CASA strikes again - with video evidence
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
a serious breach must (sic) occurred
What on earth is that meant to mean, what are we 12 years old? I bet my dicks bigger then your dick?
Now don't change the subject to claim human error was your lolly in the first place. You damned a person for "something" nobody knows anything about, who did "something" that "must" have been bad because CASA, (you know that mob with the worst aviation safety /crash record in Aust), said so.
Anyway, re BBQ's, stick to rissoles. I've never had a tough one yet. You can also chuck them at anybody seen with a movie camera. Oh, and never invite CASA. They don't invite you to their christmas bash's. (or do they)?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: nowra
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank
So are you saying that there is an experience level that can be obtained where human error is not going to be an issue?. If so, can you tell me what this is? Me and im sure everyone else would love to know.
If you read my first post (my lolly)...
Sounds like a human factors statement to me old buddy...
keep feeding that culture frank. Id expect more from you.
The point, obviously lost on you, is until you, or your students pass the experience of people like Bill Lord you are just as likely as he to succumb to human error judgements.
Now don't change the subject to claim human error was your lolly in the first place.
How about, "another d!ckhead' strikes again" and pays the penalty. Fly like a tossa, expect to be dead or at best, getting a letter. Pretty simple.
keep feeding that culture frank. Id expect more from you.
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
Pedant.
Aviation Human Factors are a CASA idea if I recall the syllabus. I'm sure I passed. The problem is that with strict liability any mitagating circumstances brought about by any human factors are ignored in any legal prosecution of that law. (there are no excuses under strict liability, and it is up to you to prove you're innocent, not CASA prove you're guilty).
I'm now going to take my Fathers advice and stop responding to you. He was right about educating some folk.
Aviation Human Factors are a CASA idea if I recall the syllabus. I'm sure I passed. The problem is that with strict liability any mitagating circumstances brought about by any human factors are ignored in any legal prosecution of that law. (there are no excuses under strict liability, and it is up to you to prove you're innocent, not CASA prove you're guilty).
I'm now going to take my Fathers advice and stop responding to you. He was right about educating some folk.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Camden
Age: 68
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of us can afford to let our guard down - not even for 1 minute! I remind readers of Les Morris and his 40,000 hours. Les was about as capable, competent and committed as any pilot whom ever sat behind a control column yet he still managed to make that 1 mistake that cost him his life!
I'm with Merv; the difference of opinion here is not about whether anyone else in the past has made mistakes, be they CASA or anyone else, but about someone willingly and willfully breaking the rules - all of us should be intolerant of such behaviour regardless of who the culprit is!
I'm with Merv; the difference of opinion here is not about whether anyone else in the past has made mistakes, be they CASA or anyone else, but about someone willingly and willfully breaking the rules - all of us should be intolerant of such behaviour regardless of who the culprit is!
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
Spot on T28D, spot on -
As for the other nupty's on this thread more or less making out that CASA exists for the good of aviation and safety you are sort of correct because that is what they are meant to do, it is how they go about it that proves they are incapble of doing the task they are meant to do.
If you actually believe they are effecient at bringing about safety you are living in denial.
The CASA charter is risk management by way of protecting the fare paying public first. How is that achieved when they spend millions and hundreds of manpower hours chasing helicopter pilots who tow skiiers? Am I saying that act was perfectly safe and within the bounds of aviation safety? NO. And I am NOT defending the chopper pilot. What I am saying is that priority oversight, based on risk ranking should be given to the big end of town who are carrying the bulk of fare paying public, CASA say that themselves, but it is obvious with the accidents that have occurred since the 90's, the current state of the big end of town and CASA's inability to complete the most basic of tasks, AT ALL, that chasing chopper pilots as a priority is a backwards sense of thinking. If you understand safety and regulations then you will understand what some of us are saying. By some posters own admissions they have never had to deal with the regulator so how can they critisize those of us who have been unjustly dealt with? Very naieve indeed.
