Merged: CASA Regulatory Reform
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 Honesty!!
Here is another beauty:
Came up in a Senate Questions on Notice []Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia at question 155 and at "attachment" for full document.
Just engrish mr. casa!
Came up in a Senate Questions on Notice []Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia at question 155 and at "attachment" for full document.
Just engrish mr. casa!
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 20th Feb 2013 at 01:58.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's have a competition to see who can rewrite the above message in the clearest way with the least number of words. First prize to be sponsored by CASA :- 1 hardbound copy of all CASA rules and regulations. You may submit more than one entry. Who's going to have a go? Winner chosen by a vote in 3 days time.
Let's have a competition to see who can rewrite the above message in the clearest way with the least number of words
Sadly, it's clearly a legal arse-covering statement rather than a simple informative message. I can see why legal documents get so complex, eg:
"Were you aware you shouldn't make an agreement not to divulge this information?"
"Yes, but I didn't make an agreement, I gave him a nod and a wink."
"Ah yes, but as clearly stated in this Minute dated 27 July 2011, that would imply an agreement, would it not?"
"Take me away, guv, you got me.",
but f*#& me, that's no way to write operating rules. Of course you need the legal basis, but as anyone who has had to read a legal contract knows, the language can be damn near impenetrable sometimes.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a sentence, it's complete crap. A reasonable reader has to scan it several times to figure out which are the subjects, and which the objects. Plainer language, shorter clauses and a few dot points would make the message much clearer. It amazes me that legal folk can still peddle a mess like this and get paid for it.
And yes, the intention is pretty dubious, too!
And yes, the intention is pretty dubious, too!
Last edited by tecman; 10th Feb 2013 at 03:29.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
straightforward
In its SAFETY function it simply means that:
"CASA or anyone associated with CASA shall not communicate with anyone in a legitimate regulatory sense. any communication shall be in the normal illegitimate manner". (25 words)
There shall therefore be no "show cause notices" or "Christmas cards" or Licenses or AOC applied for or issued.
It is quite straight forward, no hiding behind excuses, business as usual.
I thought German and Dutch had long sentences! but this must be a world record for Engrish.
Should my entry be the winning one, what assurance have I got that I wont have to take the sponsor to Court?
"CASA or anyone associated with CASA shall not communicate with anyone in a legitimate regulatory sense. any communication shall be in the normal illegitimate manner". (25 words)
There shall therefore be no "show cause notices" or "Christmas cards" or Licenses or AOC applied for or issued.
It is quite straight forward, no hiding behind excuses, business as usual.
I thought German and Dutch had long sentences! but this must be a world record for Engrish.
Should my entry be the winning one, what assurance have I got that I wont have to take the sponsor to Court?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Egon Fice
wouldn't this be a great statement for Fice to decipher as he did in the "Direct Air" case, his decision only to be overturned in the Fed Court appeal on the basis of the "original intent" -
The original, "original intent" was the protection of a Duopoly under the Two Airline (Act) the hearing never got that far. Too much information for his Honour, CASA never raised it as it would only prolong the hearing and cost the "victim" more money! very considerate!
My earlier response clearly allows for such intent. Same has been established case after case - CASA's original intent has always been to get rid of their "victim"
"empty skies are safe skies"
The original, "original intent" was the protection of a Duopoly under the Two Airline (Act) the hearing never got that far. Too much information for his Honour, CASA never raised it as it would only prolong the hearing and cost the "victim" more money! very considerate!
My earlier response clearly allows for such intent. Same has been established case after case - CASA's original intent has always been to get rid of their "victim"
"empty skies are safe skies"
Nice one Mr van de Wiel
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
Stwange is the JUL of 11 minute, that it is from The Office of Diwecter Aviation Safety to all Exec Managers, which I assume is The Execututive Diwecter, and cc to himself and the deputy Diwecter.
Why is he writing letters to himself?
Was this discussed over morning tea and why was it presented in minute form?
(no quorum perhaps)?
Just how many Diwercers do we need?
Weelly and twoolley, this is just too much!
Why is he writing letters to himself?
Was this discussed over morning tea and why was it presented in minute form?
(no quorum perhaps)?
Just how many Diwercers do we need?
Weelly and twoolley, this is just too much!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just culture
Is that statement consistent with principles of a 'just culture'?
