CASA v Fearless Phelan.
So next time the ATIS is reporting crosswinds of 15Kts +, im off for a ILS into YSSY! in my Tecnam!
That's what the law says is your right!! That's what CASA said was the mitigator in the "safety case" to "approve" the closure of RW18/36.
Personally, I would be declaring the emergency, and in a Tecnam or similar, landing into wind on what is left of 18 --- paying due care and attention to not use the fence at the end as a barrier net to stop me tumbling into the quite deep water filled gully that now runs parallel to the south taxiway.
Tootle pip!!
Rude and aggressive I can live with, but pointless, purblind ignorance and terminal arrogance, that's an altogether different animal
ah so old son . .. . . as the seasoned man about the horse you once were I know that you'll smile at what the late Kell B. Jeffery ("The Jeffery Method of Horse Handling") once said to a bunch of critics watching him at work.
"Now I'll do it the right way and show you there is no vice in any horse - that they are all kind and tractable provided the one doing the handling is not 'most ignorant where he is most assured.'
p.s. Fearless and I received our 'wings' on the same night at The Civic Hotel in Civic Centre . .. . . . Ist April 1960. Have photo as reminder of occasion. (Other six in the pic all dead . .. 'and so it goes' . . . 'Feelin' Groovy ' always did wear the hallmarks of the crusader.
I think a number of people, including the author of the article at the link posted by LeadSled, are making the (fairly common) mistake of conflating maximum demonstrated crosswind and maximum crosswind limitation.
And this, from the linked article, is champagne comedy:
And this, from the linked article, is champagne comedy:
The Australian Government Solicitor is acting for CASA in the Polar matter, and Comsure is not mentioned as a party, suggesting that if CASA is found to have a liability, it is uninsured.
------- are making the (fairly common) mistake of conflating maximum demonstrated crosswind and maximum crosswind limitation.
In AFMs, maximum demonstrated crosswind has superseded (absolute) crosswind limits in the Limitations section of the AFM or equivalent.
You will still find hard limits for crosswind plus gust, or crosswind including gust, in such columns as autolands and Cat. II/III operations, in the AFM or equivalent.
Various NAA have different approaches to what is in an Operating Specification or equivalent, as to how the maximum demonstrated crosswind will be used bu pilots on a day to day basis.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old saying, " The pen is mightier than the sword", is appropriate for "Fearless Phelan "
Ultimately the written word will unseat those in CASA who abuse and violate the system.
Ultimately the written word will unseat those in CASA who abuse and violate the system.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old saying, " The pen is mightier than the sword", is appropriate for "Fearless Phelan "
Ultimately the written word will unseat those in CASA who abuse and violate the system.
Leaddie
I couldn’t possibly comment on the extraordinary intricacies and complexities of the aircraft to which you referred.
Could we concentrate on the humble C152 referred to in the article?
The POH says, under the heading “Speeds for Normal Operation”:
There is no crosswind limitation in the Limitations Section.
The “Normal Procedures Section” says, under the heading “CROSSWIND LANDING”:
In the “Performance” section there is a wind components diagram – one of those quarter compass jobbies, with tailwind/headwind on the vertical axis and crosswind component on the horizontal axis, plotted by projecting from the tailwind/headwind component on the vertical axis across to the wind velocity and wind-to-runway angle arcs.
Intriguingly, there is a ‘Note’ above the crosswind diagram. The note says:
[Bolding added]
What is the crosswind limitation on a C152?
I couldn’t possibly comment on the extraordinary intricacies and complexities of the aircraft to which you referred.
Could we concentrate on the humble C152 referred to in the article?
The POH says, under the heading “Speeds for Normal Operation”:
Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind Velocity ….. 12 KNOTS
The “Normal Procedures Section” says, under the heading “CROSSWIND LANDING”:
When landing in a strong crosswind, use the minimum flap setting required for the field length. Use a wing low, crab, or a combination method of drift correction and land in a nearly level attitude.
Intriguingly, there is a ‘Note’ above the crosswind diagram. The note says:
Maximum demonstrated crosswind velocity is 12 knots (not a limitation).
What is the crosswind limitation on a C152?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A four legged friend.
Ah Fantome; you speak of the old days; when the earth was soft, the sky was misty, all Fokkers were Friendly and flight deck sandwiches were always soggy. Such was life then.
These Fokkers ain't so friendly now, tea and biccy's - not on the menu. There is a measurable, demonstrable negative impact on operational and public safety being 'enforced' on the aviation community. Regrettably, as there is no viable avenue to reach a voice of reason it has become necessary to hang all of the industry dirty washing out, in public.
