Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be me – thick like.
CASA audit their own approved/accepted operating system for Pel Air and find it deficient???? WTF??
Maybe old age and booze are carrying me off – however. Let's suppose (for the sake of argument) that tomorrow you decide that an AOC is required.
Step 1) write an exposition (Operations Manual), fill out the form, write a cheque and send it all off into the 'black hole" of CASA. Now Brisbane will send it off (eventually) to a Regional Office near you.
Step 2) An FOI and if required an AWI will emerge from the ruck, these are now, your guys (or girls). They will take an almost endless amount of time to "assess" the manual as being 'acceptable', unless of course you are required to go CAR 217 then, they will formally approve it. So far so good. After the inevitable rounds of "amendments", with luck, fortitude, patience and an almost unlimited bank balance, the "Safety Authority" will accept/approve your operation and issue an AOC.
The curly bit is, next year they are going to audit your operation: fair enough you may say. But should you, while complying (religiously) with your approved/accepted COM be found to be 'illegal' (as suits), then you will be prosecuted – if it pleases them.
Must be me; Pel Air were working with an approved (CAR 217) accepted parts A + B but "suddenly" the CASA approved operating system is "in breach" and you are deep in it. Seems strange to me. The other (and slightly bizarre) side of the coin is of course Airtex where they were prosecuted, not on a revised, as required by CASA manual, but 'mostly' (as suited) on an old one. CASA had 'unfortunately' not accepted the new one ?. Oh, how strange and wonderful are the ways of "the Gods".
All I can say is I hope someone who understands all of this can explain it to a fairly hostile Senate inquiry, in a way that makes sense of it all.
Grip Pipe – where are you?; I need a rousing chorus of Ah Bollicks here. Preferably elephant sized ones. At least I can throw them at the silly buggers as the prance and preen in front of the cameras next week. Popcorn ordered, fridge full and a day off to boot.
PS. Spike, nice to have you back - in one piece.
Selah
Maybe old age and booze are carrying me off – however. Let's suppose (for the sake of argument) that tomorrow you decide that an AOC is required.
Step 1) write an exposition (Operations Manual), fill out the form, write a cheque and send it all off into the 'black hole" of CASA. Now Brisbane will send it off (eventually) to a Regional Office near you.
Step 2) An FOI and if required an AWI will emerge from the ruck, these are now, your guys (or girls). They will take an almost endless amount of time to "assess" the manual as being 'acceptable', unless of course you are required to go CAR 217 then, they will formally approve it. So far so good. After the inevitable rounds of "amendments", with luck, fortitude, patience and an almost unlimited bank balance, the "Safety Authority" will accept/approve your operation and issue an AOC.
The curly bit is, next year they are going to audit your operation: fair enough you may say. But should you, while complying (religiously) with your approved/accepted COM be found to be 'illegal' (as suits), then you will be prosecuted – if it pleases them.
Must be me; Pel Air were working with an approved (CAR 217) accepted parts A + B but "suddenly" the CASA approved operating system is "in breach" and you are deep in it. Seems strange to me. The other (and slightly bizarre) side of the coin is of course Airtex where they were prosecuted, not on a revised, as required by CASA manual, but 'mostly' (as suited) on an old one. CASA had 'unfortunately' not accepted the new one ?. Oh, how strange and wonderful are the ways of "the Gods".
All I can say is I hope someone who understands all of this can explain it to a fairly hostile Senate inquiry, in a way that makes sense of it all.
Grip Pipe – where are you?; I need a rousing chorus of Ah Bollicks here. Preferably elephant sized ones. At least I can throw them at the silly buggers as the prance and preen in front of the cameras next week. Popcorn ordered, fridge full and a day off to boot.
PS. Spike, nice to have you back - in one piece.
Selah
Last edited by Kharon; 11th Oct 2012 at 08:28. Reason: Elephant bollicks.
Indians go back to camp and wait big white chiefs' wise answers???
At least I can throw them at the silly buggers as the prance and preen in front of the cameras next week. Popcorn ordered, fridge full and a day off to boot.
