The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Merged: CASA Regulatory Reform

Old 23rd Oct 2013, 23:18
  #241 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry

casa and skulls comments to the Coolum meeting.

Different with the response at Brisbane to AMROBA, with no "release".

Here is the "Latest by skull":

As a result, since 2010, nearly 200 new rules, rule amendments and guidance documents have been finalised or are nearing completion, and this has been done with the active involvement and cooperation of the Australian aviation industry.
and

We carefully considered the views of all interested sectors of the industry and the wider aviation community, and take all reasonable comments and submissions into account before any rules are finalised.
and

I can assure you it is not CASA's intention to impose unnecessary burden on the industry.
Skull finally admits the mess is here YES

and:

That there is co-operation from industry.

Ha - Not from the stuff I have seen.

Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 23rd Oct 2013 at 23:39.
Up-into-the-air is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2013, 00:49
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
and take all reasonable comments and submissions into account before any rules are finalised
what that actually means is that you can submit anything you want to the regulatory reform process but we will only ever do what we intended in the first place.

canadian owner maintenance works for canada and south africa.
obviousy Australians are too stupid to maintain their aircraft.

the CAAP on private owner maintenance is interesting. The approved SAAA maintenance course runs over two days. all it covers is paperwork.
one would think that if CASA lived in the real universe the maintenance course would cover maintenance issues, but it doesn't. it covers law and paperwork.
....as if that would save you.

Last edited by dubbleyew eight; 24th Oct 2013 at 01:17.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2013, 01:42
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PG 18+

Not your average Thursday night viewing, but for students of body language, spin muffins and Wodgerisms; the clip is worth at least a fast run through.

Choccy frog for the identity of the "Mystery Blonde"

6 minutes of fame ??.

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. McBeth.

Last edited by Kharon; 24th Oct 2013 at 01:44. Reason: Hi viz Barf bags - mandatory.
Kharon is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2013, 02:11
  #244 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry and so is mccormick

BLAAAH

Up-into-the-air is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2013, 06:26
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why CASA is CASA

This is a long but interesting read about the methodology and mindset behind today's CASA. A sort of tale about its beginning, birth and reincarnation;
http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchr.../full_text.pdf

After reading the above work then read Dicks book 'Two Years in the aviation hall of fame'. Much of what he says is actually factual about today's modern CASA. Not pretty by any means, and the amusing and colourful descriptions of the then CAA are robust.
Either way CASA is still, and will always be, a basket case unless a minister with balls takes the beast by the horns and slaughters it.
What about you Mr Truss, got the gooleys to do the job?

Last edited by Paragraph377; 24th Oct 2013 at 06:27.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2013, 20:10
  #246 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
casa and part 100.5

casa claim that there is no major effect to aviation due 100.5, yet they publish the following yesterday:

Project CS 13/27
Project CS 13/27 - Review the requirements for the calibration for certain aircraft instruments when the aircraft is operating under the Visual Flight Rules


Issue

Civil Aviation Regulations (1988) (CAR) 39 (Class A aircraft) and 41 (Class B aircraft) require that all aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft, are maintained. Those regulations go further and prohibit operation of that aircraft unless there is a maintenance program that includes instructions for all those components included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
Three Airworthiness Directives (ADs) were published to address the needs of certain instruments to ensure consistent standards were being applied:
  • AD/INST/8 applicable to aircraft operating under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR),
  • AD/INST/9 applicable to aircraft operating under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and
  • AD/RAD/43 applicable to any aircraft fitted with a transponder and altitude encoding equipment and operating under either the VFR or IFR.
A review of appropriateness of using airworthiness directives for maintenance directions resulted in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 100.5 being amended to include Paragraph 11, Additional maintenance requirements, which has replaced the three ADs. It is important to note that Schedule 5 of the CAR does not provide any testing parameters needed when performing scheduled maintenance on these instruments and systems.
CAO 100.5 requires that all aircraft, with some exemptions, operating in Australian airspace are to have specific maintenance tasks completed on the aircraft's pitot static system, including altimeter and airspeed indicator every 2 years and the fuel quantity indicating system every 4 years. Exempted aircraft are those aircraft which have an existing approved maintenance program that includes these specific requirements.
CAR 39 and 41 make no distinction as to the nature of operations the aircraft is to be used for. To allow aircraft operating under the Visual Flight Rules to be excluded from the requirement to regularly maintain certain aircraft instruments and systems would require CAR 39 and 41 to be amended or that provision included in the proposed CASR Part 91.
Concerns have been raised by some members of the aviation industry that the current universal requirements to regularly calibrate certain aircraft instruments and systems are an unnecessary cost impost on some sections of the aviation industry in Australia and are unwarranted.
By not requiring a section of the Australian fleet to perform regular maintenance on certain equipment when they are potentially operating in the same airspace as aircraft being maintained may increase the risk of loss of separation.
A Discussion Paper will be prepared and released to determine the extent of the concern regarding the costs of these maintenance actions for aircraft operating under the VFR and the associated risks. This may lead to further consultation linked to regulatory changes.
Project objective