Say somebody reports an issue as concerned of a wider safer risk in the industry.
CAA reporting system defines 'Just Culture' | CAA Newsroom | About the CAA
Say somebody reports an issue as concerned of a wider safer risk in the industry.
CAA reporting system defines 'Just Culture' | CAA Newsroom | About the CAA
CASA or anyone associated with CASA shall not communicate with anyone in a legitimate regulatory sense.
"No one in CASA is ever to sign a confidentiality agreement or verbally agree to the same."
Sound principle, I've seen some real shockers. Usually the more bloodthirsty the penalties in the confidentiality agreement, the shonkier the proposal. People like the venture capital arm of N. M. Rothschild won't sign them either.
Sound principle, I've seen some real shockers. Usually the more bloodthirsty the penalties in the confidentiality agreement, the shonkier the proposal. People like the venture capital arm of N. M. Rothschild won't sign them either.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's have a competition to see who can rewrite the above message in the clearest way with the least number of words
Oi, all yous CASA mob, don't promise nobody nuffing. (9 words)
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 the effect on commercial operations
Here's another one, just published on 20th February 2013:
I hope this one is clear as well - I won't read the docs as these will only confuse me further.
About time to get rid of this lot then???
Project AS 12/45
Post Implementation of the Airspace Regulations (2007)
Issue
The Airspace Regulations require amendment to remove ambiguity, enable applicability in the operational environment and to cater for the needs of Australia's security authorities.
Without action, the validity of the delegation powers in use could be questioned, the validity of the application of the ARs to certain security scenarios could be questioned and complicated systems of legislative action will continue to be required to achieve simple safety outcomes operationally.
Project Objective
To make amendments to the Airspace Regulations in two (2) phases:
PHASE 1:
Clarify the delegation powers:
The Airspace Regulation delegation powers are unclear and require amendment to remove all doubt. Regulation 13 should make specific that the powers may be delegated to CASA airspace regulation officers and Military airspace regulation officers.
Cater for the needs of Australia's Security Authorities:
The Airspace Act (Part 1, Section 3) identifies certain matters that are to be taken into account to ensure that Australian-administered airspace is administered and used safely. This includes "national security". This term is insufficient to cover the various security needs that the OAR has been requested by the Government to enforce through the exercise of the Airspace Regulations. The changes made will remove any ambiguity.
PHASE 2:
1. Legislative Instruments Regulations Exemption
An exemption is sought under the Legislative Instruments Regulations 2004, Schedule 1, Part 2 (1A) for designations/directions made under Regulation 11/12. Air Traffic Control (ATC) providers may describe air routes verbally if operationally required. The air routes which are legislated do not cover flex routes or those made verbally by ATC providers, and are therefore incomplete. Pilots may request any particular way of reaching a destination as ATC has the ability to approve this.
Therefore, registering a small and incomplete set of air routes is of little value. Aviation maps show the common air routes in use and this is sufficient as a guide. The changes proposed are in accordance with ICAO Annexes, the Airspace Act and the Australian Airspace Policy Statement.
Post Implementation of the Airspace Regulations (2007)
Issue
The Airspace Regulations require amendment to remove ambiguity, enable applicability in the operational environment and to cater for the needs of Australia's security authorities.
Without action, the validity of the delegation powers in use could be questioned, the validity of the application of the ARs to certain security scenarios could be questioned and complicated systems of legislative action will continue to be required to achieve simple safety outcomes operationally.
Project Objective
To make amendments to the Airspace Regulations in two (2) phases:
PHASE 1:
Clarify the delegation powers:
The Airspace Regulation delegation powers are unclear and require amendment to remove all doubt. Regulation 13 should make specific that the powers may be delegated to CASA airspace regulation officers and Military airspace regulation officers.
Cater for the needs of Australia's Security Authorities:
The Airspace Act (Part 1, Section 3) identifies certain matters that are to be taken into account to ensure that Australian-administered airspace is administered and used safely. This includes "national security". This term is insufficient to cover the various security needs that the OAR has been requested by the Government to enforce through the exercise of the Airspace Regulations. The changes made will remove any ambiguity.
