Australian Warbirds
Folks,
Both Sunfish and Kharon make some interesting points.
A core issue here is why the AWAL board has acted like it has, until such a late stage of proceedings. At least the current President has woken up to the real results of the proposed onerous changes, and their likely costs and potential outcomes, both short and long term, for AWAL and its members, and the continued unfettered operation of Limited Cat. and Experimental Exhibition ex-military aircraft, now he has access to details, not assurances.
The next issue is why he has encountered such severe resistance in trying to communicate to the members his serious reservations about the proposals, previously sold as an unreserved "good thing". In short, severe resistance to anything but communication of the "party line".
I really am genuinely surprised that some of the directors, even in their own self interest (as they seem to have little understanding of their responsibilities to look after the interests of the members), have not baulked at some of the proposals, that will cost them dearly. I can only conclude they have not read and understood the changes. Or, perhaps, they don't even understand the present rules, so do not understand what a restrictive departure the new rules represent. Or they believe CASA is all powerful, and going along with CASA is going to produce the lest painful outcome.
Remember:"I'm from CASA, and I'm here to help".
As to Kharon's comments, it would be interesting, for example, to read the meeting notes of the CASA Part 132 Working Group, or the reports to the SCC Operational Standards Sub-Committee on the subject of Part 132, and see "who's who in the zoo".
Sound like a subject for an FOI application to me.
Tootle pip!!
Both Sunfish and Kharon make some interesting points.
A core issue here is why the AWAL board has acted like it has, until such a late stage of proceedings. At least the current President has woken up to the real results of the proposed onerous changes, and their likely costs and potential outcomes, both short and long term, for AWAL and its members, and the continued unfettered operation of Limited Cat. and Experimental Exhibition ex-military aircraft, now he has access to details, not assurances.
The next issue is why he has encountered such severe resistance in trying to communicate to the members his serious reservations about the proposals, previously sold as an unreserved "good thing". In short, severe resistance to anything but communication of the "party line".
I really am genuinely surprised that some of the directors, even in their own self interest (as they seem to have little understanding of their responsibilities to look after the interests of the members), have not baulked at some of the proposals, that will cost them dearly. I can only conclude they have not read and understood the changes. Or, perhaps, they don't even understand the present rules, so do not understand what a restrictive departure the new rules represent. Or they believe CASA is all powerful, and going along with CASA is going to produce the lest painful outcome.
Remember:"I'm from CASA, and I'm here to help".
As to Kharon's comments, it would be interesting, for example, to read the meeting notes of the CASA Part 132 Working Group, or the reports to the SCC Operational Standards Sub-Committee on the subject of Part 132, and see "who's who in the zoo".
Sound like a subject for an FOI application to me.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 7th Feb 2013 at 06:16.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intelligence
You guys would all be terribly upset without some comspiracy theory to throw round the place wouldn't you. Yes, or course the board would be trying hard to implement legislative changes that ground their own warbirds.. do you really think that only the enlightened Leadsled - Dines duo is competent enough to read and interpret legislative changes?
Most members I have spoken to are insulted by the contents of the envelope received from the President of AWAL in the mail the other day. It is patronising and assumes people are idiots.
The review of Part 132 by Dines is inaccurate and an attempt at scare-mongering. I would go so far as commenting that anyone with such a view on responsibility and liability (as highlighted in a number of his points) is naive as to the ways of the world. Try working in most other major industries in Australia. See what happens when you have a workplace fatality and you're in the spotlight justifying why your actions leading up to the accident are reasonable. Believe me, aviation does not have it hard.
The whole attitude of your safety being only your responsibility and therefore proposing that you be left to do your own thing is dangerous in itself. That's all well and good if you are flying your airplane over some property in the middle of Australia where you can't hurt anybody. Well guess what, if you happen to be flying over my children's school then I certainly want some level of checks and balances.
The following comment from the Dines review of Part 132 says it all. "Would - be adventure passengers who are under 18 or mentally - impaired must be accompanied on a flight by a parent or guardian. This will rule out the use of TWO - SEAT aircraft for such passengers." Excuse me? Does anyone think not being able to put a mentally impaired person in the back seat of a two seat aircraft where they can't be supervised or given assistance in an emergency is a bad thing? There are equally silly comments all through the article.
