Did Barrier get their AOC back?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would doubt CASA will allow JFC to conduct operations in QLD under the JFC AOC. But there isn't anything stopping JFC to buy Barrier..
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Perth
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find CASA are currently allowing Barrier to operate under the JFC AOC and that the CP will be up in Darwin and Cairns over the next couple of weeks getting the guys all checked and good to go.
Borrowed AOC or operating as a division of.....
JFC operating Barrier's fleet from Barrier's premises under a new name..
Wrightsair at William Creek advertise on their website as
Wrightsair at William Creek advertise on their website as
Wrightsair, The Lake Eyre Scenic & Charter Flight Specialist: A division of Freycinet Air
So what's the difference between a borrowed AOC, and "operating as a division of"?
As an aside, at the same time, on CASA's safety material, Trevor Wright is promoted as Chief Pilot, Wrightsair - which I am not sure how he could be if Wrightsair are a division of Freycinet Air? Perhaps CASA's left hand doesn't know what it's right hand is doing? (Not having a go at Wrightsair or JFC, just trying to get my head around how the rules & regs work).
So what's the difference between a borrowed AOC, and "operating as a division of"?
As an aside, at the same time, on CASA's safety material, Trevor Wright is promoted as Chief Pilot, Wrightsair - which I am not sure how he could be if Wrightsair are a division of Freycinet Air? Perhaps CASA's left hand doesn't know what it's right hand is doing? (Not having a go at Wrightsair or JFC, just trying to get my head around how the rules & regs work).
I would doubt CASA will allow JFC to conduct operations in QLD under the JFC AOC.
It does not matter where an AOC is based or in which region their AOC is administered by their friendly FOI. An AOC Holder can operate within Australia. I cannot recall seeing an AOC restricted to a specific area within Australia.
Wrightsair, The Lake Eyre Scenic & Charter Flight Specialist: A division of Freycinet Air
From reading the Wrightsair web site I would conclude that Wrightair is a "Scenic Flight Specialist" and that it is a division of Freycinet Air.
However a search of business names does not bring any results for Freycinet Air. But there is a company in the name of Freycinet Air Pty Ltd which is the holder of an AOC VT559856.
On the Freycinet Air there is a link to Wrightsair.
Does the Freycinet Air Pty Ltd AOC show the trading names of Wrightsair and Freycinet Air?
So who is the CP of Freycinet Air Pty Ltd and is he/she based in William Creek or Coles Bay in Tasmania?
Freycinet Air (on their website) advertise only have 172s available for charter.
Wrightsair (on their website) advertise 172s, 182s, Airvans, 207s, 210s and an twin engine Aerostar.
Good luck to them...
Wrightsair (on their website) advertise 172s, 182s, Airvans, 207s, 210s and an twin engine Aerostar.
Good luck to them...
I think Wrightsair operate under the 'Opal Air' AOC
AOCs and...
"Since when did an AOC become State or region specific " 601
It happens when some CASA bum thinks it might suit his purpose. Its on the CASA logo,"Any old bull**** will do !"
Had this issue twice....1. You need an INTRAstate licence to do jobs outside QLD. ? Que ? Non passenger carrying op. Transport Qld said Really.. are you an airline? And we had a good laugh.
2 When operating in WA that was deemed to be too far away for the CP, AOC QLD...said CP based in NT.. to monitor the op.
Funny that,,competitor company AOC and CP in WA had no prob operating anywhere in OZ. Mmmmmm.
Another CASA trait..Inconsistency. Different strokes for different folks.
Where do they get these ignorant "make-it-up" merchants from.?
Dont ask and I wont say.
It happens when some CASA bum thinks it might suit his purpose. Its on the CASA logo,"Any old bull**** will do !"
Had this issue twice....1. You need an INTRAstate licence to do jobs outside QLD. ? Que ? Non passenger carrying op. Transport Qld said Really.. are you an airline? And we had a good laugh.