PHASE 2:
1. Legislative Instruments Regulations Exemption
An exemption is sought under the Legislative Instruments Regulations 2004, Schedule 1, Part 2 (1A) for designations/directions made under Regulation 11/12. Air Traffic Control (ATC) providers may describe air routes verbally if operationally required. The air routes which are legislated do not cover flex routes or those made verbally by ATC providers, and are therefore incomplete. Pilots may request any particular way of reaching a destination as ATC has the ability to approve this.
Therefore, registering a small and incomplete set of air routes is of little value. Aviation maps show the common air routes in use and this is sufficient as a guide. The changes proposed are in accordance with ICAO Annexes, the Airspace Act and the Australian Airspace Policy Statement.
About time to get rid of this lot then???
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa enlgrish please!!
Thanks to Compressor stall [http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...up-5500-a.html], try this:
61.370 Provision of photograph
(1) The holder of a flight crew licence commits an offence if:
(a) the holder exercises the privileges of the licence after the end of 10 years beginning:
(i) when the licence was granted; or
(ii) if the holder holds more than one flight crew licence—when the holder's most recent licence was granted; and
(b) the holder has not, before the exercise of the privileges, given CASA a photograph of the holder:
(i) showing the holder's full face and his or her head and shoulders; and
(ii) taken not earlier than 6 months before the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
(1) The holder of a flight crew licence commits an offence if:
(a) the holder exercises the privileges of the licence after the end of 10 years beginning:
(i) when the licence was granted; or
(ii) if the holder holds more than one flight crew licence—when the holder's most recent licence was granted; and
(b) the holder has not, before the exercise of the privileges, given CASA a photograph of the holder:
(i) showing the holder's full face and his or her head and shoulders; and
(ii) taken not earlier than 6 months before the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 7th Mar 2013 at 05:28.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa enlgrish please!!
Here is another one, this time what is on the casa web site and what FF's CEO told the Senate inquiry in February.
See: CASA – Actions against Industry
Just have a look at who the author is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See: CASA – Actions against Industry
Just have a look at who the author is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
About this charter
The purpose of this Charter is to describe to the public and the aviation community, the service experience that can be expected in dealing with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and its staff.
We have a responsibility to inform people about their rights and responsibilities, including the right to expect high standards of service and behaviour from CASA officers.
We believe that people who are better informed and have a clearer understanding of legislative requirements are better able to comply with the rules and regulations in the maintenance of air safety. This in turn will enhance aviation safety levels in Australia.
The CASA Service Charter sets out our feedback process, so that you can let us know how well we are implementing our Service levels and how we can improve our service to you.
The Charter also sets out our Complaints Handling procedure so that you can let us know if you are dissatisfied with the standards of service you have received or are unhappy with a decision made by CASA staff. We believe that it is in everybody’s interests to resolve complaints efficiently and effectively.
Reports on our performance against this Service Charter will be included in our Annual Report.
This Charter forms part of CASA’s strategic planning and reporting system, which is based on the Corporate Plan. It has been developed in accordance with the Whole of Government approach detailed in the Department of Finance and Administration publication ‘Client Service Charter Principles’.
It has been prepared in consultation with staff, other relevant agencies and a broad cross section of the aviation community.
We will seek stakeholders’ views on the Charter’s effectiveness on a regular basis and use this information to improve our services.
The purpose of this Charter is to describe to the public and the aviation community, the service experience that can be expected in dealing with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and its staff.
We have a responsibility to inform people about their rights and responsibilities, including the right to expect high standards of service and behaviour from CASA officers.
We believe that people who are better informed and have a clearer understanding of legislative requirements are better able to comply with the rules and regulations in the maintenance of air safety. This in turn will enhance aviation safety levels in Australia.
The CASA Service Charter sets out our feedback process, so that you can let us know how well we are implementing our Service levels and how we can improve our service to you.
The Charter also sets out our Complaints Handling procedure so that you can let us know if you are dissatisfied with the standards of service you have received or are unhappy with a decision made by CASA staff. We believe that it is in everybody’s interests to resolve complaints efficiently and effectively.
Reports on our performance against this Service Charter will be included in our Annual Report.
This Charter forms part of CASA’s strategic planning and reporting system, which is based on the Corporate Plan. It has been developed in accordance with the Whole of Government approach detailed in the Department of Finance and Administration publication ‘Client Service Charter Principles’.
It has been prepared in consultation with staff, other relevant agencies and a broad cross section of the aviation community.