Anyone reading this review in detail and comparing it against the previous regs (and not doing so under a cloud of pre-determined opinion) will come to the conclusion that people are making an issue of this for some other motive.
I personally have only met one person who is sending his proxy the president's way, everyone else I have spoken to in WA isn't fooled and has sent Proxies in favour of the board.
There are two of you contributing to this thread who are far more heavily involved with the President's current course of action than you care to admit, and are using this thread for concurrent advertising in support of your efforts to undermine the board. Advance copies of letters the president is about to mail and email to all members don't fall off the back of trucks.
If people have so much time on their hands that they can engage in this sort of behaviour I suggest it is better spent volunteering to help out the Red Cross or another charity. There are lots of people out there who need help, and don't have the luxury of arguing that they shouldn't be responsible for things that they might do wrong. Get a grip.
Most members I have spoken to are insulted by the contents of the envelope received from the President of AWAL in the mail the other day. It is patronising and assumes people are idiots.
The review of Part 132 by Dines is inaccurate and an attempt at scare-mongering. I would go so far as commenting that anyone with such a view on responsibility and liability (as highlighted in a number of his points) is naive as to the ways of the world. Try working in most other major industries in Australia. See what happens when you have a workplace fatality and you're in the spotlight justifying why your actions leading up to the accident are reasonable. Believe me, aviation does not have it hard.
The whole attitude of your safety being only your responsibility and therefore proposing that you be left to do your own thing is dangerous in itself. That's all well and good if you are flying your airplane over some property in the middle of Australia where you can't hurt anybody. Well guess what, if you happen to be flying over my children's school then I certainly want some level of checks and balances.
The following comment from the Dines review of Part 132 says it all. "Would - be adventure passengers who are under 18 or mentally - impaired must be accompanied on a flight by a parent or guardian. This will rule out the use of TWO - SEAT aircraft for such passengers." Excuse me? Does anyone think not being able to put a mentally impaired person in the back seat of a two seat aircraft where they can't be supervised or given assistance in an emergency is a bad thing? There are equally silly comments all through the article.
Anyone reading this review in detail and comparing it against the previous regs (and not doing so under a cloud of pre-determined opinion) will come to the conclusion that people are making an issue of this for some other motive.
I personally have only met one person who is sending his proxy the president's way, everyone else I have spoken to in WA isn't fooled and has sent Proxies in favour of the board.
There are two of you contributing to this thread who are far more heavily involved with the President's current course of action than you care to admit, and are using this thread for concurrent advertising in support of your efforts to undermine the board. Advance copies of letters the president is about to mail and email to all members don't fall off the back of trucks.
If people have so much time on their hands that they can engage in this sort of behaviour I suggest it is better spent volunteering to help out the Red Cross or another charity. There are lots of people out there who need help, and don't have the luxury of arguing that they shouldn't be responsible for things that they might do wrong. Get a grip.
CD,
Once again, lots of assertions, but not addressing the facts, and you clearly don't understand the liability issues raised by Dines ---- which is all part of the history of how we put the present legislation in place, and a very important part of the "big picture".
The present liability arrangements, as reflected in the current legislation, were subject to full and very thorough public consultation, as a stand alone issue. Both the then Attorney-General and Minister for Transport were aware in detail of what is now in place, and each ticked it off.
What CASA is proposing takes us back to the pre-1998 position, a serious regression, and a serious threat to nearly fifteen years of successful operations of both Experimental and Limited Cat. aircraft.
Why do you think the liability issues are currently addressed the way they are in the present law??
Do you really want to take the risks that the regression entails ??
It is not the same as industry generally, as a section in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and carried over from the predecessor act, makes quite clear. This in addition to the specific aviation regulations quoted by Dines.
Could I suggest you do a little homework on the subject, and address the issues ---- refute with facts, not assertions and attacks on individuals.