To release a Discussion Paper to present the issues and, following review of responses, determine if further action is warranted.
Rules affected

CAR 39, CAR 41, CASR 91, CAO 100.5
Status

This project was approved by: Peter Boyd on 22 October 2013.
Project management

Project Leader/s: Charles Lenarcic
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Boyd, Executive Manager Standards Division
Standards Officer/s: Mick McGill
Project Priority

Medium

Is this burying the matter again??
Up-into-the-air is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2013, 21:10
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just don't rock the boat-Ok.

So much said, so little done -
What about you Mr Truss, got the gooleys to do the job?
A very valid question, I get a feeling of impending nothingness which is fully supported by the Townsville refueller's offsider's latest scurrilous gossip. Seems old Entsch has had his wings clipped by lack of party support and legal threats, Ol' McDonald (ei,ei,Oh) is miffed and hiding behind the Trusty Truss' latest piffle and McComic on 'you tube' spouting waffle (see 226 above). Gods spare us.

Digging about for something unrelated, stumbled over an interesting power-point presentation by Ron Bartsch, as the 'horse racing' theme piqued my interest, I took five to have a skim through. It's quite well done and valid.
The premise is therefore that no longer can management feel that they can remain aloof or removed from the actions of those whom they employ, and that the latent conditions or active failures built into the culture and operating practices of the organisation are an integral component of their management responsibilities.

“Regulatory compliance should not create an additional burden on an organisation if it provides little or no safety benefit, but should rather be an outcome of a system specifically designed to support the organisation’s safety operations". (Extract from CASA letter to Airline CEOs, June 2007).
Included were references and quotes from the Dick Smith book, Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom December 1984. Out of idle curiosity I took a further five to revisit Chapter 10 of the Smith missive. Between Bartsch and Smith a very ugly picture emerges which makes you wonder if anything can ever be changed. These CASA beggars have the public service mandarins so bluffed with the 'mystique' and baffled by the 'blood's on your hands' mantra that nothing short of an ICAO downgrade will make any sort of difference. I note that ICAO have just finished kicking seven bells out of the PNG CASA and are 'in the area'; perhaps Truss should spare a few moments for tea and biccy's with the ICAO crew; get a true picture and sound advice from a team that actually know what they're on about. Yep, I know, dream on - right.

"By mentioning the word "safety" whenever they believe their unfettered control is threatened, or if anyone queries their deliberate preference for granting selective dispensations instead of updating a regulation. This maintains the enormous power base of the bureaucrats concerned.” Dick Smith.
“Now there is a culture of change aversion that has effectively removed Australia from identifying and participating in improvements to air safety.” - Dick Smith Ten years of Aviation Safety Neglect July 2010.
Like Dick or not, you have to admit, he does manage to hit the odd nail or two on the head.

Last edited by Kharon; 24th Oct 2013 at 21:15.
Kharon is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2013, 23:42
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We've all been dicked, even Dick.

I agree about Dick, like him or not he knows how CASA ticks, in more ways than one. The problem for Dick is that he never fully understood who his friends or enemies were at the higher levels, and the Iron Ring knew that, so in the end Dick got dicked. You gotta feel sorry for him as his intentions were admirable and let's be honest, his strategy/vision was in many ways better than that of the current misfits. Perhaps if he had way back then invented and applied some of his robust peanut paste to the iron rings shackles he could have slipped the shackles off the government and industry's wrists earlier in the peace?

Could Bartsch be the new adviser to Trusspot? Could he be one of the new board members? Would Ron be given the mandate and support to break the iron ring and dispose of the GWM once and for all?
Either way one thing is for certain, and that is the actions of Mr Truss in coming months in relation to who the new board members are, who the new adviser is, and whether he walks the Skull prior to March, and whether he shoves that embarrassment Beaker out the door in the new year will be the defining moment and loud message of whether we are truly going to have the slate wiped clean and our industry saved, or whether we are transitioning into another chapter of the decline and destruction of Australian aviation.
I hope Mr ICAO is playing very close attention to the continued decline of aviation safety.