CASA don't stop at the simple and effective control of those who break the rules, the mendatious nature of the whole place has fostered a culture of way out behaviour that baffles the general legal profession who do not see other agencies behaving in the same way as CASA.
CASA hides behind the fact that civil courts and the AAT do not ever rule against them once the "Blood on the ground" argument is trotted out.
It is not logic and support of the "rules" that CASA relies on, more like supposition, suggestion and outright distortion of the facts.
For the General Industry nobody will support errant behaviour and on balance the Industry is self reliant and compliant.
CASA hides behind the fact that civil courts and the AAT do not ever rule against them once the "Blood on the ground" argument is trotted out.
It is not logic and support of the "rules" that CASA relies on, more like supposition, suggestion and outright distortion of the facts.
For the General Industry nobody will support errant behaviour and on balance the Industry is self reliant and compliant.
If you actually believe they are effecient at bringing about safety you are living in denial.
The CASA charter is risk management by way of protecting the fare paying public first. How is that achieved when they spend millions and hundreds of manpower hours chasing helicopter pilots who tow skiiers? Am I saying that act was perfectly safe and within the bounds of aviation safety? NO. And I am NOT defending the chopper pilot. What I am saying is that priority oversight, based on risk ranking should be given to the big end of town who are carrying the bulk of fare paying public, CASA say that themselves, but it is obvious with the accidents that have occurred since the 90's, the current state of the big end of town and CASA's inability to complete the most basic of tasks, AT ALL, that chasing chopper pilots as a priority is a backwards sense of thinking. If you understand safety and regulations then you will understand what some of us are saying. By some posters own admissions they have never had to deal with the regulator so how can they critisize those of us who have been unjustly dealt with? Very naieve indeed.
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
they have never had to deal with the regulator so how can they critisize those of us who have been unjustly dealt with?
The CASA charter is risk management by way of----
How I wish that was the case!!!! In reality, we have gone back 20+ years in the approach to regulation, and the administration of aviation regulation.
The backslide is government wide, with much of government regulatory activity specifically exempt from cost/benefit analysis, the biggest example being the NBN.
Early on, John McCormack announced that risk management was not mentioned in the Act, therefor it did not apply:
3A Main object of this Act
The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.
The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.
More recently, many CASA proposals have referred to something called the "precautionary principle", with a quote from a 1982 (or was it '83) Gibbs High Court decision that is the precedent for "duty of care", such "duty" being widely misquoted and thoroughly misunderstood in the aviation sector.
In the 1990s and , on, the Productivity Commission, Office of Regulation Review, ORR, and later, the Office of Best Practice Practice Regulation, OBPR (the result of a major inquiry into excessive and ineffective but costly regulation ) set the "whole of government policy" standards for a risk management approach to regulation, with cost/benefit analysis being mandatory, and the Legislative Instrument Act 2003 imposing mandatory sunset clauses on a wide swathe of regulation.
With this government, that has all gone, the only thing better than more regulation is more and more regulation, and to hell with the cost of effectiveness.
CASA is even quoting a passage from the said HCA decision in NPRM etc., to justify the "precautionary principle" --- a very new invention that will and is costing aviation dearly.
All a great leap backwards.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA don't stop at the simple and effective control of those who break the rules, the mendatious nature of the whole place has fostered a culture of way out behaviour that baffles the general legal profession who do not see other agencies behaving in the same way as CASA.
Just to add it takes a long time and money to get redress via the legal system. CASA will do all they can to keep you from getting there. Franks $100,000 gives us an idea. $ and time wasted to correct injustice.
I spotted a casa employees profile on linked in and he put his job title as '**** kicker'. It has been there a good time and explains a lot about this guys attitude. I won't post his name.........
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 10th Feb 2012 at 08:30.
Merv, nobody condones "breaking the rules", especially when a breach of the rules demonstrates a total lack of common sense.