Quote the sections of the draft Part 132 where Dines has it wrong, and why he is wrong, don't just assert he is wrong. Who do you think is more likely to be right, somebody like Dines, with his immense background of knowledge and experience ( of which you may or may not be aware, but it is fact) or an ex-LAME who is now on the CASA payroll.
Explain the air safety reason why a lot of "warbirds" should be denied an Experimental Exhibition certificate.
Explain why an "Approved Operations Manual" (even AOC operators don't have that) is necessary for what are essentially private operations (they don't come under CAR (1988) 206), when all the proposed contents is already in aviation law, in existing documents already carried, or in the ESAM, with which AWAL members must comply.
To what demonstrated air safety problem is the proposed Part 132, and the changes to Part 21, the cost/benefit justified answer?
Tootle pip!!
Once again, lots of assertions, but not addressing the facts, and you clearly don't understand the liability issues raised by Dines ---- which is all part of the history of how we put the present legislation in place, and a very important part of the "big picture".
The present liability arrangements, as reflected in the current legislation, were subject to full and very thorough public consultation, as a stand alone issue. Both the then Attorney-General and Minister for Transport were aware in detail of what is now in place, and each ticked it off.
What CASA is proposing takes us back to the pre-1998 position, a serious regression, and a serious threat to nearly fifteen years of successful operations of both Experimental and Limited Cat. aircraft.
Why do you think the liability issues are currently addressed the way they are in the present law??
Do you really want to take the risks that the regression entails ??
It is not the same as industry generally, as a section in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and carried over from the predecessor act, makes quite clear. This in addition to the specific aviation regulations quoted by Dines.
Could I suggest you do a little homework on the subject, and address the issues ---- refute with facts, not assertions and attacks on individuals.
Quote the sections of the draft Part 132 where Dines has it wrong, and why he is wrong, don't just assert he is wrong. Who do you think is more likely to be right, somebody like Dines, with his immense background of knowledge and experience ( of which you may or may not be aware, but it is fact) or an ex-LAME who is now on the CASA payroll.
Explain the air safety reason why a lot of "warbirds" should be denied an Experimental Exhibition certificate.
Explain why an "Approved Operations Manual" (even AOC operators don't have that) is necessary for what are essentially private operations (they don't come under CAR (1988) 206), when all the proposed contents is already in aviation law, in existing documents already carried, or in the ESAM, with which AWAL members must comply.
To what demonstrated air safety problem is the proposed Part 132, and the changes to Part 21, the cost/benefit justified answer?
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 7th Feb 2013 at 12:07.
I can't comment on the specifics of the legislation and regulations referred to by crush depth, but I know an appeal to emotion ( school children) and an Ad Hominem attack when I see one.
Furthermore, as Crush Depth suggests, if workplace safety laws were applicable to aviation, ALL Aviation would cease permanently for good.
To put that another way, it is precisely because aviation risks cannot be managed via conventional prohibitions that we have CASA and the regs.
To put that another way, that's why ATSB examines accidents and not workcover - it's totally outside their scope.
I suggest CD that you provide some facts please.
Furthermore, as Crush Depth suggests, if workplace safety laws were applicable to aviation, ALL Aviation would cease permanently for good.
To put that another way, it is precisely because aviation risks cannot be managed via conventional prohibitions that we have CASA and the regs.
To put that another way, that's why ATSB examines accidents and not workcover - it's totally outside their scope.
I suggest CD that you provide some facts please.
Last edited by Sunfish; 7th Feb 2013 at 18:31.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S. Dines esq - report.
Page 3 – Cancellation of existing etc. (202.612 and 202.613). Will there be any provision made for obtaining a C of A before the expiry date? Given there is a process to be gone through, inevitable delays and expense. If my certificate expires Monday – can I arrange matters so I can go flying on Tuesday against my 'new' pre expiry issued approval, or can I only apply after the 'certificate' has expired and then go through the process?
