Policy is not law – AAT buckets CASA decision
Torres
You made my point for me (again) when you said this:
There was nothing ‘alleged’ about the RPT operations in Coral Sea: the AAT found the operations to be RPT, as a matter of fact. Your opinion about whether that finding was necessary to justify the decision is interesting, but irrelevant. The finding that the operation was RPT was taken into account by CASA and the AAT in their decisions, as a matter of fact.
Those facts may be inconvenient to some. But facts they remain.
It’s hypocrisy to shout from the rooftops when the AAT decides that CASA was incorrect in finding that an operation was RPT, on the one hand, then ignore or downplay an AAT decision that CASA was correct in finding that an operation was RPT, on the other
You made my point for me (again) when you said this:
The alleged RPT operations is not in my opinion, necessary to consider in justifying the decision by CASA and supported by the AAT, in revoking the operator's AOC.
Those facts may be inconvenient to some. But facts they remain.
It’s hypocrisy to shout from the rooftops when the AAT decides that CASA was incorrect in finding that an operation was RPT, on the one hand, then ignore or downplay an AAT decision that CASA was correct in finding that an operation was RPT, on the other
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there.
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres
If CAR206 was solely about passenger safety, why then does is specifically include "....transporting cargo for persons generally"?
Torres the thing here is "persons generally". No bank runner / freight operator is carrying freight for "persons generally", they are chartered by say Freds Freight to shift the parcels dropped off to them. Even if this is to a fixed schedule it is not RPT. Nobody can walk up to the aircraft at port A and hand over a parcel and some money wanting said parcel taken to port B. If they could that is "persons generally" and now becomes RPT. This is the CASA interpretation of the rules the several times I have had the discussion. What they think now who knows -
did I imply CASA thinks!?!
Torres the thing here is "persons generally". No bank runner / freight operator is carrying freight for "persons generally", they are chartered by say Freds Freight to shift the parcels dropped off to them. Even if this is to a fixed schedule it is not RPT. Nobody can walk up to the aircraft at port A and hand over a parcel and some money wanting said parcel taken to port B. If they could that is "persons generally" and now becomes RPT. This is the CASA interpretation of the rules the several times I have had the discussion. What they think now who knows -
did I imply CASA thinks!?!
I beg to differ.
CAR206 does not diferentiate between "....transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally..."
Freight companies, agencies and Australia Post are offering to transport freight by air for persons generally. The freight company or agency does not hold an AOC authorising air service operations; is their advertising of an air freight service in breach of CAR210?
(My bolding.)
If the freight company or agency offering to transport freight for persons generally - an "interposed entity" - does not hold an AOC, it is then incumbent on the aircraft operator they engage ("the last-mentioned person") to hold an AOC authorising the air service being operated.
On interposed entities CASA Policy states:
I suggest that CAR206 requires any operator that conducts scheduled freight services for persons generally, either by direct promotion and acceptance of freight from persons generally, or via an interposed entity that advertises and accepts freight from persons generally, would be required to hold an AOC authorising the conduct of RPT services.
I watch a light twin engine aircraft pass through the town where I live, on schedule, five days per week. I am able, as are persons generally able to deliver freight to the local agent of a national freight company or the local post office, pay the prescribed air freight fee and know my freight will travel on that aircraft.
I am not advocating that bank runners etc should hold an AOC authorising RPT operations, rather highlighting the "bad law" and absurdity of the current CARs and in particular CAR206. It becomes even more absurd when CASA incorrectly and repetitiously consider CAR206 is a safety regulation when in fact, it is simply intended to classify the categories of operations.
But then, Senior Member Mr Egon Fice, has correctly shot CASA's policies full of buck shot and in my opinion, provided the correct interpretation of the meaning and intent of CAR206.
The next move is up to CASA. Watch this space!
CAR206 does not diferentiate between "....transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally..."
Freight companies, agencies and Australia Post are offering to transport freight by air for persons generally. The freight company or agency does not hold an AOC authorising air service operations; is their advertising of an air freight service in breach of CAR210?
A person must not give a public notice, by newspaper advertisement, broadcast statement or any other means of public announcement, to the effect that a person is willing to undertake by use of an Australian aircraft any commercial operations if the last‑mentioned person has not obtained an Air Operator's Certificate authorising the conduct of those operations.