2 When operating in WA that was deemed to be too far away for the CP, AOC QLD...said CP based in NT.. to monitor the op.
Funny that,,competitor company AOC and CP in WA had no prob operating anywhere in OZ. Mmmmmm.
Another CASA trait..Inconsistency. Different strokes for different folks.
Where do they get these ignorant "make-it-up" merchants from.?
Dont ask and I wont say.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: FNQ
Age: 45
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First post 
The other night we overheard a barrier 172 heading into cairns trying to conduct various approaches. However, we were not quite as busy as this person seemed to be. I only picked up little of what was going on (or rather not happening). We did think to ourselves here we go again. I used to hear the plane doing scenics out of cairns so maybe they're doing training in cairns again. The only thing worse than ****y equitpment is strugglers. Quite surprised the instructor did not take over.
Dirty Dash
The other night we overheard a barrier 172 heading into cairns trying to conduct various approaches. However, we were not quite as busy as this person seemed to be. I only picked up little of what was going on (or rather not happening). We did think to ourselves here we go again. I used to hear the plane doing scenics out of cairns so maybe they're doing training in cairns again. The only thing worse than ****y equitpment is strugglers. Quite surprised the instructor did not take over. Dirty Dash
I believe they are up and running again this week - borrowed AOC I suppose (Jandakot Flight Centre) - so ops normal as they work their way back under the stewardship of DK and the supervision of an organisation in Perth.
I assume that CASA is getting the outcome they are after, as they must have approved Barrier to operate with JFC in writing. The concept of the borrowed AOC seems to be becoming more and more prevalent (ie AV8 and QAS in Darwin, Barrier and JFC in Cairns/Darwin - Torres and Gove to come? - just to list two).
Just not sure what fewer AOCs but same number of operators is supposed to achieve, unless it is a way to keep industry alive with the smaller operators not having to work their way through the roll out of all the new CASRs by being "grandfathered" by some larger companies, but this seems contrary to the intention...
I assume that CASA is getting the outcome they are after, as they must have approved Barrier to operate with JFC in writing. The concept of the borrowed AOC seems to be becoming more and more prevalent (ie AV8 and QAS in Darwin, Barrier and JFC in Cairns/Darwin - Torres and Gove to come? - just to list two).
Just not sure what fewer AOCs but same number of operators is supposed to achieve, unless it is a way to keep industry alive with the smaller operators not having to work their way through the roll out of all the new CASRs by being "grandfathered" by some larger companies, but this seems contrary to the intention...
Last edited by Flying Bear; 26th Apr 2013 at 06:58.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tropical Australia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Borrowing an AOC? If any operation is not good enough to operate under its own AOC, how does 'borrowing' someone else's AOC change things?
Operating under someone else's AOC still did not seem to help AV8 (if it really has closed). What is the point? Shifting responsibilities of the operator or the regulator?
Operating under someone else's AOC still did not seem to help AV8 (if it really has closed). What is the point? Shifting responsibilities of the operator or the regulator?
How thing’s have changed….NOT!
Some quotes from a Paul Phelan article called “A skilfully mismanaged stuffup” (my bold).
“Most of the documentation of these events would never have surfaced, had the affected operator not dug its heels in and fought for their release. Uzu Air’s friends, as well as many of its commercial rivals, were united in their belief that these events represented an ongoing threat to the orderly conduct of aviation, and ultimately a negative impact on air safety. They also observed that CASA had developed a tactic to subvert the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) process, by cynically sheltering behind Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act. That belief has been strengthened many times since the Uzu Air debacle.”
“Jan 20 99: Uzu filed a notice of application for review of the CASA decision to suspend its AOC, claiming that the Authority had acted ultra vires (outside its legislated authority); breached rules of procedural fairness and natural justice; failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision; misapplied administrative principles, and ‘failed to correctly interpret and apply the law.’ ”
Sounds oh so familiar, read it and weep!