Page 4 - 132.205: seems to be naive and clumsily drafted, without an increased safety benefit for anyone, particularly the occupants of the aircraft. It is understandable and reasonable that no one wants a Mig lobbing in the backyard, but given a few moments of thought blind Freddy can see the flaws. This part could easily be redrafted to achieve a safe, sensible outcome without the 'unrealistic' amateurish legal posturing . "Stress of weather M'lud", fly over the chook sheds or into the mountain, no other safe option. Fail – redraft.
Page 5 – Repeat for "built up areas".
There are in the Dines presentation some good, solid sensible reasons for all to pay attention, not only to the proposed rule set, but the methodology being applied. If this level of clumsy, naive drafting of regulation is applied across the board through to industry, be afraid. Be very afraid.
AWAL members – I know what a pain in the arse reading "rules" can be, but please carefully consider the ramifications and have your say.
Steam off – coffee on.
Page 4 - 132.205: seems to be naive and clumsily drafted, without an increased safety benefit for anyone, particularly the occupants of the aircraft. It is understandable and reasonable that no one wants a Mig lobbing in the backyard, but given a few moments of thought blind Freddy can see the flaws. This part could easily be redrafted to achieve a safe, sensible outcome without the 'unrealistic' amateurish legal posturing . "Stress of weather M'lud", fly over the chook sheds or into the mountain, no other safe option. Fail – redraft.
Page 5 – Repeat for "built up areas".
There are in the Dines presentation some good, solid sensible reasons for all to pay attention, not only to the proposed rule set, but the methodology being applied. If this level of clumsy, naive drafting of regulation is applied across the board through to industry, be afraid. Be very afraid.
AWAL members – I know what a pain in the arse reading "rules" can be, but please carefully consider the ramifications and have your say.
Steam off – coffee on.
Last edited by Kharon; 7th Feb 2013 at 19:25. Reason: Who drafts this crap.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YAK Fat anyone
So some don't like proposed Part 132, but previously others want control by CASA for warbirds to prevent this:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...l-inquest.html
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...l-inquest.html
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very interesting.
Two things that concern me as a paying customer of warbirds and occasional pilot of said aircraft - although not a current member of AWAL
Firstly I remember going for a flight in a warbird when I was 14. It absolutely stoked the fire in my belly for these old aircraft. Not possible until I am 18 under the new regs in the aircraft I went up in ( two seats). By then if it wasn't for that flight I may have spent even more time chasing women rather than volunteering to help the local warbird owner.
Which is a nice Segway into my next point. Why get rid of volunteers. You do this you WILL kill warbirds in this country. Almost every single warbird owner, including David Lowy and TAM, rely either heavily or exclusively on volunteers to keep the old birds flying. People with a passion who do it because they want to see these aircraft flying. You get rid of volunteers you will effectively ground the fleet.
I guess this is the ultimate aim of CASA though. All aircraft grounded, we won't have aircraft ploughing into school yards...
I really have no dog in this fight other than a very large desire to keep them flying. I hope whichever way this goes, we can continue to see them in the air, owners can continue to afford to fly them, and passengers can continue to experience the sights, sounds and smells first hand from the cockpits of said aircraft. Mob yeah and I would love to fly the Harvard again one day...
Cheers
CB
Two things that concern me as a paying customer of warbirds and occasional pilot of said aircraft - although not a current member of AWAL
Firstly I remember going for a flight in a warbird when I was 14. It absolutely stoked the fire in my belly for these old aircraft. Not possible until I am 18 under the new regs in the aircraft I went up in ( two seats). By then if it wasn't for that flight I may have spent even more time chasing women rather than volunteering to help the local warbird owner.
Which is a nice Segway into my next point. Why get rid of volunteers. You do this you WILL kill warbirds in this country. Almost every single warbird owner, including David Lowy and TAM, rely either heavily or exclusively on volunteers to keep the old birds flying. People with a passion who do it because they want to see these aircraft flying. You get rid of volunteers you will effectively ground the fleet.
I guess this is the ultimate aim of CASA though. All aircraft grounded, we won't have aircraft ploughing into school yards...
I really have no dog in this fight other than a very large desire to keep them flying. I hope whichever way this goes, we can continue to see them in the air, owners can continue to afford to fly them, and passengers can continue to experience the sights, sounds and smells first hand from the cockpits of said aircraft. Mob yeah and I would love to fly the Harvard again one day...