If the freight company or agency offering to transport freight for persons generally - an "interposed entity" - does not hold an AOC, it is then incumbent on the aircraft operator they engage ("the last-mentioned person") to hold an AOC authorising the air service being operated.
On interposed entities CASA Policy states:
In such cases, especially where the entity is a travel or booking agency that advertises and sells seats on the aircraft it has chartered to anyone who is prepared to pay the cost for a seat, it is CASA’s view that the operator and interposed entity are part of a single enterprise, effectively offering accommodation on the aircraft for use by persons generally.
Indeed, it is not unusual to find purportedly ‘closed’ groups that have been created solely for the purpose of providing a conduit through which members of the public (i.e., persons generally) might be funnelled onto an aircraft.
Indeed, it is not unusual to find purportedly ‘closed’ groups that have been created solely for the purpose of providing a conduit through which members of the public (i.e., persons generally) might be funnelled onto an aircraft.
I watch a light twin engine aircraft pass through the town where I live, on schedule, five days per week. I am able, as are persons generally able to deliver freight to the local agent of a national freight company or the local post office, pay the prescribed air freight fee and know my freight will travel on that aircraft.
I am not advocating that bank runners etc should hold an AOC authorising RPT operations, rather highlighting the "bad law" and absurdity of the current CARs and in particular CAR206. It becomes even more absurd when CASA incorrectly and repetitiously consider CAR206 is a safety regulation when in fact, it is simply intended to classify the categories of operations.
But then, Senior Member Mr Egon Fice, has correctly shot CASA's policies full of buck shot and in my opinion, provided the correct interpretation of the meaning and intent of CAR206.
The next move is up to CASA. Watch this space!
Last edited by Torres; 24th Mar 2011 at 04:35.
Reg 206... and decades have passed...
SWH... states re Reg 206.' poorly drafted from day one'. And they know so.
McK recently says its been "bad law" for 26 years !!. The Aya -Toller said it was a "bugger's muddle" a decade ago
BUT NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT.
So the poor operators/victims of any sort, have to ask the question..Why TF has NOTHING been seriously done about fixing it over all these years, of great trauma and distress for so many.. because of it. NO LEADERSHIP???
THEY SEE NO MORAL NECCESSITY?. SOME people go under because of it.. DO WE CARE...DWF!
There has been some'change' crap and fluff show up on the Web site and paperwork over the years, but it comes and goes like autumn leaves.
NEVER anything gets finalised.
And to say"..that CASA doesnt like the situation. ".. and cannot and do not regulate commerce"
Bullsh*t. They've loved it and have used it to great effect on many. And at the behest of competitor companies too.. corruption and cronyism, its called.
And how's this for a comment to a photography client, as they collect invoices and payment slips.."this is about commerce, nothing to do with safety... but dont say that in court"
But of course when it gets to court its all they say.. 'safety, safety, safety'.. the bs mantra of the illegitimate.
And after I'm severely busted by it, the mongrels send an email around the traps to each other about the penalties...."For your amusement"
Gives you an insight into the mindset of those in the "Conduct & Ethics Committee"..!
CASA has a 'code of conduct' that is meaningless to some of its employees.
They get away with bureaucratic buggery, because they can /allowed to/protected.
It will NEVER, EVER be an organistaion that you can deal with "in good faith"
because the lack of moral fortitude,honesty and integrity goes right to the top echelons, and that rot seeps right on down to the lower floors.
THAT is why CASA is ( in my humble opinion) the diabolical, dysfunctional, distrusted organisation it is today.
Its not about "SAFETY", its about POWER and PUNISHMENT
Mix CRAP regulation("bad law") with the BULLIES, and that's what we get
And that is why there never will be a vibrant GA sector, where the business individual can use his aircraft as an efficiency tool, and others can go about their flying jobs in peace.
Dream on....
McK recently says its been "bad law" for 26 years !!. The Aya -Toller said it was a "bugger's muddle" a decade ago
BUT NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT.
So the poor operators/victims of any sort, have to ask the question..Why TF has NOTHING been seriously done about fixing it over all these years, of great trauma and distress for so many.. because of it. NO LEADERSHIP???