Philosophy vs Reality
Recently released answers to 'Questions on Notice' show the tick-a-box mentality that is enshrined within Fort Fumble:
However the 'reality' of this system of administration of air safety in Oz has been perfectly highlighted by the CASA oversight of Pelair, (as "K" points out) Airtex, Alligator, Skytrans, AR, Transair, Kick-a-tin-along Airlines etc..etc..etc
Question no.: 100
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Fatigue Risk Management Systems
Proof Hansard Page/s: Written
Senator XENOPHON asked:
Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS), whether prescriptive or enterprise-specific, have been in place for pilots for many years. It has been recently suggested that cabin crew fatigue is adequately managed through AOC holders’ safety management systems (SMS) and, where they exist, their FRMS.
1. What guidelines do CASA inspectors use to judge the effectiveness of these controls and to require AOC holders to amend those controls?
2. What formal training do CASA Inspectors undergo in terms of the assessment and monitoring of fatigue risk management schemes?
3. The UK CAA runs courses for all comers on the interpretation and implementation of their fatigue management legislation. (a) Does CASA offer any equivalent training for Australian stakeholders? (b) Is there any intention to do so?
4. What plans does CASA have to introduce FRMS requirements for aircraft maintenance workers?
5. In a broader context, CASA introduced the concept of a Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity (SSAA) in Part 99 “Drug and alcohol management plans and testing” of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) 1998. Given that the consequences of fatigue are often described in similar terms to the effects of drugs and alcohol, does CASA have any plans to require FRMSs to include SSAA employees?
Answer:
1. All Regular Public Transport operators are required by Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 82.3 and 82.5 to have and use a Safety Management System (SMS) that is approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). In order to be approved, an organisation’s SMS must include, among other things, documented details on the hazard identification processes and risk assessment and mitigation processes that will be used by the organisation. CASA inspectors are required to assess the effectiveness of these documented processes at various stages of the regulatory oversight process. CASA inspectors refer to the relevant legislation and advisory material and, in the case of SMS, to the requirements of CAO 82.3/82.5, the material contained within the Civil Aviation Advisory Publication SMS package and the processes documented in the CASA Air Operator Certification Manual. The
practical application of these documented processes is then assessed during CASA’s ongoing surveillance activities utilising the auditing techniques as documented in the CASA Surveillance Procedures Manual.
2. CASA inspectors undergo a variety of formal specialist training courses that are directly applicable to the assessment of Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS) and which equip them to effectively assess an organisation’s FRMS.
3. (a) and (b) CASA has published a package of guidance material designed to provide operators and individuals with information necessary to meet their obligations under the proposed standards for fatigue management. CASA’s Aviation Safety Advisors are also preparing a fatigue component for inclusion within their safety seminars, which are run nationwide.
CASA encourages participation from all industry sectors in these seminars.
4. The CASA requirements for approved maintenance organisations currently include a system which takes into account human performance limitations, of which fatigue is included as an element. Further requirements for the management of fatigue in those performing aircraft maintenance will be included as a later stage of the standards development project dealing
with fatigue management for aviation personnel.
5. CASA acknowledges the importance of fatigue in aviation personnel and is undertaking a phased approach to requiring fatigue management in aviation organisations. Extending the requirements for fatigue management to all Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity (SSAA) personnel requires careful consideration and analysis and consultation with all affected stakeholders noting that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) does not require member States to have in place requirements for fatigue management for SSAA personnel,
other than for flight crew and cabin crew.
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Fatigue Risk Management Systems
Proof Hansard Page/s: Written
Senator XENOPHON asked:
Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS), whether prescriptive or enterprise-specific, have been in place for pilots for many years. It has been recently suggested that cabin crew fatigue is adequately managed through AOC holders’ safety management systems (SMS) and, where they exist, their FRMS.
1. What guidelines do CASA inspectors use to judge the effectiveness of these controls and to require AOC holders to amend those controls?
2. What formal training do CASA Inspectors undergo in terms of the assessment and monitoring of fatigue risk management schemes?
3. The UK CAA runs courses for all comers on the interpretation and implementation of their fatigue management legislation. (a) Does CASA offer any equivalent training for Australian stakeholders? (b) Is there any intention to do so?
4. What plans does CASA have to introduce FRMS requirements for aircraft maintenance workers?
5. In a broader context, CASA introduced the concept of a Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity (SSAA) in Part 99 “Drug and alcohol management plans and testing” of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) 1998. Given that the consequences of fatigue are often described in similar terms to the effects of drugs and alcohol, does CASA have any plans to require FRMSs to include SSAA employees?