You will find there are some who will split hairs, argue endlessly, witlessly and pointlessly about the differences between a hard set limitation and a demonstrated crosswind component, even about demanding a full blown stall in aircraft with strict AFM prohibitions against exactly that.
Even my Mama knows that in the hands of a "pilot" a 12 knot crosswind is child's play; in the hands of a first solo cadet, that the instructor needs his arse kicked for sending young spotty out to play in dangerous conditions. But when the hairdressers, cross dressers and the letter of the law mob "Golden West Mafia" get involved; well it's time to shoot straight and take no prisoners.
The days of respect, probity, responsibility and good old fashioned horse sense have been sacrificed to the Gods of "we, the experts place blood on the hands of those brave enough to defy us".
Experts – Bollicks !. Rejects from the pencil sharpening cupboard, loadmasters, has been, wanna be, failed or sacked from industry; not a halfway decent pilot amongst them anymore. At least someone got smart and stopped them flying before there was an elegant no responsibly black letter law version of a smoking hole. Praise be.
And yes, it's not very much like the world of my much loved four legged friends where it's still a question of judgement not black letter law which will ultimately keep you and those you care for alive.
Selah.
These Fokkers ain't so friendly now, tea and biccy's - not on the menu. There is a measurable, demonstrable negative impact on operational and public safety being 'enforced' on the aviation community. Regrettably, as there is no viable avenue to reach a voice of reason it has become necessary to hang all of the industry dirty washing out, in public.
You will find there are some who will split hairs, argue endlessly, witlessly and pointlessly about the differences between a hard set limitation and a demonstrated crosswind component, even about demanding a full blown stall in aircraft with strict AFM prohibitions against exactly that.
Even my Mama knows that in the hands of a "pilot" a 12 knot crosswind is child's play; in the hands of a first solo cadet, that the instructor needs his arse kicked for sending young spotty out to play in dangerous conditions. But when the hairdressers, cross dressers and the letter of the law mob "Golden West Mafia" get involved; well it's time to shoot straight and take no prisoners.
The days of respect, probity, responsibility and good old fashioned horse sense have been sacrificed to the Gods of "we, the experts place blood on the hands of those brave enough to defy us".
Experts – Bollicks !. Rejects from the pencil sharpening cupboard, loadmasters, has been, wanna be, failed or sacked from industry; not a halfway decent pilot amongst them anymore. At least someone got smart and stopped them flying before there was an elegant no responsibly black letter law version of a smoking hole. Praise be.
And yes, it's not very much like the world of my much loved four legged friends where it's still a question of judgement not black letter law which will ultimately keep you and those you care for alive.
Selah.
Last edited by Kharon; 28th Feb 2012 at 11:14. Reason: Separate steam from formatting - go figure.
A: There isn't one, as you alluded to in your post. The maximum demonstrated is just that, the maximum crosswind demonstrated for that aircraft type. Above that it is a judgement call by the pilot, who assesses the factors on the day, and makes a decision what to do.
In other words there is no line in the sand. Just a big grey area.
In other words there is no line in the sand. Just a big grey area.
[S]ome who will split hairs, argue endlessly, witlessly and pointlessly about the differences between a hard set limitation and a demonstrated crosswind component.
(Correct, NZ.
And a lack of understanding of the difference can have safety consequences.)
Creamie,
Subject to having a look at the manual to which you refer, as far as I am concerned ( and, I strongly suspect, most insurance companies) that means the cross wind limit is 12 knots.
A lot of GA manuals are a bit of a mess, even some more recent Cessna manuals, allegedly in the GAMA format, illustrate the wide interpretations of the GAMA recommendations. I should imagine that even the most recent editions of a C152 manual are not exactly new.
A later rather gung-ho ( as I was once, until I grew up -- or was it experience - I've got a lot of time in the RHS of a C-152) poster clearly doesn't understand the "new" certification term "maximum demonstrated crosswind". I recommend he has a look at an FAA certification flight test guide for a partucular FAR 23 aircraft --- 'tiz all on the net.
Given the several C-152/172 I have seen flipped on their backs, including one on the taxiway at Rutherford, immediately in front of me, an eyewitness, so to speak, I treat any high wing Cessna with great caution, you might get it on the ground, but then you have to taxi ---- and the aeroplane I was in flying at the time didn't even rock in the gusts ---- as a Bonanza would have behaved.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The latest, AC23-8C doesn't help much, unless you have what has been agreed between the FAA and the manufacturer for the type. As a matter of interest ( or just to confuse you) there is also a minimum maximum demonstrated airspeed that the aircraft (under 6000lb) must achieve.
Subject to having a look at the manual to which you refer, as far as I am concerned ( and, I strongly suspect, most insurance companies) that means the cross wind limit is 12 knots.
