CASA – Words fail.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA – Words fail.
Well Boys and Girls, the tip of the great southern ice berg has arrived at a bank account near you. Roll up, roll up. Pay your money and get a servicing – a good one.
Bye bye YSBK.
Hello maintenance bill.
Enough?, but wait, there's more; much more.
Bye bye YSBK.
Hello maintenance bill.
Enough?, but wait, there's more; much more.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: on the beach :-)
Age: 50
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GOOD GRIEF
Have just read the "hello maintenance bill" and a key question was raised in it
"can GA survive in an airline-oriented system?
Why do these regulatory muppets ignore the working engineers and pilots and seek to implement these kinds of wanton industry destruction?
"can GA survive in an airline-oriented system?
Why do these regulatory muppets ignore the working engineers and pilots and seek to implement these kinds of wanton industry destruction?
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sarnia, ON
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's law: Subpart 21.M Legislation
When CASA closed their Jandakot office we had to pay for FOIs' time to drive from Perth. Now all the useful licensing stuff is done in Canberra and it's even worse, don't get me started on what a great "efficiency drive" that was.
So ask your MPs where Julia's fuel excise is going, including the new 5c a litre that we got on 1 July but of course aren't allowed to call Carbon Tax, the excise that was supposed to be gone when we got Location Specific Charges but is now higher than ever, is it going towards the regulator or just into the big black hole?.
So ask your MPs where Julia's fuel excise is going, including the new 5c a litre that we got on 1 July but of course aren't allowed to call Carbon Tax, the excise that was supposed to be gone when we got Location Specific Charges but is now higher than ever, is it going towards the regulator or just into the big black hole?.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Usury pays.
bilbert - Exactly. The last consultation was never acknowledged. No summary of responses. This last consultation will be ignored as well.
There is a raft of this type of law coming your way, right now. It is a user pays system.
We have paid in blood and money for a remodelled, reformed regulation suite.
We will pay further in terms of reduced profit against operating costs because of the revised regulations.
We will pay again through increased administrative cost to support the money making end of the operation.
We will pay again for legal opinion to ensure notional compliance, where possible, with the regulation.
We will pay again through the Tribunal and Courts to defend against varying legal opinion.
This Financially irresponsible, legally incompetent and morally bankrupt system cannot, any longer be allowed to dictate or manage the industry it is paid to serve.
The longer you leave it, the more it smells. Do something Now !!
Selah.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kharon
Ken K is not the saviour you make out. In the late 90s he was the project lead in CASA for what we have today. Although not totally responsible his fingerprints are all over what came down the pipe.
He spat the dummy and had a 180 degree change and decided the outdated FAA regs were the way to go (the same regs the yanks are trying to reform themselves). He and a very small group of cronies that then formed AMROBA fought hard against the CASA reforms being led for a while by Joe Tully and later by Hondo Gratton (who both did a good job within the bounds of their responsibility).
Unfortunately the squeaky wheel got the grease (Ken's endless letters to Ministers and politicians) and CASA once it got the airline structure sorted lost interest in pursuing what was being referred to as the B3 licencing system, as well as other reforms, before they had been fully worked through.
As a result GA missed out on some pretty good ideas because it all got to hard for CASA. Hence we have a half arsed reform that GA needs to deal with today.... a lot of the blame sits with Ken K!
Ken K is not the saviour you make out. In the late 90s he was the project lead in CASA for what we have today. Although not totally responsible his fingerprints are all over what came down the pipe.
He spat the dummy and had a 180 degree change and decided the outdated FAA regs were the way to go (the same regs the yanks are trying to reform themselves). He and a very small group of cronies that then formed AMROBA fought hard against the CASA reforms being led for a while by Joe Tully and later by Hondo Gratton (who both did a good job within the bounds of their responsibility).
Unfortunately the squeaky wheel got the grease (Ken's endless letters to Ministers and politicians) and CASA once it got the airline structure sorted lost interest in pursuing what was being referred to as the B3 licencing system, as well as other reforms, before they had been fully worked through.
As a result GA missed out on some pretty good ideas because it all got to hard for CASA. Hence we have a half arsed reform that GA needs to deal with today.... a lot of the blame sits with Ken K!
Last edited by hiwaytohell; 1st Aug 2012 at 23:20.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the cost element of this, how would an already under resourced regulator cope with this huge increase in work load.
Your C210 needs a stop hole drilled which would take 5 minutes but the EO to support it is in the pile with the other 140,000 others that need to be processed. How long will that take?
We all know what will happen. There will be a massive increase in "illegal" maintenance.
Your C210 needs a stop hole drilled which would take 5 minutes but the EO to support it is in the pile with the other 140,000 others that need to be processed. How long will that take?
We all know what will happen. There will be a massive increase in "illegal" maintenance.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your C210 needs a stop hole drilled which would take 5 minutes but the EO to support it is in the pile with the other 140,000 others that need to be processed. How long will that take?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the author of the article linked in the first post on this thread (depending on the particular aircraft) it may well be???
AC 43.13-1B - Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices - Aircraft Inspection and Repair [Large AC. This includes Change 1.] - Document Information
Last edited by blackhand; 2nd Aug 2012 at 00:16.
Make any laws or regulations too onerous and some will be even more disposed to finding ways to circumvent them, or will just plain ignore them.