Answer:
1. All Regular Public Transport operators are required by Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 82.3 and 82.5 to have and use a Safety Management System (SMS) that is approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). In order to be approved, an organisation’s SMS must include, among other things, documented details on the hazard identification processes and risk assessment and mitigation processes that will be used by the organisation. CASA inspectors are required to assess the effectiveness of these documented processes at various stages of the regulatory oversight process. CASA inspectors refer to the relevant legislation and advisory material and, in the case of SMS, to the requirements of CAO 82.3/82.5, the material contained within the Civil Aviation Advisory Publication SMS package and the processes documented in the CASA Air Operator Certification Manual. The
practical application of these documented processes is then assessed during CASA’s ongoing surveillance activities utilising the auditing techniques as documented in the CASA Surveillance Procedures Manual.
2. CASA inspectors undergo a variety of formal specialist training courses that are directly applicable to the assessment of Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS) and which equip them to effectively assess an organisation’s FRMS.
3. (a) and (b) CASA has published a package of guidance material designed to provide operators and individuals with information necessary to meet their obligations under the proposed standards for fatigue management. CASA’s Aviation Safety Advisors are also preparing a fatigue component for inclusion within their safety seminars, which are run nationwide.
CASA encourages participation from all industry sectors in these seminars.
4. The CASA requirements for approved maintenance organisations currently include a system which takes into account human performance limitations, of which fatigue is included as an element. Further requirements for the management of fatigue in those performing aircraft maintenance will be included as a later stage of the standards development project dealing
with fatigue management for aviation personnel.
5. CASA acknowledges the importance of fatigue in aviation personnel and is undertaking a phased approach to requiring fatigue management in aviation organisations. Extending the requirements for fatigue management to all Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity (SSAA) personnel requires careful consideration and analysis and consultation with all affected stakeholders noting that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) does not require member States to have in place requirements for fatigue management for SSAA personnel,
other than for flight crew and cabin crew.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KHARON- CASA audit their own approved/accepted operating system for Pel Air and find it deficient???? WTF??
An accepted and previously audited exposition is suddenly being NCNd for non compliance with the regulations.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Blackie, survived your 'life and death' encounter with the DPP then. 
Correct again – legal Monday, toast Friday. It's crazy stuff. Funny thing though, I was looking for a reference yesterday, thought I'd seen something in a Phelan article a while ago. Anyway; I eventually found the two year old piece and there at the bottom (right down) I came across a readers comments, posted only recently (11/10/12). There are two comments, I thought they were worth reproducing here.
To hell with the rules.
Comment 1 - posted Oct 11, 2012.
When retired WC Bruce Byron the incoming CEO in 2004 withdrew the PAP ICAO /FAR harmonized universal aviation law part 43/66/145/147 suite allegedly in-transit to the Ministers office for signing he resumed rulemaking powers separated under the Sharp/Leroy/PAP which directed CASA to uphold the government’s universal aviation law treaty obligations and responsibilities for CASA’s Safety Oversight Program to be very closely harmonized with the FAA airworthiness system.
Bruce Byron replaced the illegally withdrawn PAP package with an undeveloped hybrid EASA licence and MRO regulatory agenda to return aerospace products to service to CASA’s satisfaction – not the FAA’s satisfaction-
The national airworthiness regulations are crafted to employ CASA airworthiness officers unemployable(ex ADF) under FAA law to inspect civil TC’d and STC’d aerospace products for design conformity.
CASA’s sub ICAO standard resources won’t allow them to service an FAA regulated Safety Oversight Program.
CASA was identified as a ‘non compliant ICAO state in the ICAO 1999 audit identifying among other non compliant ICAO SARP’s harmonized in Annex 1,6, and 8 articles the regulator was also non compliant with its administration staff including sub stand AW inspectors.
CASA promised to bring CASA up to ICAO/FAA standards to inspect aerospace products for conformity not as CASA presently does relying on tick boxed check lists as ‘conformity’ inspections, but by inspecting the aerospace product for conformity as supported by the records.
WC Bruce Byron resolved CASA resources dilemma by withdrawing the PAP maintenance suite package with his ‘Orphan Annie’ package which exhibits the hallmarks of ‘military aviation’ return to service system to ‘ an engineer officers satisfaction’-'Do as you are told’.