What I think annoys people about CASA is that they allegedly always go after the low hanging fruit (trawling through YouTube videos) and attempt to impose draconian penalties for what we would perhaps regard as trifles while condoning and/or not prosecuting far more serious transgressions.
The result is perhaps misplaced sympathy for someone CASA pounces on like a certain North Queensland helicopter pilot who was punished on Youtube evidence of alleged dangerous flying (John Quadrio).
To put that another way, when was the last time Qantas appeared in court, being prosecuted on behalf of CASA for a safety breach?
To put that yet another way, as a low time PPL flying out of YMMB and around the Melbourne area, it was obvious at least Six years ago that the influx of foreign students with less than perfect language skills and a somewhat different attitude to regulatory compliance had the potential to cause problems. Where was a proactive regulator then? I'm still amazed that there aren't more accidents, and when the Oxford boys and girls get in the circuit, and I hear the ATC controllers voice go up an octave, I clear out real quick.
The aviation regulatory climate in Australia reminds me of the old joke about treating a case of "crabs":
1. Shave half the pubic hair.
2. Dowse the other half with petrol and set it alight.
3. When the crabs run out of the burning hair, stab them with an ice pick.
cheerio.
What I think annoys people about CASA is that they allegedly always go after the low hanging fruit (trawling through YouTube videos) and attempt to impose draconian penalties for what we would perhaps regard as trifles while condoning and/or not prosecuting far more serious transgressions.
The result is perhaps misplaced sympathy for someone CASA pounces on like a certain North Queensland helicopter pilot who was punished on Youtube evidence of alleged dangerous flying (John Quadrio).
To put that another way, when was the last time Qantas appeared in court, being prosecuted on behalf of CASA for a safety breach?
To put that yet another way, as a low time PPL flying out of YMMB and around the Melbourne area, it was obvious at least Six years ago that the influx of foreign students with less than perfect language skills and a somewhat different attitude to regulatory compliance had the potential to cause problems. Where was a proactive regulator then? I'm still amazed that there aren't more accidents, and when the Oxford boys and girls get in the circuit, and I hear the ATC controllers voice go up an octave, I clear out real quick.
The aviation regulatory climate in Australia reminds me of the old joke about treating a case of "crabs":
1. Shave half the pubic hair.
2. Dowse the other half with petrol and set it alight.
3. When the crabs run out of the burning hair, stab them with an ice pick.
cheerio.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As interestingly as you have described it Sunfish, you are exactly right. They have started the "easy" form of policing these days, by sitting behind a computer screen watching YouTube and looking through aviation forums.
Say even 10 years ago was a different story where you would actually see them on a weekend at airports, talking with pilots, attending flyins, I'd even know who they were, talk to them by name and greet them with a hello. Not these days; it's enforcement almost by proxy, with the proxy being the legal system and the AAT.
Those that say this isn't the case either rarely fly more than 2 hours a year or haven't set foot behind a control column for a long time and ironically also the same types that troll YouTube and forums looking for things to bitch about and feeding on the misfortune of other.
As for the foreign student situation, some would say its only a matter of time before something bad happens, however some would argue that it already has on many occasions.
Say even 10 years ago was a different story where you would actually see them on a weekend at airports, talking with pilots, attending flyins, I'd even know who they were, talk to them by name and greet them with a hello. Not these days; it's enforcement almost by proxy, with the proxy being the legal system and the AAT.
Those that say this isn't the case either rarely fly more than 2 hours a year or haven't set foot behind a control column for a long time and ironically also the same types that troll YouTube and forums looking for things to bitch about and feeding on the misfortune of other.
As for the foreign student situation, some would say its only a matter of time before something bad happens, however some would argue that it already has on many occasions.
I've stayed out of trouble with CASA too, and intend to continue. It appears from the pages of Pprune that there are signifigant numbers of cases that make it all the way to the AAT at considerable cost that suggest that where there is smoke there is combustion going on.
