule specific to the individual aircraft, and only one MR can be issued.
Last time I noticed, some aircraft used for SkyTyping had dual cat. C.of As, Limited and Restricted, the aerial work operations were/are conducted on the Restricted Cat. C.of A.
Another example of where our regulations are hellishly complicated and very subject to much variable "interpretation".
Tootle pip!!
In part SWH is correct, but it is not the whole story, as a careful reading of the Fice decision shows --- read the history lesson about protection of TAA, which had precisely naught to do with ICAO, and everything to do with post WWII Labor believing in Government owned monopolies for large slabs of the commercial activities of the nation, including transport (rail, air and sea), telecommunications, power and banking, not an exhaustive lift.
No country is required to implement all ICAO SARPs for domestic operation, although it is convenient for air transport. Don't forget "filing a difference" make Australia "compliant", and Australia files probably more than any other country.
The FAA approach to "hire and reward" is significantly different to Oz, for example a jump pilot here can be paid as a PPL, not so the US. Indeed, the FAA takes such a narrow view that a member of a formation team at Oshkosh cannot accept free "smoke oil" from sponsors, unless the pilot has a CPL, even if the aircraft is experimental exhibition certificate aircraft.Indeed, a PPL cannot even accept a free can of Coke and a hamburger from the organizers of an airshow.
The comments about C.of A./Certificate v. MR is off beam for the aircraft to which I was referring, and the curious interpretations of a former CASA senior exec.
All Limited Cat. aircraft in Oz. are maintained to a CASA approved maintenance schedule specific to the individual aircraft, and only one MR can be issued.
Last time I noticed, some aircraft used for SkyTyping had dual cat. C.of As, Limited and Restricted, the aerial work operations were/are conducted on the Restricted Cat. C.of A.
Another example of where our regulations are hellishly complicated and very subject to much variable "interpretation".
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Frank,
Spot on.
If we are non- compliant, the non-compliance notification makes the non-compliance a compliance, which then is in compliance with the ICAO compliance section of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, that says we should be ICAO compliant. So notifying non-compliance makes us compliant, thereby meaning that the non-compliance with the Act is in fact, not a non-compliant, but a compliance.
All too easy and straightforward, just like the rest of the "rules".
A favorite example is how we have (unless you employer has another system, say QANTAS) screwed young pilots by not letting them log hours the same way as their competitors for jobs in international jobs market.
Specifically, current Australian "rules" on logging ICUS - In command under supervision. The filed Australian difference results in a system that is fundamentally different to ICAO Annex I. It was not always the case, but some bureaucrat could not leave it alone.
In the rest of the aviation universe, a co-pilot/First Officer can log ICUS (aka. P1 u/s. Command Practice, term of choice in a particular country) as per ICAO Annex 1.
Not so Australia, so a young Oz pilot doesn't have the same clear experience record as a Pom, Kiwi, Canuck or even a Singaporean, to quote a few. Needles to say, the US system is even more simple and straightforward.
Just another way that the Aviation( and Australian bureaucracy in general) bureaucracy makes Australia increasingly uncompetitive.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I have no way to verify, I don't have time to go through all the ICAO Docs., but I was recently told that Australia now has almost 2000 differences.
Spot on.
If we are non- compliant, the non-compliance notification makes the non-compliance a compliance, which then is in compliance with the ICAO compliance section of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, that says we should be ICAO compliant. So notifying non-compliance makes us compliant, thereby meaning that the non-compliance with the Act is in fact, not a non-compliant, but a compliance.
All too easy and straightforward, just like the rest of the "rules".
A favorite example is how we have (unless you employer has another system, say QANTAS) screwed young pilots by not letting them log hours the same way as their competitors for jobs in international jobs market.
Specifically, current Australian "rules" on logging ICUS - In command under supervision. The filed Australian difference results in a system that is fundamentally different to ICAO Annex I. It was not always the case, but some bureaucrat could not leave it alone.
In the rest of the aviation universe, a co-pilot/First Officer can log ICUS (aka. P1 u/s. Command Practice, term of choice in a particular country) as per ICAO Annex 1.
Not so Australia, so a young Oz pilot doesn't have the same clear experience record as a Pom, Kiwi, Canuck or even a Singaporean, to quote a few. Needles to say, the US system is even more simple and straightforward.
Just another way that the Aviation( and Australian bureaucracy in general) bureaucracy makes Australia increasingly uncompetitive.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I have no way to verify, I don't have time to go through all the ICAO Docs., but I was recently told that Australia now has almost 2000 differences.
Last edited by LeadSled; 31st Mar 2011 at 06:41.
Rules, rules, more rules.. and 'bad law'.
SWH... you miss the point.