Today we are a ‘banana republic aviation industry’ not internationally recognized with our operators returning aerospace products to service to CASA’s satisfaction not the FAA’s satisfaction hence we invalidate the US governments design warranty for their TC’d aerospace products.
CASA now holds the warranty for upkeep of the design standard, hence the convoluted prescriptive , dysfunctional paperwork to cover their ‘butts’ as they are most unwilling to accept the liability and responsibility of declaring an aerospace product is ‘design compliant’! Inefficient, jeopardizes the safety margin, but is a lucrative revenue earner providing unnecessary unqualified airworthiness –
This system has been referred to by FAA AW inspectors as ‘The CASA ‘Tombstone’ Safety Oversight Program.!- First the aircraft crashes then you carry out a ‘post mortem’ to work out what happened’ Is there any wonder why we are not ‘internationally recognized’!
Crazy, crazy stuff.
Correct again – legal Monday, toast Friday. It's crazy stuff. Funny thing though, I was looking for a reference yesterday, thought I'd seen something in a Phelan article a while ago. Anyway; I eventually found the two year old piece and there at the bottom (right down) I came across a readers comments, posted only recently (11/10/12). There are two comments, I thought they were worth reproducing here.
To hell with the rules.
Comment 1 - posted Oct 11, 2012.
When retired WC Bruce Byron the incoming CEO in 2004 withdrew the PAP ICAO /FAR harmonized universal aviation law part 43/66/145/147 suite allegedly in-transit to the Ministers office for signing he resumed rulemaking powers separated under the Sharp/Leroy/PAP which directed CASA to uphold the government’s universal aviation law treaty obligations and responsibilities for CASA’s Safety Oversight Program to be very closely harmonized with the FAA airworthiness system.
Bruce Byron replaced the illegally withdrawn PAP package with an undeveloped hybrid EASA licence and MRO regulatory agenda to return aerospace products to service to CASA’s satisfaction – not the FAA’s satisfaction-
The national airworthiness regulations are crafted to employ CASA airworthiness officers unemployable(ex ADF) under FAA law to inspect civil TC’d and STC’d aerospace products for design conformity.
CASA’s sub ICAO standard resources won’t allow them to service an FAA regulated Safety Oversight Program.
CASA was identified as a ‘non compliant ICAO state in the ICAO 1999 audit identifying among other non compliant ICAO SARP’s harmonized in Annex 1,6, and 8 articles the regulator was also non compliant with its administration staff including sub stand AW inspectors.
CASA promised to bring CASA up to ICAO/FAA standards to inspect aerospace products for conformity not as CASA presently does relying on tick boxed check lists as ‘conformity’ inspections, but by inspecting the aerospace product for conformity as supported by the records.
WC Bruce Byron resolved CASA resources dilemma by withdrawing the PAP maintenance suite package with his ‘Orphan Annie’ package which exhibits the hallmarks of ‘military aviation’ return to service system to ‘ an engineer officers satisfaction’-'Do as you are told’.
Today we are a ‘banana republic aviation industry’ not internationally recognized with our operators returning aerospace products to service to CASA’s satisfaction not the FAA’s satisfaction hence we invalidate the US governments design warranty for their TC’d aerospace products.
CASA now holds the warranty for upkeep of the design standard, hence the convoluted prescriptive , dysfunctional paperwork to cover their ‘butts’ as they are most unwilling to accept the liability and responsibility of declaring an aerospace product is ‘design compliant’! Inefficient, jeopardizes the safety margin, but is a lucrative revenue earner providing unnecessary unqualified airworthiness –
This system has been referred to by FAA AW inspectors as ‘The CASA ‘Tombstone’ Safety Oversight Program.!- First the aircraft crashes then you carry out a ‘post mortem’ to work out what happened’ Is there any wonder why we are not ‘internationally recognized’!
Last edited by Kharon; 12th Oct 2012 at 19:35.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The comments on the To hell with the rules articles are hard to find, so with your indulgence, I have copied and pasted the second comment.
I had trouble ( a lot of trouble) with the spacing, so slightly editied.
>A much needed touch of reality in this article.