....Or are you suggesting that Qantas has never breached the regulations?
....Or are you suggesting that Qantas has never breached the regulations?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 59
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would CASA spend taxpayers money driving cars to airfields and tourist spots all over the country when they can collect from YouTube readily available evidence of the idiot factor doing the antics we've all (or the responsible people) condemned them for for years.
What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
Why would CASA spend taxpayers money driving cars to airfields and tourist spots all over the country when they can collect from YouTube readily available evidence of the idiot factor doing the antics we've all (or the responsible people) condemned them for for years. What's wrong with that?
1) Stasi like or secret police approach
2) Anybody advocating that clearly is afraid to engage with industry, auditing, ramp checking or the like. Competent staff would see job as knowing what is happening in industry not via dodgy you tube clip.
3) further creates the us and them attitude.
4) sitting in office in Bris Mel or wherever watching video with like minds sipping a latte til you find some target to bully and convincing selves of some wrong doing.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 10th Feb 2012 at 21:55.
Walls:
Ask John Quadrio. He lost his licence on a charge of "dangerous flying" from a dubious Youtube video.
Search Pprune and you will find threads with a considerable amount of information on the antics CASA went through.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...-s-latest.html
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...n-quadrio.html
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...s-licence.html
Quadrio and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 709 (12 October 2011)
There are however some great videos of idiots like this one in Kazakhstan, a Zenith 701 is not an aerobatic aircraft:
How would you like it having CASA trawl through every scenic flight video on Youtube looking for evidence of your infraction of the rules?
Lets start with this video of a takeoff - since aren't electronic devices supposed to be switched off for takeoff and landing? Did the pilot maintain runway heading to 500 feet? Are we watching dangerous low flying here?
Here is another one 500ft terrain clearance?
VFR?
How many regulation breaches can we spot here?
Why would CASA spend taxpayers money driving cars to airfields and tourist spots all over the country when they can collect from YouTube readily available evidence of the idiot factor doing the antics we've all (or the responsible people) condemned them for for years.
What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that?
Search Pprune and you will find threads with a considerable amount of information on the antics CASA went through.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...-s-latest.html
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...n-quadrio.html
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...s-licence.html
Quadrio and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 709 (12 October 2011)
There are however some great videos of idiots like this one in Kazakhstan, a Zenith 701 is not an aerobatic aircraft:
How would you like it having CASA trawl through every scenic flight video on Youtube looking for evidence of your infraction of the rules?
Lets start with this video of a takeoff - since aren't electronic devices supposed to be switched off for takeoff and landing? Did the pilot maintain runway heading to 500 feet? Are we watching dangerous low flying here?
Here is another one 500ft terrain clearance?
VFR?
How many regulation breaches can we spot here?
Last edited by Sunfish; 10th Feb 2012 at 22:20.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 59
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just don't get it do you Sunfish, the Quadrio thing destroyed itself in the end with the open admissions on this site.
Regardless of the way evidence is collected, unsafe behaviour is unsafe behaviour, and we frequently read how ****** mates allowed it to continue until the person finally took out himself and sometimes others.
Regardless of the way evidence is collected, unsafe behaviour is unsafe behaviour, and we frequently read how ****** mates allowed it to continue until the person finally took out himself and sometimes others.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walls,
You seen happy to advocate guilty until proven innocent. Can you enlighten readers as to how this works under Australian law? This is the key to many of the issues with casa and people that want to play the role of judge jury and executioner.
I suggest you look at how our laws are supposed to operate in oz. I agree and nobody is supporting breaches in regs or unsafe behavior but there is a right and wrong way to investigate.
You seen happy to advocate guilty until proven innocent. Can you enlighten readers as to how this works under Australian law? This is the key to many of the issues with casa and people that want to play the role of judge jury and executioner.
I suggest you look at how our laws are supposed to operate in oz. I agree and nobody is supporting breaches in regs or unsafe behavior but there is a right and wrong way to investigate.