A lot of GA manuals are a bit of a mess, even some more recent Cessna manuals, allegedly in the GAMA format, illustrate the wide interpretations of the GAMA recommendations. I should imagine that even the most recent editions of a C152 manual are not exactly new.
A later rather gung-ho ( as I was once, until I grew up -- or was it experience - I've got a lot of time in the RHS of a C-152) poster clearly doesn't understand the "new" certification term "maximum demonstrated crosswind". I recommend he has a look at an FAA certification flight test guide for a partucular FAR 23 aircraft --- 'tiz all on the net.
Given the several C-152/172 I have seen flipped on their backs, including one on the taxiway at Rutherford, immediately in front of me, an eyewitness, so to speak, I treat any high wing Cessna with great caution, you might get it on the ground, but then you have to taxi ---- and the aeroplane I was in flying at the time didn't even rock in the gusts ---- as a Bonanza would have behaved.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The latest, AC23-8C doesn't help much, unless you have what has been agreed between the FAA and the manufacturer for the type. As a matter of interest ( or just to confuse you) there is also a minimum maximum demonstrated airspeed that the aircraft (under 6000lb) must achieve.
Last edited by LeadSled; 28th Feb 2012 at 11:36.
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
Skulls secret herbs and spices
Forget what the manuals say, it is not what is written that counts, it is the INTENT of what is written that counts! Just ask your local CASA specialist.
You see if you CASArise the manual from the aspect of Intent then technically you are all correct, no hang on, you are all incorrect. Hang on a bit longer while I contact numerous field offices around the country for their varied opinions which will be based on whether they have a vendetta against me, then I will run those non consistent responses and answers through the CASA Voodoo office in Canberra for some additional seasoning in deflection and spin, sprinkle a dash of malfeasance over the top, remove all traces of accountability and then serve it nice and warm up some poor unsuspecting operators ass!
You see if you CASArise the manual from the aspect of Intent then technically you are all correct, no hang on, you are all incorrect. Hang on a bit longer while I contact numerous field offices around the country for their varied opinions which will be based on whether they have a vendetta against me, then I will run those non consistent responses and answers through the CASA Voodoo office in Canberra for some additional seasoning in deflection and spin, sprinkle a dash of malfeasance over the top, remove all traces of accountability and then serve it nice and warm up some poor unsuspecting operators ass!
Last edited by gobbledock; 28th Feb 2012 at 11:33. Reason: It was not my INTENT to engage in editing..
who knows wot??
As you are battling as per 'gobble.d', hows this for affirmatiom that CASA is seriously negligent and deficient...
I posted this statement in full elsewhere but it is an admission from CASA itself that the regs are a clusterfcuk.." difficult to interpret, understand and enforce".. "ambiguous and prescriptive" Not sure about the enforcement bit.
The coroner posted the question, since CASA have been "re-writing" the regs since 1997, and (he's) not advised of any outcomes...is that statement an indictment of CASA.?
Because of reg rubbish and the mish-mash of inconsistent interpretations, what hope is there for joe blow when they can't even work it out.
The only way forward is to bin the lot and get rid of the people that spew up this stuff.
And adopt the NZ or FAA.
I posted this statement in full elsewhere but it is an admission from CASA itself that the regs are a clusterfcuk.." difficult to interpret, understand and enforce".. "ambiguous and prescriptive" Not sure about the enforcement bit.
The coroner posted the question, since CASA have been "re-writing" the regs since 1997, and (he's) not advised of any outcomes...is that statement an indictment of CASA.?
Because of reg rubbish and the mish-mash of inconsistent interpretations, what hope is there for joe blow when they can't even work it out.
The only way forward is to bin the lot and get rid of the people that spew up this stuff.
And adopt the NZ or FAA.
.." difficult to interpret, understand and enforce".. "ambiguous and prescriptive"
SAFETY ACTIONS
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
In June 2006, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued Regulatory Policy CEO-PN008-2006 Fire Fighting Operations. This policy was not issued to address any safety concerns identified in this or any other occurrence, but to replace a previous policy that CASA considered ‘over prescriptive, too procedural and difficult to understand’. The stated intention is to incorporate the key elements of the policy into the proposed Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 137.
The policy was issued to clarify that CASA considered that aerial fire fighting, while not specifically listed in Civil Aviation Regulation 206, was an aerial work activity. The policy addressed safety issues such as operations over populous areas, aircraft gross weight limits, flight crew qualifications and flight and duty limitations8.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
In June 2006, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued Regulatory Policy CEO-PN008-2006 Fire Fighting Operations. This policy was not issued to address any safety concerns identified in this or any other occurrence, but to replace a previous policy that CASA considered ‘over prescriptive, too procedural and difficult to understand’. The stated intention is to incorporate the key elements of the policy into the proposed Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 137.