>
>In 1999 ICAO carried out a Universal Safety Oversight Program (USOP)
>audit of CASA's performance as an treaty bound International aviation law
>service provider and found Australia was a -'non compliant' ICAO treaty
>state'.
>Findings included non compliance with Annex 1,6, 8 ICAO USOP Standards
>and Recommended Practices (SARP's) and that CASA' administration employed
>AW inspectors who were sub ICAO/FAA standards.
>FAA law requires an AW inspector -inspect aerospace products for design
>conformity for return to service fit for flight-In lieue of inspecting the aerospace product for conformity CASA relies on 'ticking ' of boxes in CASA conformity check lists by unqualified AW inspectors as 'conformity' inspections.(heard described by FAA AWI's as CASA's 'tombstone' SOP).
>CASA's resources are not qualified to service an FAA regulated Safety Oversight Program.
>Making a 'tongue in cheek' promise to ICAO to bring CASA management and
>administration up to international standards by 2000 saw a swift shift
>to establish a CASA time warped' safety oversight program' regulating
>airworthiness to 'CASA's satisfaction-
>Once the PAP package was ready for the Minister signature - CASA
>management simply sat on it, developed their 'orphan Annie' rules until
>WC(ret) Bruce Byron illegally withdrew the PAP ICAO/FAR package in 2004
>and put in place a hybrid EASA AW agenda system to develop to 'CASA's
>'time warped 'satisfaction'.
>The national airworthiness regulations are crafted to employ those CASA
>airworthiness staff(ex ADF) unemployable under FAA law to inspect civil
>TC'd aircraft for design conformity fit to operate in a safe , efficient, reliable manner.
>Australia's national MRO industry is relegated to a 'banana republic
>status' as our licensed engineers are not internationally recognized (new
>licences are not Annex 1 endorsed)and as a result our CASA personnel
>certified aerospace products are often not internationally recognized and
>are often sold marked down as buyers re overhaul components etc.
>Liability is a new responsibility for ex ADF staff!
>Operating our aircraft to CASA's satisfaction-and not FAA satisfaction
>invalidates the US government design standard warranty, leaving CASA
>liable and responsible to uphold design conformity.
>Hence the prescriptive, convoluted, dysfunctional document system CASA
>requires for to cover its unqualified AW administrators liability with
>superfluous but lucrative cost recovery documentation- and pass the
>liability and responsibility for conformity certification to the
>operator!
Very costly, inefficient, and can only jeopardize safety!
>We can't boast' safer skies for all' as VH registered aircraft shouldn't
>fly too close to the sun.
>
>In 1999 ICAO carried out a Universal Safety Oversight Program (USOP)
>audit of CASA's performance as an treaty bound International aviation law
>service provider and found Australia was a -'non compliant' ICAO treaty
>state'.
>Findings included non compliance with Annex 1,6, 8 ICAO USOP Standards
>and Recommended Practices (SARP's) and that CASA' administration employed
>AW inspectors who were sub ICAO/FAA standards.
>FAA law requires an AW inspector -inspect aerospace products for design
>conformity for return to service fit for flight-In lieue of inspecting the aerospace product for conformity CASA relies on 'ticking ' of boxes in CASA conformity check lists by unqualified AW inspectors as 'conformity' inspections.(heard described by FAA AWI's as CASA's 'tombstone' SOP).
>CASA's resources are not qualified to service an FAA regulated Safety Oversight Program.
>Making a 'tongue in cheek' promise to ICAO to bring CASA management and
>administration up to international standards by 2000 saw a swift shift
>to establish a CASA time warped' safety oversight program' regulating
>airworthiness to 'CASA's satisfaction-
>Once the PAP package was ready for the Minister signature - CASA
>management simply sat on it, developed their 'orphan Annie' rules until
>WC(ret) Bruce Byron illegally withdrew the PAP ICAO/FAR package in 2004
>and put in place a hybrid EASA AW agenda system to develop to 'CASA's
>'time warped 'satisfaction'.
>The national airworthiness regulations are crafted to employ those CASA
>airworthiness staff(ex ADF) unemployable under FAA law to inspect civil
>TC'd aircraft for design conformity fit to operate in a safe , efficient, reliable manner.
