General Aviation Meeting
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the eyes of 'He who wears Hawaiian shirts on Fridays' all 'aviators' are guilty of something, all are ills of society, all are guilty until proven innocent and even then they are still guilty, all must receive the big stick and jackboots, all are sinners and must confess and repent of their aviation crimes.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New South Wales
Age: 68
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What has changed?
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
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
) No N2000/1697
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re SYDNEY HARBOUR SEAPLANES PTY LIMITED
Applicant
And CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Respondent
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For consideration
Paul Phelan – extract – To hell with the rules.
Flogging a dead horse comes to mind.
In October 2005 CASA’s (then) CEO Bruce Byron commissioned a comprehensive study of the agency’s regulatory structure by an “industry/CASA EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) team.”
In the following year Byron, having briefly toured Europe and engaged with some of its EASA rule-makers, returned with the firm intention of enforcing the Government policy for outcome based-regulation justified by risk and cost benefits analyses. This would be done by replacing regulation that was currently under development, with a rule set based on EASA in what industry stakeholders described as “an ambitious but entirely achievable timetable.”
The new EASA approach, which Byron said already fitted Australian Government policy, was to develop new maintenance, repair & overhaul (MRO) rules that were closely harmonised with ICAO, EASA, FAA, and particularly Canada and New Zealand. This would replace CASA’s “Engineering Suite” which industry sources say comprised “some 9600 pages of complex and absolutely prescriptive maintenance laws, the breaching of any one of which would be a criminal offence.”
Because EASA did not yet have a full suite of general aviation MRO rules, Australia would draw on rules developed by a former consultative panel, abandoned in 2000, and on Canadian, US and New Zealand outcome-based rule sets with “acceptable means of compliance” customised for the Australian risk equation.
One stated outcome of the changes was to be that criminal offences would be limited to high-level genuinely criminal acts, as in other major aviation countries. All “unique” Australian rules were to go, and Australian aviation businesses of all sizes expected relief from what they described as a “regulatory straightjacket.”
Byron announced in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM 0604MS) in October 2006 that CASA now planned to adopt a completely new regulatory format for the “maintenance suite” of regulations – CASR Parts 42, 66, 145 and 147. The NPRM explained in part:
Because of the availability of a new regulatory style pioneered by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), CASA decided to amend the package of proposed regulations and commence a further period of consultation. CASA considers that it is necessary to seek comment on the changes made to the regulations as a result of areas of policy change and the new style of regulation writing. Some of these regulatory changes have, however, previously been consulted on.
One of the main drivers for Mr Byron to shift to the EASA style programme was that it could be delivered quickly and would purge the proposed Manuals Of Standards (MOS) of all the “hooks and barbs” that could be hidden in them. It was known that while CASA diligently consulted and produced some “vanilla flavoured” regulations, much of the MOS’s were not consulted on at all, and so became potentially a hidden “third tier of regulation” which industry believed would not be “disallowable documents,” and therefore not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. At the time Byron stated that getting the maintenance regulations harmonised first would allow large Australian MROs to operate more effectively in the international market.
The NPRM commented at length on the outdatedness and complexity of the existing maintenance regulations, their lack of conformity and harmony with international regulatory practice, and their lack of clarity and conciseness. The decision however virtually meant binning the newly developed rules which had been almost ready to be sent for drafting, and starting again in a format that blended with that of EASA. It also created the problem that EASA rules had no coverage of general aviation, as well as giving those CASA officials who were opposed to most of the guiding principles anyway, an opportunity to launch a campaign which would turn the maintenance regulations into the mess they now represent.
The airlines were satisfied with the EASA style Regulations as they were. As EASA had no general aviation regulations, CASA believed that Australia could provide a body of ready-made material that could easily be uplifted into the EASA format.
Work on that aspect has yet to begin.
The EASA decision was unpopular within CASA and with many in industry because it negated much of the regulatory development work already completed.
On Monday October 26, 2004, Bruce Byron held a meeting of all his executive managers in Melbourne. He announced major intended changes in CASA direction, including a requirement to move CASA out of the administration of private general aviation, to focus primarily on the oversight of passenger-carrying operations, including support sectors such as large MROs and airports, and detailed a new approach to regulatory reform, supported by specific directives, that would to return it to conformity with its by now often-stated goals.
In the following year Byron, having briefly toured Europe and engaged with some of its EASA rule-makers, returned with the firm intention of enforcing the Government policy for outcome based-regulation justified by risk and cost benefits analyses. This would be done by replacing regulation that was currently under development, with a rule set based on EASA in what industry stakeholders described as “an ambitious but entirely achievable timetable.”