THEY SEE NO MORAL NECCESSITY?. SOME people go under because of it.. DO WE CARE...DWF!
There has been some'change' crap and fluff show up on the Web site and paperwork over the years, but it comes and goes like autumn leaves.
NEVER anything gets finalised.
And to say"..that CASA doesnt like the situation. ".. and cannot and do not regulate commerce"
Bullsh*t. They've loved it and have used it to great effect on many. And at the behest of competitor companies too.. corruption and cronyism, its called.
And how's this for a comment to a photography client, as they collect invoices and payment slips.."this is about commerce, nothing to do with safety... but dont say that in court"
But of course when it gets to court its all they say.. 'safety, safety, safety'.. the bs mantra of the illegitimate.
And after I'm severely busted by it, the mongrels send an email around the traps to each other about the penalties...."For your amusement"
Gives you an insight into the mindset of those in the "Conduct & Ethics Committee"..!
CASA has a 'code of conduct' that is meaningless to some of its employees.
They get away with bureaucratic buggery, because they can /allowed to/protected.
It will NEVER, EVER be an organistaion that you can deal with "in good faith"
because the lack of moral fortitude,honesty and integrity goes right to the top echelons, and that rot seeps right on down to the lower floors.
THAT is why CASA is ( in my humble opinion) the diabolical, dysfunctional, distrusted organisation it is today.
Its not about "SAFETY", its about POWER and PUNISHMENT
Mix CRAP regulation("bad law") with the BULLIES, and that's what we get
And that is why there never will be a vibrant GA sector, where the business individual can use his aircraft as an efficiency tool, and others can go about their flying jobs in peace.
Dream on....
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
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.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA qualifications
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
Thread Starter
Folks,
An extract from the the AAT case N0.2010/3851.
I have changed the colour of some sections to red to highlight some points made by the AAT Senior Member.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Dr. Jonathan Alex has first class graduate and post graduate law degrees from leading US universities, as well as later qualifications.
The conflicts between tribal (or religious) law and the British system of common and statute law is a quite legitimate field for a PhD thesis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks,
I could not get the paragraph numbers to come up correctly, so I have deleted same.Please read para 36 through 42 very carefully, it is quite enlightening.
Tootle pip!!
An extract from the the AAT case N0.2010/3851.
I have changed the colour of some sections to red to highlight some points made by the AAT Senior Member.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Dr. Jonathan Alex has first class graduate and post graduate law degrees from leading US universities, as well as later qualifications.
The conflicts between tribal (or religious) law and the British system of common and statute law is a quite legitimate field for a PhD thesis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks,
I could not get the paragraph numbers to come up correctly, so I have deleted same.Please read para 36 through 42 very carefully, it is quite enlightening.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 24th Mar 2011 at 07:46.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erudite Posts
By our esteemed and respected colleague - Sunfish.
I have read many of your posts with delight and amusement, but, I always thought there was an element missing. No disrespect intended but, over the last few years dealing with the CASA has become a mind numbing, destructive exercise in bull dust, that beggars the imagination.
The Sydney company you allude to had, for 18 months been operated to a fairly inflexible standard, way above previous times, way.
Had the new 'authority' discussed it's issues with senior staff, changes would have been made; forthwith - no discussion - therefore no safety alert.
It is quite correct to say that it's sister company deserved and needed "regulatory management', probably shutting down. No great argument there it was crook; but had CASA asked and had CASA not gainsaid or ignored documented evidence, then perhaps, just perhaps, young Andy Wilson would be alive today.
I thought you perhaps failed to grasp that the CASA is not capable of acting in good faith, not for one minute. In days of yore, yes absolutely, but since 'the man' and 'MY policy over law" - etc. Not even close.
The best claim the current mob have is the rag they call the ASD has won a prize. Bugger ICAO, bugger` IOSA, bugger the FAA. The next audit will be interesting. Thou shalt have one God and I am a jealous God. Well we shall see about that.
Words fail. Welcome to the club Sunfish, finally you understand why there are people who risk their livelihood to get this information out there. It would surprise you to know just how little is said against how much anger there is, no one deliberately sets out to be in breech.