We will seek stakeholders’ views on the Charter’s effectiveness on a regular basis and use this information to improve our services.
Oh the wordiness..
and the crapspeak. Ggrrrr!! 
This is how CASA persons and others while away their time, writing meaningless sh*te that nobody takes any notice of.
Millions of person hours and squillions of dollars for what. Its a bit like a dole office really paying people to do "pretend" work.
Benefit to the Common wealth is......????
Keeps them off the streets. Recycles tax funds. Any others??
This is how CASA persons and others while away their time, writing meaningless sh*te that nobody takes any notice of.
Millions of person hours and squillions of dollars for what. Its a bit like a dole office really paying people to do "pretend" work.
Benefit to the Common wealth is......????
Keeps them off the streets. Recycles tax funds. Any others??
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 Engrish
Another one for you all:
The last para is a "doosey"
and those involved:
Post Implementation Review of CASR Part 99.B - Drug and alcohol management plans
Issue
In March 2009, Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 was introduced to cover drug and alcohol management plans (DAMP) and testing.
Since 2009, the initiative has been implemented by industry and oversighted by CASA. Since its original conception, there have been various implementation issues raised that require regulatory amendments to ensure transparency and continued high safety standards.
Issues to be addressed include but are not limited to:
DAMP responsibility and coverage issues e.g. contractors The Drug and Alcohol Education Program requirement - should CASA supply this program?
Issue
In March 2009, Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 was introduced to cover drug and alcohol management plans (DAMP) and testing.
Since 2009, the initiative has been implemented by industry and oversighted by CASA. Since its original conception, there have been various implementation issues raised that require regulatory amendments to ensure transparency and continued high safety standards.
Issues to be addressed include but are not limited to:
- Definition of safety sensitive vs safety critical activities/ roles that are required to be covered by DAMPs and DAMP testing
- Definition of SSAA employee to be covered by DAMP
- Definition of post-accident or serious incident as this affects testing requirements
DAMP responsibility and coverage issues e.g. contractors The Drug and Alcohol Education Program requirement - should CASA supply this program?
- The requirement for pre-deployment testing
- Ensuring DAMP testing is meeting the relevant Australian Standard
- Should there be an industry requirement for random testing?
- Reporting requirement from organisation to CASA following a confirmed positive test
- Improving the return to work 'response program' model
and those involved:
Project management
Project Leader/s: Sharon Nylen, DAMP Oversight Section Head, Industry Permissions
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Fereday, Executive Manager Industry Permissions
Dr Pooshan Navathe - Aviation Medicine Principal Medical Officer
Gerard Campbell, A/g Executive Manager Operations
Adam Anastasi, General Counsel and Executive Manager Legal
Standards Officer/s: Ian Banks, Manager SMS & Human Factors, Standards Division
Project Leader/s: Sharon Nylen, DAMP Oversight Section Head, Industry Permissions
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Fereday, Executive Manager Industry Permissions
Dr Pooshan Navathe - Aviation Medicine Principal Medical Officer
Gerard Campbell, A/g Executive Manager Operations
Adam Anastasi, General Counsel and Executive Manager Legal
Standards Officer/s: Ian Banks, Manager SMS & Human Factors, Standards Division
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Project Leader/s: Sharon Nylen, DAMP Oversight Section Head, Industry Permissions
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Fereday, Executive Manager Industry Permissions
Dr Pooshan Navathe - Aviation Medicine Principal Medical Officer
Gerard Campbell, A/g Executive Manager Operations
Adam Anastasi, General Counsel and Executive Manager Legal
Standards Officer/s: Ian Banks, Manager SMS & Human Factors, Standards Division
Project Sponsor/s: Peter Fereday, Executive Manager Industry Permissions
Dr Pooshan Navathe - Aviation Medicine Principal Medical Officer
Gerard Campbell, A/g Executive Manager Operations
Adam Anastasi, General Counsel and Executive Manager Legal
Standards Officer/s: Ian Banks, Manager SMS & Human Factors, Standards Division
It all sounds like a load of pony poohshan to me!
I am surprised one of the other bald Camberra'ites isn't involved in this project as a sponsor? The one who normally likes to surround himself with people who get their hands dirty while he wins all that accolades.
Anyway, its all bollocks.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 18th Mar 2013 at 11:42.