Last edited by Paragraph377; 24th Oct 2013 at 23:46.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2013, 23:46
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mr Bartsch is now a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2013, 23:48
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Creampuff, although I have a reasonable grasp on the AUS structure, there are some gaps for me. Serious question, could Bartsch be promoted from AAT to a DAS role, or in the least day a board position or special adviser to Trusspot?
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2013, 23:50
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Only if he resigns his membership of the AAT.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2013, 01:34
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Serious contenders.

Question department here; Mike Smith for DAS ???, any support out there. The man has an impeccable track record, sound credentials and is rumoured to be at least of the human species. There are others of equal calibre and merit; but the name M. Smith esq. pops up in many serious discussions related to replacing the head of the beast: once removed and the party over, that is.

The big question is will he, or whoever gets the nod remove the first three layers of rubbish which will be left behind, clinging to the slippery pole; you know, Wodger and likes.

Are the IOS going to have a say (mass email protest); or will the iron ring circle the wagons and enforce the of the arcane will of GWM once again?.

Time will tell, I expect.

Last edited by Kharon; 25th Oct 2013 at 01:36.
Kharon is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2013, 02:30
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Warren building bridges - Prophecy?

Thanks Creampuff, basically an easy solution, he could resign and then take up a position.

Perhaps there is something prophetic about Mr Truss name? Is it a sign from a greater entity that bridges will be built between government agency stooges and the Australian aviation industry;

The Warren truss - Sydney Harbour Bridge

Kharon, Mike Smith hey? Interesting, I reckon you may be on to something there.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2013, 06:53
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,686
Received 47 Likes on 31 Posts
Bridge girders and all...

Article re trusses..2nd part as incomprehensible as most of the Reg ****e inflicted on GA.

All businesses in GA should just say. No more forelock tugging ...and NO MORE BLOODY "expositions" EITHER.

If ever there was a way of wasting time and money, (yours) and keeping 100s of nitwits in "jobs" ...this is it and this is sh*t!

Your call Mr Truss.
aroa is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2013, 10:30
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The expositions are an overkill in Australia. The ridiculous unnecessary level of detail, not to mention the time taken to write one and then update and maintain it is another classic example of bureaucracy gone raving mad. Great example of the regulator being out of touch. I am amazed that Aleck hasn't introduced a process where all expositions must be submitted via a minute??
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2013, 21:41
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is the end of agony in sight?

377 # 238 –"The expositions are an overkill in Australia".
When the NZ regs are brought in, many a CP will be a happy chappy (or chapess). You start with your 500 pages, two red pencils and a coffee, then get to it. Within a pleasant sort of days work identify the bits that you want to keep and biff the rest, most satisfactory.

Start with the very practical 70 pages of part 61, pick the bits which affect you, dream up a method which suits your company systems and requirements and off you go. Even with indexing, document control and a bit of fluff on the side, a part 135 "exposition" will only run to a nicely spaced 100 pages; don't want 135 operations OK with careful management your part 125 (QA/SMS/Security manual excluded) will only run you out to perhaps 120 similar pages.

You do need to know your stuff though, the NZ rules are 'tight', devilish cunning, outcome based and delve into realms real operational expertise, rather than the subjective prescriptive. Should be able to adapt a lot of the old stuff directly, and if you're silly enough to want to quote a "rule number" then you need to pay a bit more attention.

Having ploughed through some of the anally retentive, agonised quasi legal mine fields that are laughingly referred to as "Operations Manuals" in Australia, I should imagine the average CP would be glad to spend a happy week or ten days crafting a manual which may be used for more than keeping the door open on a warm day.

Last edited by Kharon; 26th Oct 2013 at 21:43.
Kharon is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2013, 09:26
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unashamed BUMP.

What is it at now: this part 61 thing - 569 pages of incomprehensible gobbledygook, 159 new visible criminal charges "apparent" (gods alone know what's hidden) ; versus the NZ 79 pages of sensible (if trite) cash and no bull law. Why, FCOL; why (sotto) ???? do we put up with it. Never would we allow a rugby score to get so far of whack – would we now?? - 7.2 :: 1 - is about the ratio (ignoring the video ref)...
Kharon is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2013, 17:35
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 133*50 23*50
Posts: 163
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hey guys, I was just doing some light reading and would like to know what
11.3 (below) from CAO 20.16.3 means in relation to CAR 266 (below below)

11 Carriage of passengers in seats at which dual controls are fitted
11.1 Except as provided in paragraph 11.2, in all aircraft for which the Certificate of Airworthiness specifies a minimum crew of 1 pilot, a person may occupy a seat at which fully or partially functioning dual controls are fitted if the pilot gives adequate instruction to that person to ensure that the controls are not interfered with in flight and there is satisfactory communication available at all times between the pilot and that person.
11.2 In respect of aircraft engaged in regular public transport operations, the seat referred to in paragraph 11.1 shall not be occupied by a person other than a licensed pilot or an employee of the operator of the aircraft unless approved by CASA. Details of such an approval shall be included in the Operations Manual.
11.3 The provisions of these paragraphs shall not be construed as limiting the exercise of the authority of CASA in accordance with regulation 226 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.