The new EASA approach, which Byron said already fitted Australian Government policy, was to develop new maintenance, repair & overhaul (MRO) rules that were closely harmonised with ICAO, EASA, FAA, and particularly Canada and New Zealand. This would replace CASA’s “Engineering Suite” which industry sources say comprised “some 9600 pages of complex and absolutely prescriptive maintenance laws, the breaching of any one of which would be a criminal offence.”
Because EASA did not yet have a full suite of general aviation MRO rules, Australia would draw on rules developed by a former consultative panel, abandoned in 2000, and on Canadian, US and New Zealand outcome-based rule sets with “acceptable means of compliance” customised for the Australian risk equation.
One stated outcome of the changes was to be that criminal offences would be limited to high-level genuinely criminal acts, as in other major aviation countries. All “unique” Australian rules were to go, and Australian aviation businesses of all sizes expected relief from what they described as a “regulatory straightjacket.”
Byron announced in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM 0604MS) in October 2006 that CASA now planned to adopt a completely new regulatory format for the “maintenance suite” of regulations – CASR Parts 42, 66, 145 and 147. The NPRM explained in part:
Because of the availability of a new regulatory style pioneered by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), CASA decided to amend the package of proposed regulations and commence a further period of consultation. CASA considers that it is necessary to seek comment on the changes made to the regulations as a result of areas of policy change and the new style of regulation writing. Some of these regulatory changes have, however, previously been consulted on.
One of the main drivers for Mr Byron to shift to the EASA style programme was that it could be delivered quickly and would purge the proposed Manuals Of Standards (MOS) of all the “hooks and barbs” that could be hidden in them. It was known that while CASA diligently consulted and produced some “vanilla flavoured” regulations, much of the MOS’s were not consulted on at all, and so became potentially a hidden “third tier of regulation” which industry believed would not be “disallowable documents,” and therefore not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. At the time Byron stated that getting the maintenance regulations harmonised first would allow large Australian MROs to operate more effectively in the international market.
The NPRM commented at length on the outdatedness and complexity of the existing maintenance regulations, their lack of conformity and harmony with international regulatory practice, and their lack of clarity and conciseness. The decision however virtually meant binning the newly developed rules which had been almost ready to be sent for drafting, and starting again in a format that blended with that of EASA. It also created the problem that EASA rules had no coverage of general aviation, as well as giving those CASA officials who were opposed to most of the guiding principles anyway, an opportunity to launch a campaign which would turn the maintenance regulations into the mess they now represent.
The airlines were satisfied with the EASA style Regulations as they were. As EASA had no general aviation regulations, CASA believed that Australia could provide a body of ready-made material that could easily be uplifted into the EASA format.
Work on that aspect has yet to begin.
The EASA decision was unpopular within CASA and with many in industry because it negated much of the regulatory development work already completed.
On Monday October 26, 2004, Bruce Byron held a meeting of all his executive managers in Melbourne. He announced major intended changes in CASA direction, including a requirement to move CASA out of the administration of private general aviation, to focus primarily on the oversight of passenger-carrying operations, including support sectors such as large MROs and airports, and detailed a new approach to regulatory reform, supported by specific directives, that would to return it to conformity with its by now often-stated goals.
AMROBA breaking news page..
As this is posted on the website I guess it is for general consumption...
Sounds like the DAS was behaving true to form...
Breaking News
Acacia Ridge Industry Meeting produced quite a different outcome than what was expected by all that attended. When the industry organisations in the local area decided to hold a meeting to discuss the change in interaction with local CASA office it quickly became a national meeting. CASA was invited and CASA CEO Mr J McCormick attended with other senior staff.
read more Breaking News…..
Sadly, industry expected a mature and open discussion with CASA that turned into a very bullish attack on anyone that had a different opinion to John McCormick. He started by stating AMROBA and others are misleading industry and that those attending did not need to obtain Part 145 approval as it only applies to high capacity RPT. Everyone in industry understands that CASR Part 145 applies to aircraft and components of aircraft that are operating under CAR206(1)(c). This can be any aircraft operating a schedule airline service not just high capacity RPT aircraft.
Whenever anyone in industry tried to raise an issue, they were talked down by McCormick. Most could not believe that a head of a goverment agency would not listen to the issues they wanted to raise. There has been a breakdown in communications betwen industry and CASA and after the meeting over 80 owner and managers of organisations and operators came to understand the attitude of CASA staff.