The policy was issued to clarify that CASA considered that aerial fire fighting, while not specifically listed in Civil Aviation Regulation 206, was an aerial work activity. The policy addressed safety issues such as operations over populous areas, aircraft gross weight limits, flight crew qualifications and flight and duty limitations8.
Investigation: 200600851 - Aircraft loss of control
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA – Integrity survey.
Thanks x 1000 for your interest; - unvarnished, unedited results at the survey end.
1. Do you have confidence and trust in the regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority ?. 94.74% – No.
2. Do you know of any CASA misconduct that has occurred?. 79.12%. Yes.
3. Did this CASA misconduct involve you personally?. 55.26%. Yes.
4. Did this CASA misconduct involve your employer?. 57.89%. Yes.
5. Was any commercial harm done to the company?. 74.03%. Yes.
6. Was any commercial harm done to yourself?. 53.95%. Yes.
7. Are you aware of any CASA misconduct towards any of your associates?. 85.93%. Yes.
8. Are you aware of factual information regarding conduct against another operator?. 67.11%. Yes.
9. Are you aware of factual information regarding conduct against another pilot that you know?. 67.09%. Yes.
10. Are you aware of any instances in which CASA has been dishonest towards yourself?. 69.74%.Yes.
11. Are you personally aware of CASA dishonesty towards a group or individual other than yourself?. 76.32%. Yes.
12. Did this CASA misconduct or dishonesty involve any of the following? (Please tick for Yes). 76.32%.
Falsifying etc. 19.25%.
Fabrication etc. 20.86%.
Losing Info etc. 17.32%.
Tampering etc. 12.85%.
Blatant Lying etc. 30.17%.
13. Have you witnessed any past CASA conduct that you would consider malicious or vindictive?. 86.08%. Yes
14. Are you aware of any behaviour that suggests a vendetta against a pilot or operator?. 86.08%. Yes.
15. In which area offices have you witnessed misconduct? Please tick below. CASA HQ. Canberra – 23.53% : Cairns/Townsville 16.54% : Bankstown 14.96%. Melbourne 9.56% : Darwin 8.09% : Archerfield 5.15 : Jandakot 3.68% : Parafield 2.21% : Tamworth 2.21% : Other 14.07%.
16. Should a Judicial Inquiry or Royal Commission into CASA misconduct be initiated?. 92.63%. Yes.
17. If suitable protection was guaranteed for a witness in either form of inquiry above;
Would you be prepared to testify. 38.21%.
Do you have factual testimony etc. 25.20%.
Do you have anecdotal evidence etc. 36.59%.
2. Do you know of any CASA misconduct that has occurred?. 79.12%. Yes.
3. Did this CASA misconduct involve you personally?. 55.26%. Yes.
4. Did this CASA misconduct involve your employer?. 57.89%. Yes.
5. Was any commercial harm done to the company?. 74.03%. Yes.
6. Was any commercial harm done to yourself?. 53.95%. Yes.
7. Are you aware of any CASA misconduct towards any of your associates?. 85.93%. Yes.
8. Are you aware of factual information regarding conduct against another operator?. 67.11%. Yes.
9. Are you aware of factual information regarding conduct against another pilot that you know?. 67.09%. Yes.
10. Are you aware of any instances in which CASA has been dishonest towards yourself?. 69.74%.Yes.
11. Are you personally aware of CASA dishonesty towards a group or individual other than yourself?. 76.32%. Yes.
12. Did this CASA misconduct or dishonesty involve any of the following? (Please tick for Yes). 76.32%.
Falsifying etc. 19.25%.
Fabrication etc. 20.86%.
Losing Info etc. 17.32%.
Tampering etc. 12.85%.
Blatant Lying etc. 30.17%.
13. Have you witnessed any past CASA conduct that you would consider malicious or vindictive?. 86.08%. Yes
14. Are you aware of any behaviour that suggests a vendetta against a pilot or operator?. 86.08%. Yes.
15. In which area offices have you witnessed misconduct? Please tick below. CASA HQ. Canberra – 23.53% : Cairns/Townsville 16.54% : Bankstown 14.96%. Melbourne 9.56% : Darwin 8.09% : Archerfield 5.15 : Jandakot 3.68% : Parafield 2.21% : Tamworth 2.21% : Other 14.07%.
16. Should a Judicial Inquiry or Royal Commission into CASA misconduct be initiated?. 92.63%. Yes.
17. If suitable protection was guaranteed for a witness in either form of inquiry above;
Would you be prepared to testify. 38.21%.
Do you have factual testimony etc. 25.20%.
Do you have anecdotal evidence etc. 36.59%.