CAR226

Dual controls
(1) During flight, a person may occupy a control seat of an aircraft equipped with fully or partially functioning dual controls only if:

(a) the person holds an appropriate pilot licence for the type of aircraft and the class of operations in which the aircraft is flown; or
(b) the person is a student pilot assigned for instruction in the aircraft; or
(c) the person is authorised by CASA.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.
Mail-man is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2013, 00:23
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
While we wait:

The BRB can and does have some lively discussion; one of the frequent causes of ribald hilarity, head scratching and pints being lost on hazard is Justice, how it may be obtained and how it can be effectively denied. Anyway – I wander.

During an interesting discussion (me railing against 'criminal' regulation) with a very learned, highly qualified member; the works of Evan Whitton were mentioned. He, noted the blanker than normal expression on my mug, gently, the learned friend promised to email a copy of the latest offering: Our corrupt legal system. Wow; now I'll be the first to admit my ignorance of the legal system, but this Whitton fellahin ain't, not by a long shot. After a few pages, I was hooked, only problem so far is not reading CASA into the text, when it's not there.

I asked P7 a.k.a.TOM to make the electronic version of the book available through their Zippy share what's it. Not everyone's idea of a good read, but to cherry pick it on a long, boring, wet Sunday is a worthwhile, amusing way to while away the odd hour or two. OCL – Evan Whitton. ( Warning. Only click on the Down Load Now button). Appetisers:-

Judge Harold Rothwax, of the New York State Supreme Court, wrote in Guilty: The Collapse of Criminal Justice (Random House, 1996): ‘Without truth there can be no justice.’

For present purposes, truth can be taken to mean the reality of what happened and is happening. This is what the ordinary person understands by the word, and the undoubted view of the general public is that the findings of a court, human error aside, represent the truth in this sense.

Justice Fox wrote:… in legal procedure the meaning which approximates most closely to it [justice] is ‘fairness’ … the public estimate must be correct, that justice marches with the truth. Only in this way does the concept present a moral face, as distinct from one where the winner is the person with the greatest resources and best advocacy. This is the view taken on the continent and in other countries, where the whole system of justice proceeds on the footing that the truth is to be ascertained. Hence the investigational, or inquisitorial, approach of the French, which even provides that, the true facts having been found by a judicial officer, their presentation is not to be polluted by the parties.’ [That is, by the parties’ lawyers.]
Nor are common lawyers concerned about the gulf between law and reality. The little girl who tumbled down the rabbit hole would find a common law trial almost as unreal as the trial of a knave for alleged tart theft which ends Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (Macmillan, 1865). The judge, a cardboard figure, the King of Hearts, says from time to time: ‘Consider your verdict’. Not yet, his associate, a White Rabbit, gently advises. Like Lady Coleridge (see below, The judge as Humpty Dumpty), the judge’s wife sits on the bench. She frequently shouts: ‘Off with her head!’, and ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’
...


Fascinating stuff Oh learned friend, I shall continue – thank you....

Last edited by Kharon; 31st Oct 2013 at 00:35. Reason: Cheers P7 - the usual??
Kharon is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2013, 00:53
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Khaon, at the risk of (minor) thread drift the words of Evan Whitton are well known to the legal fraternity as he has been arguing against the adversarial system in favour of the inquisitorial system favoured by our European cousins now for many a year.

He is a zealot for his point of view and like many of that ilk will construct his arguments to prove his point. Just to pick on one, the ones you have quoted regarding truth. There is no way that any trial system, inquisitorial or adversarial, can arrive at "truth". Both systems will only arrive at a point that equates with what might be truth; that a judge will regard as something being more likely than not. However, the public, and to be fair, many within the legal system have no comprehension of this and continue with the fallacy that a court is there to find out the truth. Pure fiction.

Think about it; there are various competing versions of events, all of which purport to represent "the truth", in any legal proceedings and someone who wasn't there; does not know and in many ways cannot comprehend the backgrounds of the individuals who were there, is to decide what is the preferred version of events.
PLovett is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.