>Australia's national MRO industry is relegated to a 'banana republic
>status' as our licensed engineers are not internationally recognized (new
>licences are not Annex 1 endorsed)and as a result our CASA personnel
>certified aerospace products are often not internationally recognized and
>are often sold marked down as buyers re overhaul components etc.
>Liability is a new responsibility for ex ADF staff!
>Operating our aircraft to CASA's satisfaction-and not FAA satisfaction
>invalidates the US government design standard warranty, leaving CASA
>liable and responsible to uphold design conformity.
>Hence the prescriptive, convoluted, dysfunctional document system CASA
>requires for to cover its unqualified AW administrators liability with
>superfluous but lucrative cost recovery documentation- and pass the
>liability and responsibility for conformity certification to the
>operator!
Very costly, inefficient, and can only jeopardize safety!
>We can't boast' safer skies for all' as VH registered aircraft shouldn't
>fly too close to the sun.
Last edited by Kharon; 12th Oct 2012 at 19:27. Reason: Totaly unprintable - OK.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things that make you Hmmm?!
The inquiry into the ditching was, I had hoped, going to make a difference; seems not.
The 'Old man' at the pub last night was a bit down, "wuzzup Pops" says I. It's hard to get the bugger to say much, but eventually the story emerges.
"There is a mountain of submissions being made to the committee, many of these are 'tough love' and will be difficult to handle". "So what" say I: "that's what we pay for, ain't it".
He shakes his old head and smiles at me, sad like. I had to buy him another pint, "No mate, they are only accepting the submissions they want for publication; the rest go confidential". "That's OK" says I, "ain't it? the tough ones will be dealt with".
Another pint disappears: "You don't get it Junior, if a submission is not published, neither is the response: how to shut down the inquiry 101, in a parliament near you". Another shake of the head; "buy me a pint and forget about the Senate Inquiry son; it's a done deal".
It was a very quiet walk home.
The 'Old man' at the pub last night was a bit down, "wuzzup Pops" says I. It's hard to get the bugger to say much, but eventually the story emerges.
"There is a mountain of submissions being made to the committee, many of these are 'tough love' and will be difficult to handle". "So what" say I: "that's what we pay for, ain't it".
He shakes his old head and smiles at me, sad like. I had to buy him another pint, "No mate, they are only accepting the submissions they want for publication; the rest go confidential". "That's OK" says I, "ain't it? the tough ones will be dealt with".
Another pint disappears: "You don't get it Junior, if a submission is not published, neither is the response: how to shut down the inquiry 101, in a parliament near you". Another shake of the head; "buy me a pint and forget about the Senate Inquiry son; it's a done deal".
It was a very quiet walk home.
Last edited by Kharon; 12th Oct 2012 at 20:08. Reason: Not hogging the page - just needed some space.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple Mr. casa
You approve,
You responsible if the approved product is deficient.
A later "audit" after-the-event, only proves your deficiency.
SIMPLE!! MR. casa!
Now where in the regs is the prosecution for an offence of "Strict Liability" for failure to approve a robust AOC??
You responsible if the approved product is deficient.
A later "audit" after-the-event, only proves your deficiency.
SIMPLE!! MR. casa!
Now where in the regs is the prosecution for an offence of "Strict Liability" for failure to approve a robust AOC??
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
Approve, accept, pony pooh. For CASA " It's good to be the king".
You approve, You responsible if the approved product is deficient.
A later "audit" after-the-event, only proves your deficiency.
A later "audit" after-the-event, only proves your deficiency.
Look at some of the Government responses, in fact most of them, to the senate inquiry. The Government pretty much accepts the majority of recomendations. To accept does not mean you will adopt a recomendation, change anything or give approval for something. It means you merely accept what has been said. To use an analogy, "I accept the Carbon Queen as being our Prime Minister (large hurl)" Does that make me accountable for anything, or indicate that I vote for her or will shoulder any blame for her antics, actions or grotesqueness? Nope. I just accept the fact.
(Jeez, all those years of being pineappled have turned me into a small time expert in the same field as Flyingfiend and Co!)
Yes it is an interesting thing the law, the Westminster system, dictionary meanings, basically the numbers are stacked, Joe Blow will never win against Big Brother and her might!
Blackfinger
This is becoming more prevelant with smaller organisations.
An accepted and previously audited exposition is suddenly being NCNd for non compliance with the regulations.