Cheers
CB
Love it...!
Who's been reading the CASA "Threats Manual" 101 page 2.
Want to make a "safety" case against somebody or some type of operation do quote eg.. "What happens if he crashes into a kindergarden?" or "what
happens if this aircraft was to fly over built up areas"
If you follow the CASA logic, all capital city airfields should be moved to the Simpson Desert... no built up areas or schools out there..ie "safe"
Please list the number of aircraft that have crashed into a schoolhouse/yard in Australia since 1911.
And how many "warbirds" have been involved in these accidents.?
Want to make a "safety" case against somebody or some type of operation do quote eg.. "What happens if he crashes into a kindergarden?" or "what
happens if this aircraft was to fly over built up areas"
If you follow the CASA logic, all capital city airfields should be moved to the Simpson Desert... no built up areas or schools out there..ie "safe"
Please list the number of aircraft that have crashed into a schoolhouse/yard in Australia since 1911.
And how many "warbirds" have been involved in these accidents.?
Owen,
There is no shortage of current rules to cover the actions of Barry Hempel, Part 132 is not plugging a "rule free" area, far from it.
One the face of it, Barry had a long history of non-compliance with existing rules, this is almost certainly the case in the flight that resulted in his and his passenger's death.
I am always fascinated by the proponents of more "new" rules when it is clear that existing rules, that covered the issue, are being flouted --- in Barry's case, with apparent impunity and over a long period.
With somebody who had contempt for any rules, how are more rules going to help?
Tootle pip!!
There is no shortage of current rules to cover the actions of Barry Hempel, Part 132 is not plugging a "rule free" area, far from it.
One the face of it, Barry had a long history of non-compliance with existing rules, this is almost certainly the case in the flight that resulted in his and his passenger's death.
I am always fascinated by the proponents of more "new" rules when it is clear that existing rules, that covered the issue, are being flouted --- in Barry's case, with apparent impunity and over a long period.
With somebody who had contempt for any rules, how are more rules going to help?
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 81
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AWAL - link to Draft for new Part 132
Probably the best way to try and make sense of the proposed changes heralded by the new Part 132, is to read them for yourself.
I have recently located a link to the Draft and my reading indicates that my 'Experimental' CJ6A Nanchang will be grounded as soon as Part 132 becomes law.
In the Part 132 there should be path for it to go in to Limited, but this may be ruled out as my CJ has an M14P engine.
Read the Draft yourself to see why, and to see the harsh requirement for your own mandatory Limited manual that applies specifically to your own aircraft. You can't operate without it.
Download link to Draft of changes to Parts 21 & 45, plus new Part 132:
http://www21.zippyshare.com/v/42232502/file.html
Download link to stephen Dines report on the Draft:
http://www8.zippyshare.com/v/26578507/file.html
A bit complex to read through, but well worthwhile. You can see for yourself what the concern is about in relation to the operation of your own warbird.
Rgds,
Ron
I have recently located a link to the Draft and my reading indicates that my 'Experimental' CJ6A Nanchang will be grounded as soon as Part 132 becomes law.
In the Part 132 there should be path for it to go in to Limited, but this may be ruled out as my CJ has an M14P engine.
Read the Draft yourself to see why, and to see the harsh requirement for your own mandatory Limited manual that applies specifically to your own aircraft. You can't operate without it.
Download link to Draft of changes to Parts 21 & 45, plus new Part 132:
http://www21.zippyshare.com/v/42232502/file.html
Download link to stephen Dines report on the Draft:
http://www8.zippyshare.com/v/26578507/file.html
A bit complex to read through, but well worthwhile. You can see for yourself what the concern is about in relation to the operation of your own warbird.
Rgds,
Ron
Folks,
A meeting was held in Sydney this morning by AWAL.
We look forward to an account of proceeding, but a brief initial report suggests that the independent chairman of the meeting kept tight control, and a useful discussion ensued.
It seems like the shortcomings of the present proposed changes to regulations got a good airing in a somewhat calmer atmosphere than the AWAL AGM Part A.