I am a Photographer-Aerial, (once) with my own business and my own aircraft. So why the hell would I want to hire an unsuitable aeroplane and a non-photography qualified instructor ...to do MY job. And most remote area places I went to, no such thing would have been available, anyway.
People used to contract me to take the photgraphs.. because I was good at it, and produced the required photographic results.
It's a one person operation. and I am the qualified photographer to know about producing the required photographic result. These days an autopilot, a monkey or even CASA person could do the flying bit.
But what do they know about the specialist photgraphic reqirements...
NOTHING.
CPLs are paying passenger qualified pilots, sure... but they also know SFA about the photographic requirements.
And pray, do tell me, what is it that a CPL does on a flight from A to B that a PPL doesn't do.? After 50 +years I have yet to find out.
CASA is a safety regulator (ha ha). Since it is my ar$e up there, I'm as interested in the safety aspects as anyone.
And if I can do that ok without recompense, then WTF has CASA got worry about if I make a dollar out of it.?
As Ive said before, quite frankly it (commerce) is none of their fn business.! they are supposed to be in the "safety" business...ONLY.
Ministers say it, The CAA Act says it, CEOs say 206 is a fcuk up, and now we find there was no "head of power" for there it to be commerce "law" either.
But why would any of the inmates of the (non) Aviation House LSG/OLC/ LSD funny farm do anything to rectify the long standing situation of wrong regulation,or bad law.
Cant be bothered? tied up in some other reg "brain snap"? or just too busy playing the para-legal parasites over the years, decades of, see below.
After 23 years of dicking about with the regs at great taxpayer expense, most of it ignoring Government requirements re simplicity, strict liabilty,the definition of a 'crime' and commerce, we, the industry has (to suffer) the monumental clusterfcuk that the rotten place is today.
Many individuals, businesses.. and Aviation in Oz are all the poorer for it.
A "Safety" Regulator,... my AR$E!
I am a Photographer-Aerial, (once) with my own business and my own aircraft. So why the hell would I want to hire an unsuitable aeroplane and a non-photography qualified instructor ...to do MY job. And most remote area places I went to, no such thing would have been available, anyway.
People used to contract me to take the photgraphs.. because I was good at it, and produced the required photographic results.
It's a one person operation. and I am the qualified photographer to know about producing the required photographic result. These days an autopilot, a monkey or even CASA person could do the flying bit.
But what do they know about the specialist photgraphic reqirements...
NOTHING.
CPLs are paying passenger qualified pilots, sure... but they also know SFA about the photographic requirements.
And pray, do tell me, what is it that a CPL does on a flight from A to B that a PPL doesn't do.? After 50 +years I have yet to find out.
CASA is a safety regulator (ha ha). Since it is my ar$e up there, I'm as interested in the safety aspects as anyone.
And if I can do that ok without recompense, then WTF has CASA got worry about if I make a dollar out of it.?
As Ive said before, quite frankly it (commerce) is none of their fn business.! they are supposed to be in the "safety" business...ONLY.
Ministers say it, The CAA Act says it, CEOs say 206 is a fcuk up, and now we find there was no "head of power" for there it to be commerce "law" either.
But why would any of the inmates of the (non) Aviation House LSG/OLC/ LSD funny farm do anything to rectify the long standing situation of wrong regulation,or bad law.
Cant be bothered? tied up in some other reg "brain snap"? or just too busy playing the para-legal parasites over the years, decades of, see below.
After 23 years of dicking about with the regs at great taxpayer expense, most of it ignoring Government requirements re simplicity, strict liabilty,the definition of a 'crime' and commerce, we, the industry has (to suffer) the monumental clusterfcuk that the rotten place is today.
Many individuals, businesses.. and Aviation in Oz are all the poorer for it.
A "Safety" Regulator,... my AR$E!
ps..swh.
Just re-read you post again....
You are either of CASA, or have their genetic disposition... to attempt to bring in issues to make a "safety" case..
You say..Re AWK.. a different airworthiness standard, differrent licence
category and different fuel requirements.
I say .. rubbish.
You say, blatant disregard of the "rules" for economic gain..!!
Wohooa.. capitalism?.. is that a strict liabilty "crime" as well. ?
So I say.. rubbish.
Because on the CASA web site then, and for many years after I got done, there were changes mooted there.. that what was "illegal" today would have been "legal" tomorrow.
If it ever was "legally" illegal in the first place..!!
SO... where was the fn Safety case.! There isnt one and there never was.!
And under the dead hand of a truly bereft bureaucrazy...Alas, the changes never came to pass.
And top marks for your "safety" "CASAerism"... re "potentially putting populated areas when flying over at risk." ( Cry Wolf, wolf... unsafe, unsafe!)
Well, bugger me... one would have thought EVERY aeroplane passing over any built up area presents a risk, however great or slight... whether flown by a PPL, CPL or ATPL. PVT, AWK, CHTR, RPT... the lot.