Selah
I have read many of your posts with delight and amusement, but, I always thought there was an element missing. No disrespect intended but, over the last few years dealing with the CASA has become a mind numbing, destructive exercise in bull dust, that beggars the imagination.
The Sydney company you allude to had, for 18 months been operated to a fairly inflexible standard, way above previous times, way.
Had the new 'authority' discussed it's issues with senior staff, changes would have been made; forthwith - no discussion - therefore no safety alert.
It is quite correct to say that it's sister company deserved and needed "regulatory management', probably shutting down. No great argument there it was crook; but had CASA asked and had CASA not gainsaid or ignored documented evidence, then perhaps, just perhaps, young Andy Wilson would be alive today.
I thought you perhaps failed to grasp that the CASA is not capable of acting in good faith, not for one minute. In days of yore, yes absolutely, but since 'the man' and 'MY policy over law" - etc. Not even close.
The best claim the current mob have is the rag they call the ASD has won a prize. Bugger ICAO, bugger` IOSA, bugger the FAA. The next audit will be interesting. Thou shalt have one God and I am a jealous God. Well we shall see about that.
Words fail. Welcome to the club Sunfish, finally you understand why there are people who risk their livelihood to get this information out there. It would surprise you to know just how little is said against how much anger there is, no one deliberately sets out to be in breech.
Selah
aroa asks:
These days, when I observe some ostensibly stupid situation with an ostensibly ‘no-brainer’ solution, I immediately attribute the situation to one primary cause: politics. My presumptive position is usually supported by subsequent analysis.
There is a ‘no-brainer’ solution to fixing CAR 206, but it’s politically unacceptable.
Fare paying passengers stepping on to any aircraft make the reasonable assumption that the standards applicable to the operation are the same, whatever they are stepping on to and wherever they are going. Most fare paying passengers wouldn’t have a clue about whether they are stepping on to a charter aircraft or an RPT aircraft, and most passengers wouldn’t know that different standards could apply, depending on the classification of the operation and the size of the aircraft. Most fare paying passengers would be surprised, if not alarmed, if they knew about the distinction and its implications.
The distinction was essential in the past, for technological, geographic and economic reasons. The distinction is no longer essential, especially in a country that feigns first-world aviation status.
The ‘no-brainer’ solution is to remove the distinction between charter and RPT, at least in respect of operations involving fare paying pax.
Dick Smith attempted, while Chairman of CASA, to make the distinction and its implications clear to fare paying pax. Dick had his head kicked in by, guess who? Those obstructionist bureaucrats in CASA? No. It wasn’t CASA. Ask Dick who kicked his head in on this issue.
If just one tenth of the amount of money wasted by incompetent government bureaucracies in Australia in the last 20 years had instead been invested in regional aviation infrastructure and flying machines, maybe Australia would now have lots more GA aircraft that were designed in the 1980s rather than the 1940s, more regional and rural airports that don’t look like moldering sets from movies about WWII, and fewer regulatory Frankensteins like CAR 206.
Unfortunately, not even one hundredth of that wasted money is going to be diverted to aviation.
Why not?
Politics.
Only the ‘J curve’ counts in Australia. Outside the ‘J curve’, Australia just ‘protects’ the ‘industry’ by maintaining the different standards. Operations relating to activities like coal mining outside the ‘J curve’ are very important, but they generally happen in real time, in the real world, against standards set by insurers and other people with real money at risk.
Cost savings in the aviation sector haven’t gone back to investment in aviation. They’ve gone to important stuff – you know, the stuff that governments think is important.
Unfortunately, lots of people in GA will continue to divert their energies to blaming CASA, arguing with CASA, and fighting amongst the various ‘representative’ organisations.
Why? Because those people either don’t understand that metaphor about monkeys and organ-grinders, or don’t know who the organ-grinders are.
As to the people who presume to implicitly criticise someone in CASA who’s attained a PhD, I’d observe that although it’s demonstrably possible for an ignorant illiterate to operate an aircraft as safely as it can be, the effective performance of lots of other jobs depends on, or is at least enhanced by, higher standards of education.
Why TF has NOTHING been seriously done about fixing [CAR 206] over all these years…
There is a ‘no-brainer’ solution to fixing CAR 206, but it’s politically unacceptable.