We await a full and comprehensive analysis of the meeting, based on fact.
Tootle pip!!
A meeting was held in Sydney this morning by AWAL.
We look forward to an account of proceeding, but a brief initial report suggests that the independent chairman of the meeting kept tight control, and a useful discussion ensued.
It seems like the shortcomings of the present proposed changes to regulations got a good airing in a somewhat calmer atmosphere than the AWAL AGM Part A.
We await a full and comprehensive analysis of the meeting, based on fact.
Tootle pip!!
Buck,
Actually, nothing has changed about the unsatisfactory nature of the proposed changes, what happened today was that several senior CASA executives heard the case against what is proposed, and alternative and far more simple ways of achieving the objectives. Indeed, it seems likely they were as unaware of much of the detail, as were AWAL members.
I don't know whether you understand, but regulation should be the last resort, not the first. As is your established modus operandi, you play the man, not the ball, and assiduously ignore the very real issues.
Today changes nothing about the internal AWAL problems.
Maybe AWAL should take a leaf out of Recreational Aviation Australia's playbook, yesterday's proceedings at their EGM were positive and constructive. With no attempt to gloss over or deny the existence of internal problems, but a resolve to fix the problems in a open and transparent process.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Re: Creampuff, whilst we frequently disagree on many issues, I have no problem recognising his qualification and experience, and on this topic, his comments have been apt and to the point.
Actually, nothing has changed about the unsatisfactory nature of the proposed changes, what happened today was that several senior CASA executives heard the case against what is proposed, and alternative and far more simple ways of achieving the objectives. Indeed, it seems likely they were as unaware of much of the detail, as were AWAL members.
I don't know whether you understand, but regulation should be the last resort, not the first. As is your established modus operandi, you play the man, not the ball, and assiduously ignore the very real issues.
Today changes nothing about the internal AWAL problems.
Maybe AWAL should take a leaf out of Recreational Aviation Australia's playbook, yesterday's proceedings at their EGM were positive and constructive. With no attempt to gloss over or deny the existence of internal problems, but a resolve to fix the problems in a open and transparent process.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Re: Creampuff, whilst we frequently disagree on many issues, I have no problem recognising his qualification and experience, and on this topic, his comments have been apt and to the point.
Last edited by LeadSled; 10th Feb 2013 at 13:03.
Mr Rogers
Could you quote anything I’ve said about the technical policy of warbird regulation?
Almost all of my comments have been about the governance of a corporate entity and the process of development of regulations – matters on which I’m confident I’m more capable of making objective observations than you.
I’ve made no comment on the argument about the technical policy of Part 132 – I don’t intend to waste my time reading draft regulations that will never be made.
I’ve made one specific comment on the regulations, based on the Dines material quoted in this thread. One. And it wasn’t about the technical policy argument. It was about Mr Dines’s misunderstanding of what strict liability means. As far as I am aware, Mr Dines and Leaddie are of the same mind on this issue. So I guess my one comment on was critical of Leaddie’s position ….
Do you entertain the possibility that it’s possible to have a mature discussion and agree with some points made and disagree with others?
Could you quote anything I’ve said about the technical policy of warbird regulation?
Almost all of my comments have been about the governance of a corporate entity and the process of development of regulations – matters on which I’m confident I’m more capable of making objective observations than you.
I’ve made no comment on the argument about the technical policy of Part 132 – I don’t intend to waste my time reading draft regulations that will never be made.
I’ve made one specific comment on the regulations, based on the Dines material quoted in this thread. One. And it wasn’t about the technical policy argument. It was about Mr Dines’s misunderstanding of what strict liability means. As far as I am aware, Mr Dines and Leaddie are of the same mind on this issue. So I guess my one comment on was critical of Leaddie’s position ….
Do you entertain the possibility that it’s possible to have a mature discussion and agree with some points made and disagree with others?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite almost all of my current aviation activity being based around Warbird/Limited category aircraft, I will not enter this debate except to suggest that the word employee may not be as everyone is interpreting.