I have long weighed up the cost of compliance (in non-aviation matters I hasten to add) against the likely fine if I get caught. 99.9% of the time it has worked, and on the .1% of other occasions I have quite cheerfully paid the fine, knowing that I am ahead. Every one who exceeds the speed limit is doing exactly this.
Example: A tree is a nuisance, maybe a fire hazard. But if you apply to have it cut down, the authority says it is protected. Better not to ask, because if you now go ahead and cut it down, a nasty judge could send you to jail (stupidity being a jailable offence). However, if you don't ask, and do cut it down there's a good chance no-one will give a rat's. Worse case, some greeny dobs you in. So - even with a fine - problem solved, the tree is next winter's firewood now. You win all round.
Go go ahead - stop drill that crack, fit that non-OEM part, splice that wire. Just don't ask if it's OK and don't mention it anywhere. In keeping your aeroplane airworthy you may be committing an offence, but what are the chances of CASA actually determining when or how the work was done if the defect has clearly been attended to?
The 'S' in CASA does not mean 'safety' but 'short-sighted'. Or maybe good old 'stupid'?
I have long weighed up the cost of compliance (in non-aviation matters I hasten to add) against the likely fine if I get caught. 99.9% of the time it has worked, and on the .1% of other occasions I have quite cheerfully paid the fine, knowing that I am ahead. Every one who exceeds the speed limit is doing exactly this.
Example: A tree is a nuisance, maybe a fire hazard. But if you apply to have it cut down, the authority says it is protected. Better not to ask, because if you now go ahead and cut it down, a nasty judge could send you to jail (stupidity being a jailable offence). However, if you don't ask, and do cut it down there's a good chance no-one will give a rat's. Worse case, some greeny dobs you in. So - even with a fine - problem solved, the tree is next winter's firewood now. You win all round.
Go go ahead - stop drill that crack, fit that non-OEM part, splice that wire. Just don't ask if it's OK and don't mention it anywhere. In keeping your aeroplane airworthy you may be committing an offence, but what are the chances of CASA actually determining when or how the work was done if the defect has clearly been attended to?
The 'S' in CASA does not mean 'safety' but 'short-sighted'. Or maybe good old 'stupid'?
Blackhand,
See Instrument 515, and please all note there is no differentiation between "minor" and "major" repairs.
Instrument 515 is far more restrictive than it predecessors.
The article by Phelan is correct, those of you who seem to believe otherwise fall into two categories:
(1) Wishful thinkers, or
(2) You haven't read what Instrument 515 and Part 21M actually say, as opposed to what you think they say.
As for trying to blame Cannane and an industry association for what the present management has done to maintenance regulations is a bit rich, the "EASA rule" never had a GA set of rules, it's CASA that has discontinued the rules development for small aircraft, in favour, once again, of "one size fits all" -----
We are already seeing some horrendous costs, compared to the old system ---- in the order of ten times +, for a simple EO and Special Flight Permit (ferry permit) to move an aircraft for a minor repair.
Tootle pip!!
See Instrument 515, and please all note there is no differentiation between "minor" and "major" repairs.
Instrument 515 is far more restrictive than it predecessors.
The article by Phelan is correct, those of you who seem to believe otherwise fall into two categories:
(1) Wishful thinkers, or
(2) You haven't read what Instrument 515 and Part 21M actually say, as opposed to what you think they say.
As for trying to blame Cannane and an industry association for what the present management has done to maintenance regulations is a bit rich, the "EASA rule" never had a GA set of rules, it's CASA that has discontinued the rules development for small aircraft, in favour, once again, of "one size fits all" -----
We are already seeing some horrendous costs, compared to the old system ---- in the order of ten times +, for a simple EO and Special Flight Permit (ferry permit) to move an aircraft for a minor repair.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 2nd Aug 2012 at 15:13.
If any of this is true, and not simple scare mongering, then I'm afraid that the only answer is to strike and/or demonstrate.
Politicians seem to love chartering aircraft, what if they couldn't?
A "fly in" to Canberra would also be nice, especially on a Monday morning or a Friday afternoon when Parliament is in session.
Politicians seem to love chartering aircraft, what if they couldn't?
A "fly in" to Canberra would also be nice, especially on a Monday morning or a Friday afternoon when Parliament is in session.
I love the suggestion made elsewhere here to invoke the trans Tasman agreement. Re-register every GA commercial aircraft in NZ, get NZ pilot ticket , NZ AOC, NZ maintenance approval etc and render CASA completely irrelevant.
A bit of legwork to set it up, but ultimately not a bad idea.
Another tack( which I once used) if you are sourcing an aircraft from the USA: Have a Yank citizen remain the nominal owner and you can fly it here for as long as you like. Maybe only good for private operation, but that could be a sizable proportion of the GA fleet taken out of CASA control.
The nominal ownership thing can be done with some binding clause that allows you to purchase it at any time for a dollar.
A bit of legwork to set it up, but ultimately not a bad idea.
Another tack( which I once used) if you are sourcing an aircraft from the USA: Have a Yank citizen remain the nominal owner and you can fly it here for as long as you like. Maybe only good for private operation, but that could be a sizable proportion of the GA fleet taken out of CASA control.
The nominal ownership thing can be done with some binding clause that allows you to purchase it at any time for a dollar.