Fare paying passengers stepping on to any aircraft make the reasonable assumption that the standards applicable to the operation are the same, whatever they are stepping on to and wherever they are going. Most fare paying passengers wouldn’t have a clue about whether they are stepping on to a charter aircraft or an RPT aircraft, and most passengers wouldn’t know that different standards could apply, depending on the classification of the operation and the size of the aircraft. Most fare paying passengers would be surprised, if not alarmed, if they knew about the distinction and its implications.
The distinction was essential in the past, for technological, geographic and economic reasons. The distinction is no longer essential, especially in a country that feigns first-world aviation status.
The ‘no-brainer’ solution is to remove the distinction between charter and RPT, at least in respect of operations involving fare paying pax.
Dick Smith attempted, while Chairman of CASA, to make the distinction and its implications clear to fare paying pax. Dick had his head kicked in by, guess who? Those obstructionist bureaucrats in CASA? No. It wasn’t CASA. Ask Dick who kicked his head in on this issue.
If just one tenth of the amount of money wasted by incompetent government bureaucracies in Australia in the last 20 years had instead been invested in regional aviation infrastructure and flying machines, maybe Australia would now have lots more GA aircraft that were designed in the 1980s rather than the 1940s, more regional and rural airports that don’t look like moldering sets from movies about WWII, and fewer regulatory Frankensteins like CAR 206.
Unfortunately, not even one hundredth of that wasted money is going to be diverted to aviation.
Why not?
Politics.
Only the ‘J curve’ counts in Australia. Outside the ‘J curve’, Australia just ‘protects’ the ‘industry’ by maintaining the different standards. Operations relating to activities like coal mining outside the ‘J curve’ are very important, but they generally happen in real time, in the real world, against standards set by insurers and other people with real money at risk.
Cost savings in the aviation sector haven’t gone back to investment in aviation. They’ve gone to important stuff – you know, the stuff that governments think is important.
Unfortunately, lots of people in GA will continue to divert their energies to blaming CASA, arguing with CASA, and fighting amongst the various ‘representative’ organisations.
Why? Because those people either don’t understand that metaphor about monkeys and organ-grinders, or don’t know who the organ-grinders are.
As to the people who presume to implicitly criticise someone in CASA who’s attained a PhD, I’d observe that although it’s demonstrably possible for an ignorant illiterate to operate an aircraft as safely as it can be, the effective performance of lots of other jobs depends on, or is at least enhanced by, higher standards of education.
Originally Posted by aroa
And how's this for a comment to a photography client, as they collect invoices and payment slips.."this is about commerce, nothing to do with safety... but dont say that in court"
Is that an accurate 2 line summary of the issue ?
I've noticed (even over the last 5 years), that many clients are jack of the ancient CASA regs and tend to self regulate through their contracts with operators (I'm from a helicopter world).. They are increasingly demanding higher standards and pilot requirements (and rightly so), and they're prepared to pay for it.. Audit companies are also employed to police compliance with their contract..
Creampuff:
What a vicious attack on charter operators. You are implying that they operate to lower safety standards that RPT operators.
It appears, unless I'm mistaken, that CASA has decided on a "one size fits all" approach to the regulation of commercial passenger carrying activities. In other words, small operators are expected to replicate in miniature, all the systems and procedures applicable to a Qantas, Rex, etc. If that is the intent, it is lunacy. Thank God I'm not involved commercially in the aviation industry.
If this is true, then it appears that CASA has caught the same creeping occupational health and safety cancer that is slowly crippling our economy. That is a confusion between the existence of formal bureaucratic safety systems and actual safety.
Numerous examples can be provided on request. What is lacking is any consideration of economic effect - a subject that is normally part of a risk management approach.
Fare paying passengers stepping on to any aircraft make the reasonable assumption that the standards applicable to the operation are the same, whatever they are stepping on to and wherever they are going. Most fare paying passengers wouldn’t have a clue about whether they are stepping on to a charter aircraft or an RPT aircraft, and most passengers wouldn’t know that different standards could apply, depending on the classification of the operation and the size of the aircraft. Most fare paying passengers would be surprised, if not alarmed, if they knew about the distinction and its implications.