Sounds oh so familiar, right or wrong operators/pilots deserve 'due process' and 'natural justice'. However FF still believe they're above the 'rule of law' and until industry unites to say enough is enough the longer the strangulation of a once vibrant industry will continue!
ps Noticed BASI weren't afraid to call FF out back then for telling/insinuating untruths about a pending prelim report...sheesh FFS these days we've got ATSBeaker sitting on the lap of Fort Fumble..'God help us!'
“Most of the documentation of these events would never have surfaced, had the affected operator not dug its heels in and fought for their release. Uzu Air’s friends, as well as many of its commercial rivals, were united in their belief that these events represented an ongoing threat to the orderly conduct of aviation, and ultimately a negative impact on air safety. They also observed that CASA had developed a tactic to subvert the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) process, by cynically sheltering behind Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act. That belief has been strengthened many times since the Uzu Air debacle.”
“Jan 20 99: Uzu filed a notice of application for review of the CASA decision to suspend its AOC, claiming that the Authority had acted ultra vires (outside its legislated authority); breached rules of procedural fairness and natural justice; failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision; misapplied administrative principles, and ‘failed to correctly interpret and apply the law.’ ”
Sounds oh so familiar, read it and weep!
Sounds oh so familiar, right or wrong operators/pilots deserve 'due process' and 'natural justice'. However FF still believe they're above the 'rule of law' and until industry unites to say enough is enough the longer the strangulation of a once vibrant industry will continue!
ps Noticed BASI weren't afraid to call FF out back then for telling/insinuating untruths about a pending prelim report...sheesh FFS these days we've got ATSBeaker sitting on the lap of Fort Fumble..'God help us!'
Last edited by Sarcs; 28th Apr 2013 at 11:35.
Sounds oh so familiar, right or wrong operators/pilots deserve 'due process' and 'natural justice'. However FF still believe they're above the 'rule of law' and until industry unites to say enough is enough the longer the strangulation of a once vibrant industry will continue!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by Onslope on the GA meeting thread. Food for Barrier thought - maybe.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL)
No N2000/1697 GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re SYDNEY HARBOUR SEAPLANES PTY LIMITED
Applicant
And CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Respondent
39. In reaching these conclusions about the scope of its review the Tribunal also wishes to express its sense of disquiet and frustration about the way in which it has been asked to determine this matter. It is quite remarkable that the respondent's own legal advisers seem to have been so ill-informed about the status of the regulatory framework applying to the issue of the AOC for the applicant that as late as 15 January 2001, when the respondent filed its detailed written submissions, no mention was made of Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No.20) 2000. It would seem that this particular CAO was only discovered through the diligence of the applicant's legal advisers - a discovery which as has been noted was only drawn to the attention of the Tribunal on 18 January 2000 after all of the evidence had been heard and in the course of closing oral submissions.
The Tribunal has no doubt that the applicant must have been prejudiced in the way in which it presented its case by these actions of the respondent. They are not the actions of a model litigant, nor those of a regulatory body which appears well-informed concerning the way in which its own senior officials exercise their very extensive delegated powers.
8 February 2001
No N2000/1697 GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re SYDNEY HARBOUR SEAPLANES PTY LIMITED
Applicant
And CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Respondent
39. In reaching these conclusions about the scope of its review the Tribunal also wishes to express its sense of disquiet and frustration about the way in which it has been asked to determine this matter. It is quite remarkable that the respondent's own legal advisers seem to have been so ill-informed about the status of the regulatory framework applying to the issue of the AOC for the applicant that as late as 15 January 2001, when the respondent filed its detailed written submissions, no mention was made of Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No.20) 2000. It would seem that this particular CAO was only discovered through the diligence of the applicant's legal advisers - a discovery which as has been noted was only drawn to the attention of the Tribunal on 18 January 2000 after all of the evidence had been heard and in the course of closing oral submissions.
The Tribunal has no doubt that the applicant must have been prejudiced in the way in which it presented its case by these actions of the respondent. They are not the actions of a model litigant, nor those of a regulatory body which appears well-informed concerning the way in which its own senior officials exercise their very extensive delegated powers.
8 February 2001