For those of us who unfortuntely have to immerse ourselves in the arcane system regs that CASA see as DAMP,the word employee is interpreted by them as meaning anyone in an organisation who carries out an SSAA.
If CASA is to be consistent, then employee should not be a problem in the Warbirds context.
Wunwing
For those of us who unfortuntely have to immerse ourselves in the arcane system regs that CASA see as DAMP,the word employee is interpreted by them as meaning anyone in an organisation who carries out an SSAA.
If CASA is to be consistent, then employee should not be a problem in the Warbirds context.
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 10th Feb 2013 at 20:07.
Aah, but...
1wing..unfortunately CASA is NOT consistent on its rulings or intent of words or meanings.
In fact it is THE most inconsistent bloody bureaucrazy on Planet Earth
You/orAnybody may call the person that works for free on yr Warbird just a "volunteer"..but in court CASA will say, as it suits for its current 'agenda',BYA or whatever..." This Your Honour, is just an ilegal ploy to rename an unpaid employee"
Dont laugh!..CASA's machinations are as masterful as they are mindless.
Just dont let truth, sanity, commonsense or reason get in the way when there is an opportunity for CASA to kick ar$e.!
In fact it is THE most inconsistent bloody bureaucrazy on Planet Earth
You/orAnybody may call the person that works for free on yr Warbird just a "volunteer"..but in court CASA will say, as it suits for its current 'agenda',BYA or whatever..." This Your Honour, is just an ilegal ploy to rename an unpaid employee"
Dont laugh!..CASA's machinations are as masterful as they are mindless.
Just dont let truth, sanity, commonsense or reason get in the way when there is an opportunity for CASA to kick ar$e.!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definition of employee: A person who is hired to provide services to a company on a regular basis in exchange for compensation
Last edited by T28D; 11th Feb 2013 at 04:40.
Moderator
"Employee" is not defined in either the Civil Aviation Act 1988 or Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
Therefore CASA can not attribute any different meaning to the word than the definition of "employee" in other more relevent Australian legislation, as T28D notes.
Therefore CASA can not attribute any different meaning to the word than the definition of "employee" in other more relevent Australian legislation, as T28D notes.
Folks,
The significance, in part, of the "employee" in Part 132, whether directly employed or employed under a contract (even if an unpaid volunteer can be included), is that they must all be in receipt of the Approved Operations Manual, with all amendments up to date, and comply with the provisions of the manual, including any required training or re-current training required under the manual. Presumably, each task or "job" will have to be described to an "approved" standard, as will the processes for determining initial and ongoing competence, along with all the necessary "approved" records, created and maintained in a form for auditing, to determine ongoing compliance with the provisions of the Approved Operations Manual.
Non-compliance is a criminal offence, and potentially creating offences by the operator and the individual.
Anybody involved with AOCs ( although NO AOC is involved here ---- just all the trappings and traps --- how do you think NCNs/RCAs/Safety Alerts/current name of choice against an AOC are established) will be all too familiar with what I am getting at here --- Kharon??
A good reason to take off in the opposite direction, rather than help your mate with his "whatever" pride and joy.
Tootle pip!!
The significance, in part, of the "employee" in Part 132, whether directly employed or employed under a contract (even if an unpaid volunteer can be included), is that they must all be in receipt of the Approved Operations Manual, with all amendments up to date, and comply with the provisions of the manual, including any required training or re-current training required under the manual. Presumably, each task or "job" will have to be described to an "approved" standard, as will the processes for determining initial and ongoing competence, along with all the necessary "approved" records, created and maintained in a form for auditing, to determine ongoing compliance with the provisions of the Approved Operations Manual.
Non-compliance is a criminal offence, and potentially creating offences by the operator and the individual.
Anybody involved with AOCs ( although NO AOC is involved here ---- just all the trappings and traps --- how do you think NCNs/RCAs/Safety Alerts/current name of choice against an AOC are established) will be all too familiar with what I am getting at here --- Kharon??
A good reason to take off in the opposite direction, rather than help your mate with his "whatever" pride and joy.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 11th Feb 2013 at 05:39.