An accepted and previously audited exposition is suddenly being NCNd for non compliance with the regulations.
What can I say - The house always win!!
Or the following clip is quite appropriate. One could assume the Regulator and Industry are depicted in this scene? You decide which is which.
Last edited by gobbledock; 13th Oct 2012 at 13:45.
the "Safety Authority" will accept/approve your operation and issue an AOC.
After that all bets are off.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complicit in Compliance.
GD # 506 - CASA no longer approve an Operators manuals, systems, S.O.P, structure etc, they accept. There is a huge difference in the legal meaning of approve and accept,
601# 507 - The real world shows that an OM is acceptable to the particular FOI or AWI at the time of acceptance.
But they don't "accept", to even get a new or variant aircraft approved to an existing AOC the process can take a frustratingly long time, cost a bomb and drive you nuts. If they are actively interfering, requiring changes, amendments and forcing SOP which are making the CP cranky, then they are "involved".
To operate a couple of bloody big busses, the RTA don't want an Operations Manual, just insurance, licensed drivers and off you go. God help you if you are operating illegally; why, because the RTA was not involved in the 'operational approval' that's why. They just accept your cheque and you are on your own hook.
It cannot be both ways, if you are part of the approval, you are part of the problem. Read the audit items for Pel Air again, then tell me CASA are not complicit.
Last edited by Kharon; 14th Oct 2012 at 19:35. Reason: Preparing for incoming legal PP.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tomorrow!.
About 1400 EST tomorrow, marks the end of an era. It will quietly happen in the Senate and your comments on this subject have made it happen. Brava Ppruners, well done!, well done indeed.
I will not bang on about the sad state this industry is in, or the governmental agencies which have; in no small way, contributed to it's near demise. My thoughts, hopes and care for an industry I love, have been shared with some great folk here; infinitum; et tedium (and probably, ad nauseam).
My hope is that just for a short while, we can all stick together and rid ourselves of the invidious, often incestuous, expensive, non productive,. parasite on this industry, which has become our Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Tomorrow is a start, the 22nd gives a slim (60/40 against) chance – the rest boys and girls; is really - up to you.
Selah – sleep well (if you can).
PS, the old man says Cheers (then rasps "about bloody time": Kilkenny rules. OK).
With the indulgence of T28 –
Macbeth:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
I will not bang on about the sad state this industry is in, or the governmental agencies which have; in no small way, contributed to it's near demise. My thoughts, hopes and care for an industry I love, have been shared with some great folk here; infinitum; et tedium (and probably, ad nauseam).
My hope is that just for a short while, we can all stick together and rid ourselves of the invidious, often incestuous, expensive, non productive,. parasite on this industry, which has become our Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Tomorrow is a start, the 22nd gives a slim (60/40 against) chance – the rest boys and girls; is really - up to you.
Selah – sleep well (if you can).
PS, the old man says Cheers (then rasps "about bloody time": Kilkenny rules. OK).
With the indulgence of T28 –
Macbeth:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
from Ben Sandilands re Senate Inquiry..
A former deputy CEO of CASA, Mick Quinn, raised the possibility of criminal prosecutions against the chief investigator responsible for its the ATSB’s final report into the Pel-Air ditching off Norfolk Island in 2009 during today’s Senate inquiry into Air Accident Investigations.
Criminal action possibility raised in Pel-Air hearing | Plane Talking
Pel-Air pilot calls for withdrawal of ATSB accident report | Plane Talking
ATSB chiefs admits he's not proud of Pel-Air report | Plane Talking
A former deputy CEO of CASA, Mick Quinn, raised the possibility of criminal prosecutions against the chief investigator responsible for its the ATSB’s final report into the Pel-Air ditching off Norfolk Island in 2009 during today’s Senate inquiry into Air Accident Investigations.
Criminal action possibility raised in Pel-Air hearing | Plane Talking
Pel-Air pilot calls for withdrawal of ATSB accident report | Plane Talking
ATSB chiefs admits he's not proud of Pel-Air report | Plane Talking
Last edited by joe_bloggs; 22nd Oct 2012 at 22:35.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pel-Air Liability
The pilot's ignorance is so incredible it really makes you shake your head
when you discover that he is back flying?