McCormick tried to tell the industry they actually receive very few complaints and when many in the room stated they had submitted complaints he stated he had not seen them even when those attending told they had sent them to him and they were replied by someone else.
CASA ICC, Elizabeth Hampton has the confidence of those that attended and it is expected that she will recieve more complaints now.The fear of reprisal is high by those that attended and even Senator Ian McDonald, who opened the meeting, sensed this from comments in the audience. He asked for anyone that believes they are harassed or victimised as a result of attending this meeting or submitting a complaint to contact him.
When costs of transitioning to Part 145 were explained to McCormick, he scoffed at the figures being put to him. These are organisations that have to provide the financial resources to fund transition. The actual figures make a mockery of the transitional costs that accompanied the NFRM.The agressive approach and lack of respect paid to those that attended from Qld, NSW, NT, WA & Vic was well noted by all that attended.
The statement that NZ and other regulatory systems are not as good as what we are getting demonstrated the lack of understanding of other systems. A review of the NZ audit report that suppose to support the impression that NZ is a basketcase actually supports how good their regulatory system is. The consensus of those at the meeting support alignment and adoption of the NX aviation requirements for the non airline sectors.
However, until McCormick is replaced with the next CEO, AMROBA will, on behalf of its members disagree with McCormick and lobby for adoption of the NZ aviation safety standards.
Acacia Ridge Industry Meeting produced quite a different outcome than what was expected by all that attended. When the industry organisations in the local area decided to hold a meeting to discuss the change in interaction with local CASA office it quickly became a national meeting. CASA was invited and CASA CEO Mr J McCormick attended with other senior staff.
read more Breaking News…..
Sadly, industry expected a mature and open discussion with CASA that turned into a very bullish attack on anyone that had a different opinion to John McCormick. He started by stating AMROBA and others are misleading industry and that those attending did not need to obtain Part 145 approval as it only applies to high capacity RPT. Everyone in industry understands that CASR Part 145 applies to aircraft and components of aircraft that are operating under CAR206(1)(c). This can be any aircraft operating a schedule airline service not just high capacity RPT aircraft.
Whenever anyone in industry tried to raise an issue, they were talked down by McCormick. Most could not believe that a head of a goverment agency would not listen to the issues they wanted to raise. There has been a breakdown in communications betwen industry and CASA and after the meeting over 80 owner and managers of organisations and operators came to understand the attitude of CASA staff.
McCormick tried to tell the industry they actually receive very few complaints and when many in the room stated they had submitted complaints he stated he had not seen them even when those attending told they had sent them to him and they were replied by someone else.
CASA ICC, Elizabeth Hampton has the confidence of those that attended and it is expected that she will recieve more complaints now.The fear of reprisal is high by those that attended and even Senator Ian McDonald, who opened the meeting, sensed this from comments in the audience. He asked for anyone that believes they are harassed or victimised as a result of attending this meeting or submitting a complaint to contact him.
When costs of transitioning to Part 145 were explained to McCormick, he scoffed at the figures being put to him. These are organisations that have to provide the financial resources to fund transition. The actual figures make a mockery of the transitional costs that accompanied the NFRM.The agressive approach and lack of respect paid to those that attended from Qld, NSW, NT, WA & Vic was well noted by all that attended.
The statement that NZ and other regulatory systems are not as good as what we are getting demonstrated the lack of understanding of other systems. A review of the NZ audit report that suppose to support the impression that NZ is a basketcase actually supports how good their regulatory system is. The consensus of those at the meeting support alignment and adoption of the NX aviation requirements for the non airline sectors.
However, until McCormick is replaced with the next CEO, AMROBA will, on behalf of its members disagree with McCormick and lobby for adoption of the NZ aviation safety standards.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LATEST FROM AMROBA
We now know why CASA field staff, mainly new employees that have been indoctrinated in the McCormick training methods, no longer have interpersonnal skills and can talk maturely with people in industry that are responsible for the safety of this industry. AMROBA will, on behalf of the attendees at the Industry Meeting, be making a complaint to the Board of CASA, cc to the Minister, Opposition Shadow Minister and Senator Ian McDonald.
There is a genuine fear within the industry of victimisation by CASA, especially if you have raised a complaint with CASA. It was obvious from the meeting that McCormick was not aware of the complaints that had been lodged with CASA and neither was their ICC, Elizabeth Hampton. McCormick denied receiving complaints even when industry representatives informed that were sent directly to him but the reply came from someone else.