It appears, unless I'm mistaken, that CASA has decided on a "one size fits all" approach to the regulation of commercial passenger carrying activities. In other words, small operators are expected to replicate in miniature, all the systems and procedures applicable to a Qantas, Rex, etc. If that is the intent, it is lunacy. Thank God I'm not involved commercially in the aviation industry.
If this is true, then it appears that CASA has caught the same creeping occupational health and safety cancer that is slowly crippling our economy. That is a confusion between the existence of formal bureaucratic safety systems and actual safety.
Numerous examples can be provided on request. What is lacking is any consideration of economic effect - a subject that is normally part of a risk management approach.
You are implying that they operate to lower safety standards that RPT operators.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: bundaberg
Age: 92
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is CAR 206 invalid?
This is a great decision but it doesn't go far enough..... In the "Changes to the ACT 1998" Anderson made no mistake when, in his second reading speech, (which sets the intent of any Bill in the lower house) removed the word COMMERCIAL from the Act and explained it with these words...Quote "IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE SEFETY REGULATION OF AVIATION ACTIVITIES SHOULD NOT BE BASED FUNDAMENTALLY ON THE COMMERCIAL NATURE OF AN ACTIVITY, IT IS PROPOSED THAT THE TERM COMMERCIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACT BY REPLACING 'DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL FLIGHT' WITH 'REGULATED DOMESTIC FLIGHT."
I was a around when Leroy Keith, as the director, made this happen and have tried( along with several others) unsuccessfully to influence CASA to obey the parliamentary directions in this Bill and stop using commercial as a direct lever to regulate safety. Bruce Byron( give him his due) attempted to do this and consulting with many people from all avenues of aviation brought in a policy document called "CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES" which, if followed, would have done just that....... Unfortunately, we lost him and now have the ceo from hell who has decided he knows best and the past isn't relevant and all of the work done in the Byron years has seemed to have disappeared...... CASA has, not only disobeyed(and is still disobeying) the government's directive to stop using hire and reward or payment of any kind to regulate aviation safety but has cleverly changed CAR 206 to remove mention of commercial in the body of the rule although it's still in the heading but has inserted "functions" in their place. Somewhere between there and the coalface dollars rear their ugly head....... My whole point is this...... For 13 years there has been no "Head of Power" in the Act to allow CASA to use commercial means to regulate safety...... Yet they have continued, by fair means or foul, to do so at your's and my expense....... NOT ONLY IS CAR 206 INVALID FOR HAVING THE WORDS "COMMERCIAL PURPOSES" in it's heading but every other regulation which refers to commercial can also be said to be invalid..
How much longer do we have to wait for CASA to get a little honesty into it's operation and rewrite the regulations using a risk-based platform to regulate safety instead of commercial?
I was a around when Leroy Keith, as the director, made this happen and have tried( along with several others) unsuccessfully to influence CASA to obey the parliamentary directions in this Bill and stop using commercial as a direct lever to regulate safety. Bruce Byron( give him his due) attempted to do this and consulting with many people from all avenues of aviation brought in a policy document called "CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES" which, if followed, would have done just that....... Unfortunately, we lost him and now have the ceo from hell who has decided he knows best and the past isn't relevant and all of the work done in the Byron years has seemed to have disappeared...... CASA has, not only disobeyed(and is still disobeying) the government's directive to stop using hire and reward or payment of any kind to regulate aviation safety but has cleverly changed CAR 206 to remove mention of commercial in the body of the rule although it's still in the heading but has inserted "functions" in their place. Somewhere between there and the coalface dollars rear their ugly head....... My whole point is this...... For 13 years there has been no "Head of Power" in the Act to allow CASA to use commercial means to regulate safety...... Yet they have continued, by fair means or foul, to do so at your's and my expense....... NOT ONLY IS CAR 206 INVALID FOR HAVING THE WORDS "COMMERCIAL PURPOSES" in it's heading but every other regulation which refers to commercial can also be said to be invalid..
How much longer do we have to wait for CASA to get a little honesty into it's operation and rewrite the regulations using a risk-based platform to regulate safety instead of commercial?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changes to the ACT 1998
Now doesn't that make some sense for where we need to go - Good post Geo171.
And maybe that is the pressure that needs to be placed on the Senator to get Parliament to ensure CASA undertakes what it was directed to do.