So, by definition, your implication is rubbish..conforming to CASA type.
IT IS CASA'S IMPERATIVE, BY WHATEVER MEANS OR STATEMENTS, TO IMPLY/ DEFAME/LIE ABOUT ANY ISSUE THAT THEY ARE CONFRONFRONTED WITH, THAT IT IS "UNSAFE".
You are either of CASA, or have their genetic disposition... to attempt to bring in issues to make a "safety" case..
You say..Re AWK.. a different airworthiness standard, differrent licence
category and different fuel requirements.
I say .. rubbish.
You say, blatant disregard of the "rules" for economic gain..!!
Wohooa.. capitalism?.. is that a strict liabilty "crime" as well. ?
So I say.. rubbish.
Because on the CASA web site then, and for many years after I got done, there were changes mooted there.. that what was "illegal" today would have been "legal" tomorrow.
If it ever was "legally" illegal in the first place..!!
SO... where was the fn Safety case.! There isnt one and there never was.!
And under the dead hand of a truly bereft bureaucrazy...Alas, the changes never came to pass.
And top marks for your "safety" "CASAerism"... re "potentially putting populated areas when flying over at risk." ( Cry Wolf, wolf... unsafe, unsafe!)
Well, bugger me... one would have thought EVERY aeroplane passing over any built up area presents a risk, however great or slight... whether flown by a PPL, CPL or ATPL. PVT, AWK, CHTR, RPT... the lot.
So, by definition, your implication is rubbish..conforming to CASA type.
IT IS CASA'S IMPERATIVE, BY WHATEVER MEANS OR STATEMENTS, TO IMPLY/ DEFAME/LIE ABOUT ANY ISSUE THAT THEY ARE CONFRONFRONTED WITH, THAT IT IS "UNSAFE".
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear rutan around,
Unfortunately, it would seem to be you I'm afraid. However, don't worry as I see you have a number of similarly minded friends on this thread.
Seek help ASAP.
All the best
Henry
Unfortunately, it would seem to be you I'm afraid. However, don't worry as I see you have a number of similarly minded friends on this thread.
Seek help ASAP.
All the best
Henry
LeadSled...
With the greatest of respect LeadSled, differences aren't actually published in ICAO Docs. They're published in the Supplements to the Annexes.
To save you time and bother looking through the Supplements to the Annexes, Australian differences are summarised in AIP Supplement H22/10 at:
Airservices Australia - Aeronautical Information Package (AIP)
I don't think there's 2,000 differences listed in the AIP SUP.
However, having said that, there still seem to be a huge amount of published differences for a Contracting State such as Australia, and which therefore seems to reflect the effete regulatory authority (CASA) that we are cursed with, and which seems to be totally incapable (unwilling or intransigent may be more accurate?) of making any headway whatsoever in accomplishing any meaningful regulatory reform that will/can align Australia's civil aviation regulations with 'best practice'.
I have no way to verify, I don't have time to go through all the ICAO Docs., but I was recently told that Australia now has almost 2000 differences.
To save you time and bother looking through the Supplements to the Annexes, Australian differences are summarised in AIP Supplement H22/10 at:
Airservices Australia - Aeronautical Information Package (AIP)
I don't think there's 2,000 differences listed in the AIP SUP.
However, having said that, there still seem to be a huge amount of published differences for a Contracting State such as Australia, and which therefore seems to reflect the effete regulatory authority (CASA) that we are cursed with, and which seems to be totally incapable (unwilling or intransigent may be more accurate?) of making any headway whatsoever in accomplishing any meaningful regulatory reform that will/can align Australia's civil aviation regulations with 'best practice'.
Originally Posted by Frank Arouet
The word "if" makes it hypothetical and to pander, (look that word up), to your ego, it was Stan, not Dick if you prefer.
It is possible to conduct around the world flights as private operations, it is done frequently with business jet style aircraft. Likewise a number of companies have their own aircraft and conduct private flights domestically.
I will not be drawn into commenting about specific flights or natural persons.
Originally Posted by LeadSled
If we are non- compliant, the non-compliance notification makes the non-compliance a compliance, which then is in compliance with the ICAO compliance section of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, that says we should be ICAO compliant. So notifying non-compliance makes us compliant, thereby meaning that the non-compliance with the Act is in fact, not a non-compliant, but a compliance.
Your post is somewhat misleading as it would suggest that the aerial work requirements are unique in Australia, that is not the case.
Originally Posted by aroa
I am a Photographer-Aerial, (once) with my own business and my own aircraft.
As a PP(A)L holder you are permitted under CAR 2 to take photographs from an aircraft, and to take passengers, but only as a private operation.
The restriction on any PP(A)L does not permit one to conduct aerial work, charter, or RPT. I do not know what operational category the MR was issued on their aircraft you had, possibly that could have also been restricted to private operations only.