The WX was known to be unpredictable, he left with minimal fuel and empty tip tanks, and, apparently made no effort to check the weather before he reached the point of no return.
Then there is the chief pilot or ops manager who approved of the flight.
Then it goes on to the responsibility of the person doing the emergency training, the person who checks the emergency equipment, the person who made the check list, and then of course, who allowed the type training to be done by a non approved person?
Then, to top it all off, the investigator gives Pel-Air a clean bill of health?
That Pel-Air had no liability in any form
No, that's not all.
Then we have them having the audacity, and the government, the equal audacity to try and take over the RFDS that operates on standards and its duty as a charitable organization?
That means we are looking at all the signs and symptoms of incredible corruption not to mention, asking for another accident to happen
with a pilot who took off with minimal fuel to a weather hell hole at the end of its fuel endurance without checking the wx before he crossed the PNR.
How anyone can hire him under again, is mindboggling.
If I ever get on a plane with him up the front,
I'd get off in a flash and so should anyone else with any brains.
when you discover that he is back flying?
The WX was known to be unpredictable, he left with minimal fuel and empty tip tanks, and, apparently made no effort to check the weather before he reached the point of no return.
Then there is the chief pilot or ops manager who approved of the flight.
Then it goes on to the responsibility of the person doing the emergency training, the person who checks the emergency equipment, the person who made the check list, and then of course, who allowed the type training to be done by a non approved person?
Then, to top it all off, the investigator gives Pel-Air a clean bill of health?
That Pel-Air had no liability in any form
No, that's not all.
Then we have them having the audacity, and the government, the equal audacity to try and take over the RFDS that operates on standards and its duty as a charitable organization?
That means we are looking at all the signs and symptoms of incredible corruption not to mention, asking for another accident to happen
with a pilot who took off with minimal fuel to a weather hell hole at the end of its fuel endurance without checking the wx before he crossed the PNR.
How anyone can hire him under again, is mindboggling.
If I ever get on a plane with him up the front,
I'd get off in a flash and so should anyone else with any brains.
Ramjet
From the Pilot himself, if he filled the tiptanks he would, when instructed to leave RVSM airspace had to descend to FL270. Without the tiptanks filled he could have climbed to FL390 like he did. FL270 with full tip tanks would have caused him to arrive with less fuel than what he did.
This would have been a much worse situation than what he found himself in, on that particular night.
From what I can see, this whole thing was a complete schommozle, from the company flight planning equipment (non existent) to the ops manual, to the training, to CRM, to pax briefings, to the aircraft that was being operated.
Disgusting.
From the Pilot himself, if he filled the tiptanks he would, when instructed to leave RVSM airspace had to descend to FL270. Without the tiptanks filled he could have climbed to FL390 like he did. FL270 with full tip tanks would have caused him to arrive with less fuel than what he did.
This would have been a much worse situation than what he found himself in, on that particular night.
From what I can see, this whole thing was a complete schommozle, from the company flight planning equipment (non existent) to the ops manual, to the training, to CRM, to pax briefings, to the aircraft that was being operated.
Disgusting.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Age: 46
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ramjet,
Personally, he is very employable now.
1. He is certainly never going to put himself in that type of a situation again,
2. Everyone's eyes are on him now. Everyone knows of him now. He will be so squeaky clean in his airmanship now.
Personally, he is very employable now.
1. He is certainly never going to put himself in that type of a situation again,
2. Everyone's eyes are on him now. Everyone knows of him now. He will be so squeaky clean in his airmanship now.
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
The chief pilot is very employable now. Indeed works for CASA according to my read of the Senate tody.
Let's have a think here – If the CASA are going to 'accept' an exposition, then they only need take a new application over the counter (accept it) collect the money (lots of) and same day issue a certificate. Piece of cake – no fuss. The holder is then solely responsible for operating legally and if CASA audit at a later date and "discover" breaches, then it would be fair to prosecute, fine, shut down or whatever.
CASA should be the organisation to oversee and "police" the operation from then on. If they find things in you organisation are not in accordance with the Regs, write out a ticket and get it fixed or allow the courts to decide.
The way it is now, the issuance of a certificate, approval, etc. by CASA is based on an individual's interpretation of whether you comply with the applicable legislation by the individual's who has the "delegation" to issue said certificate.