Problem we have is that CASA will say that there is "a review" being undertaken.
If that is the case, maybe the question is when is Parliament going to force CASA to do it's bidding.
It is the Parliament that ultimately makes the law - maybe the next one should be to just introduce the FAR's - be blowed to what CASA says and get on with safety management.
Now doesn't that make some sense for where we need to go - Good post Geo171.
And maybe that is the pressure that needs to be placed on the Senator to get Parliament to ensure CASA undertakes what it was directed to do.
Problem we have is that CASA will say that there is "a review" being undertaken.
If that is the case, maybe the question is when is Parliament going to force CASA to do it's bidding.
It is the Parliament that ultimately makes the law - maybe the next one should be to just introduce the FAR's - be blowed to what CASA says and get on with safety management.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 25th Mar 2011 at 04:41. Reason: addition of geo171
And maybe that is the pressure that needs to be placed on the Senator to get Parliament to ensure CASA undertakes what it was directed to do.
Problem we have is that CASA will say that there is "a review" being undertaken.
Problem we have is that CASA will say that there is "a review" being undertaken.
Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
Don't rush things, that was only six years ago.
R 206.. invalid.. ie illegal
smh.. You are right, No AOC and No CPL either at the time.... and so what?
The AOC is an economic mechanism to "allow" you to work..and as a PPL I wouldnt get one. But I am a PPL /Photographer.. that is my profession.
So as the bum stated it was a commercial action that I did .. selling photos.. from a "safety" point of view, WTF has that got to do with CASA.
When this same ****** was asked What about Dick Smith PPL/photographer?
Ahh, but thats different.!!? ( They just dont have the testicular fortitude, do they?) So much for LAW and "bad law"
At the time on the CASA web site were all these new and exciting changes about to happen, to allow me get on with life... and a job. But as CASA usual, they never did eventuate, some dragging on until 2003.
As a PPL I can fly my aeroplane and take photos to my hearts content and that is not deemed to be an UNSAFE activity, but I can only give my pictures away for free.
How then to make a living? Become a bank robber? Join CASA (upchuck!)
Then there was 27(d) ? allowing an aircraft to be used for a commercial purpose....? Not an unsafe purpose
So my acts of commerce, as far as CASA is concerned is the deciding "unsafe" factor...one which doesn't exist. And thus is a breach of a "safety" regulation.
Just like the Caper decision wth the Charter and /or RPT.. there IS NO safety implication being either one or the other.
For the GA industry its been schemoozle with CASA getting into the commerce of tools of trade, trying to mind other peoples' businesses and with SFA to do with safety.
Ever heard of CASA busting a PPL Barrister flying to a job with his para -legals, a trolley load of brief and law books (tools of trade), an the invoice to the client bills a/c time and etc.? Holy crap...a "commercial" flight
No... they wouldnt have the balls.
What about a CASA Canberra winter escape trips, travelling around the north, with a box of CARS ANRs and all the other "tools of trade" to refer to,..got an AOC, CP and a CPL? I dont think so.
They do it with a PPL LAME and his tool box flying into a job at some remote strip. WHAT ON EARTH HAS IT GOT TO DO WITH CASA THAT THE LAME IS GOING TO PUT A SPANNER ON ANOTHER AEROPLANE AFTER HIS FLIGHT.?? Quite frankly...its none of their fn business.!
What CASA ONLY needs know is that: the pilot has a valid licence and medical, the the aircraft has a current MR, and the flight was conducted ok under the VFR/IFR rules. Nobody has a problem with that. I certainly dont.
And if you think CASA, when doing a job for a competitor co./"mate" leave no stone unturned, you're right.
Before court first time around I carried on to complete my work schedule.
I was advised that by doing so, I was in contemp of court !!
Hullo... I havent even been to court yet, but of course, these are the people that like to be judge, jury and executioner! Their will be done.
They also looked at getting the AFP to seize the aircraft and do an arrest.!
Which would have meant the contract or balance of, probably would have gone the the competitor co.
No wonder "Starsky and Hutch" tailed me from PJKT to CityBeach.
Taking photographs for money must mean y're a very naughty boy.
During all this,it did make me begin to wonder what country I was living in..!!