This is very different to what started the discussion on this thread, we were discussing a legitimate GA operator with an AOC working within the rules as they are written, with CASAs interpretation of that law published as policy preventing them from conducting legal operations.
You trying to claim you were in the same boat, however you were not even close. You chose to conduct operations that were illegal for the class of licence you had, you chose to conduct operations that required an AOC. To use a colloquialism, you were a “dodgy GA operator”, and your actions undermined legitimate operators who have gone to the effort to get an AOC, and people who have earned a CP(A)L.
If you had a legitimate business, you would have had all the licences required to conduct the business legally, that includes a CP(A)L and an AOC. As you conducted an illegal business, you have left yourself open to being prosecuted not only by CASA, also by state and federal police for fraud. By your own admission, you have received money by deception, i.e. claiming that you are an aerial photography business and receiving money for the photos that you took.
Originally Posted by aroa
You are either of CASA, or have their genetic disposition... to attempt to bring in issues to make a "safety" case..
You will not get sympathy from legitimate AOC holders or CPL/ATPL holders for your actions. As this is a professional pilots forum, that would be most people here.
Originally Posted by aroa
You say..Re AWK.. a different airworthiness standard, differrent licence category and different fuel requirements.
I say .. rubbish.
I say .. rubbish.
A PP(A)L holder is only permitted to conduct private operations, a CP(A)L or higher can conduct private, aerial work, charter, and RPT operations.
As a private operation one is not required to carry any fixed or variable reserve fuel under CAR 234, the recommended fuel is listed in CAAP 234. Operations conducted under an AOC (i.e. aerial work) are required to carry the fuel as published in their operations manual as required under CAR 220.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you had a legitimate business, you would have had all the licences required to conduct the business legally, that includes a CP(A)L and an AOC. As you conducted an illegal business, you have left yourself open to being prosecuted not only by CASA, also by state and federal police for fraud. By your own admission, you have received money by deception, i.e. claiming that you are an aerial photography business and receiving money for the photos that you took.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA QUALIFICATIONS:
Maybe that is why the pHd title is as it is!!
For the record:
Author Aleck, Jonathan Title Law and sorcery in Papua New Guinea : a reconsideration of the relationship between law and custom / Jonathan Aleck Published 1996
Position:
Associate Director of Aviation Safety
Maybe that is why the pHd title is as it is!!
For the record:
Author Aleck, Jonathan Title Law and sorcery in Papua New Guinea : a reconsideration of the relationship between law and custom / Jonathan Aleck Published 1996
Position:
Associate Director of Aviation Safety
Why TF has NOTHING been seriously done about fixing [CAR 206] over all these years…
It's interesting that mass murders and psychopaths share many of the same genetic traits as corporate criminals and corporate thugs. Starts with animal cruelty I understand.
Corporate psychopath's perhaps?
It would seem human resources are hiring people either based on their own standards or in dire need of a qualified independent psychologist to pass prospective employees as suitable for the job.
Corporate psychopath's perhaps?
It would seem human resources are hiring people either based on their own standards or in dire need of a qualified independent psychologist to pass prospective employees as suitable for the job.
Originally Posted by Brian Abraham
How is the photography case any different in essence than a business who uses an aircraft to support its operations and enhance the businesses profit making potential.
Originally Posted by Brian Abraham
Such as a trucking business owning an aircraft, and the manager flying a mechanic employee to fix a vehicle to get it back on the road right smartish, so it can get back to the job of generating revenue.
Originally Posted by Brian Abraham
The employee mechanic does not have the protection of the operation being overseen by CASA, by way of an AOC, and the pilot need not have any professional aviation qualifications.
Originally Posted by Brian Abraham
Where is there any safety argument, or argument that the aircraft is not being used for commercial purposes?
The transportation of the mechanic by road, sea, or air would be incidental to the business operation. How the vehicle is maintained internally would not be disclosed on an invoice to an external client. No different to other incidental services a trucking company may use, for example banking, accounting, and professional legal services.
Thread Starter
With the greatest of respect LeadSled, differences aren't actually published in ICAO Docs. They're published in the Supplements to the Annexes.
Re. the AIP, last time I looked at the AIP differences ( or the equivalent in the Jep. text) only a small selection (possibly) relevant to day to day operations were listed.
The larger number came from within CASA ---- and I would be very hesitant to say Australia is "fully compliant" anywhere ---- speaking in a "spirit of the law" sense, rather than notional compliance.
Having said all that, when it comes to a modern approach to aviation regulation, ICAO is no shining example, being almost entirely highly prescriptive, with little of no recognition of the value of "outcome" or "performance" based regulation ---- a Government (still) and (former) CASA policy, that has gone missing completely since the departure of Bruce Byron.
Tootle pip!!