At NO time over this period did CASA approach me about ANY SAFETY issue whatsoever.
Which kinda makes my case about "commerce" being the kill factor.
So thank you very much GEO 171 for yr post. Excellent.
It confirms, yet again, to me that which I believed all along... that "commercial" regs are illegal.
The AOC is an economic mechanism to "allow" you to work..and as a PPL I wouldnt get one. But I am a PPL /Photographer.. that is my profession.
So as the bum stated it was a commercial action that I did .. selling photos.. from a "safety" point of view, WTF has that got to do with CASA.
When this same ****** was asked What about Dick Smith PPL/photographer?
Ahh, but thats different.!!? ( They just dont have the testicular fortitude, do they?) So much for LAW and "bad law"
At the time on the CASA web site were all these new and exciting changes about to happen, to allow me get on with life... and a job. But as CASA usual, they never did eventuate, some dragging on until 2003.
As a PPL I can fly my aeroplane and take photos to my hearts content and that is not deemed to be an UNSAFE activity, but I can only give my pictures away for free.
How then to make a living? Become a bank robber? Join CASA (upchuck!)
Then there was 27(d) ? allowing an aircraft to be used for a commercial purpose....? Not an unsafe purpose
So my acts of commerce, as far as CASA is concerned is the deciding "unsafe" factor...one which doesn't exist. And thus is a breach of a "safety" regulation.
Just like the Caper decision wth the Charter and /or RPT.. there IS NO safety implication being either one or the other.
For the GA industry its been schemoozle with CASA getting into the commerce of tools of trade, trying to mind other peoples' businesses and with SFA to do with safety.
Ever heard of CASA busting a PPL Barrister flying to a job with his para -legals, a trolley load of brief and law books (tools of trade), an the invoice to the client bills a/c time and etc.? Holy crap...a "commercial" flight
No... they wouldnt have the balls.
What about a CASA Canberra winter escape trips, travelling around the north, with a box of CARS ANRs and all the other "tools of trade" to refer to,..got an AOC, CP and a CPL? I dont think so.
They do it with a PPL LAME and his tool box flying into a job at some remote strip. WHAT ON EARTH HAS IT GOT TO DO WITH CASA THAT THE LAME IS GOING TO PUT A SPANNER ON ANOTHER AEROPLANE AFTER HIS FLIGHT.?? Quite frankly...its none of their fn business.!
What CASA ONLY needs know is that: the pilot has a valid licence and medical, the the aircraft has a current MR, and the flight was conducted ok under the VFR/IFR rules. Nobody has a problem with that. I certainly dont.
And if you think CASA, when doing a job for a competitor co./"mate" leave no stone unturned, you're right.
Before court first time around I carried on to complete my work schedule.
I was advised that by doing so, I was in contemp of court !!
Hullo... I havent even been to court yet, but of course, these are the people that like to be judge, jury and executioner! Their will be done.
They also looked at getting the AFP to seize the aircraft and do an arrest.!
Which would have meant the contract or balance of, probably would have gone the the competitor co.
No wonder "Starsky and Hutch" tailed me from PJKT to CityBeach.
Taking photographs for money must mean y're a very naughty boy.
During all this,it did make me begin to wonder what country I was living in..!!
At NO time over this period did CASA approach me about ANY SAFETY issue whatsoever.
Which kinda makes my case about "commerce" being the kill factor.
So thank you very much GEO 171 for yr post. Excellent.
It confirms, yet again, to me that which I believed all along... that "commercial" regs are illegal.
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
Can anybody tell me with certainty that CASA have an AOC for photographic missions in hired or rented aircraft?
This is not a frivolous question, I do have a motive for asking.
This is not a frivolous question, I do have a motive for asking.
CASA holds no AOC
CASA has no AOC
They have no Chief Pilot
They have no Safety Management System
They do not have sufficient knowledge of aviation law to hold an AOC
As recent events prove.
And YES their staff conduct Aerial Work on a regular basis.
BUT they are above the law; just ask them
They have no Chief Pilot
They have no Safety Management System
They do not have sufficient knowledge of aviation law to hold an AOC
As recent events prove.
And YES their staff conduct Aerial Work on a regular basis.
BUT they are above the law; just ask them