It was reported to me at the end of the meeting when one female attendee clearly enunciated that the problem in aviation was not the industry but McCormick himself, the people in the front of the meeting and also a prominent lawyer sitting alongside McCormick heard McCormick mutter “wanker”.
That sums up his attitude to small business in aviation. An extraordinary performance by a very belligerent person.
Senator Ian McDonald expressed his concern on busineses being harassed as a result of attending the meeting and sending a complaint to CASA.
The Senator encouraged any person that feels they are harassed by CASA to not only lodge a complaint but to let him know.
Senator Ian McDonald’s contact details are:
Townsville Office
131 Denham Street
(PO Box 2185)
TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810
Ph: (07) 4771 3066
fax: (07) 4771 3411
We now know why CASA field staff, mainly new employees that have been indoctrinated in the McCormick training methods, no longer have interpersonnal skills and can talk maturely with people in industry that are responsible for the safety of this industry. AMROBA will, on behalf of the attendees at the Industry Meeting, be making a complaint to the Board of CASA, cc to the Minister, Opposition Shadow Minister and Senator Ian McDonald.
There is a genuine fear within the industry of victimisation by CASA, especially if you have raised a complaint with CASA. It was obvious from the meeting that McCormick was not aware of the complaints that had been lodged with CASA and neither was their ICC, Elizabeth Hampton. McCormick denied receiving complaints even when industry representatives informed that were sent directly to him but the reply came from someone else.
It was reported to me at the end of the meeting when one female attendee clearly enunciated that the problem in aviation was not the industry but McCormick himself, the people in the front of the meeting and also a prominent lawyer sitting alongside McCormick heard McCormick mutter “wanker”.
That sums up his attitude to small business in aviation. An extraordinary performance by a very belligerent person.
Senator Ian McDonald expressed his concern on busineses being harassed as a result of attending the meeting and sending a complaint to CASA.
The Senator encouraged any person that feels they are harassed by CASA to not only lodge a complaint but to let him know.
Senator Ian McDonald’s contact details are:
Townsville Office
131 Denham Street
(PO Box 2185)
TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810
Ph: (07) 4771 3066
fax: (07) 4771 3411
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MORE FROM AMROBA
The meeting today had mixed outcomes. Full details will be promulgated post reviewing the meeting tapes.
When CASA CEO, McCormick, Jonathen Aleck, Elizabeth Hampton and Peter John were invited to join, we experienced a CEO that would not listen to those trying to make a point.
It demonstrated why industry has stopped telling CASA what is wrong with their proposals – because they are not listened to by CASA.
There was no respect shown by McCormick to business owners attending – about 80 odd GA representative from around Australia.
No wonder the industry feels like it has not been heard.
McCormick’s continual berating of anything not CASA from bagging AMROBA for ‘misleading’ industry, the FAA and NZ rules, etc whilst not knowing what his field office staff were doing, demonstrated what type of person you have to deal with and why CASA field staff act in the manner. The one thing for sure – industry’s respect for CASA took a nose-dive.
Based on today’s response from CASA’s CEO, we now understand why our members and others have had unsatisfactory relations with CASA.
Like all organisations, the staff reflect the boss’s attitude.
The one thing we agree on, if we don’t like how CASA operates then we need to get the Civil Aviation Act changed – that is exactly what we hope to achieve.
AMROBA will continue to put the real facts in front of its membership which continues to grow.
The one thing I am sure of from today’s meeting, is that CASA Executive either does not know how their staff interact with industry by their own answers.
Across this country we see, mainly older experienced CASA staff having good relationships whereas, where new staff predominate, the relationships have soured.
The answer is political and we will work hard to achieve this change.
Ken R Cannane
Executive Director
AMROBA
phone: 61 (0)2 9759 2715 61 (0)2 9759 2715
facsimile: 61 (0)2 9759 2025
mobile: 0408 029 329
0408 029 329
Note: AMROBA site has been hacked, if you want a copy of latest AMROBA newsletter contact Ken or PM me
Cheers
The meeting today had mixed outcomes. Full details will be promulgated post reviewing the meeting tapes.
When CASA CEO, McCormick, Jonathen Aleck, Elizabeth Hampton and Peter John were invited to join, we experienced a CEO that would not listen to those trying to make a point.
It demonstrated why industry has stopped telling CASA what is wrong with their proposals – because they are not listened to by CASA.
There was no respect shown by McCormick to business owners attending – about 80 odd GA representative from around Australia.
No wonder the industry feels like it has not been heard.
McCormick’s continual berating of anything not CASA from bagging AMROBA for ‘misleading’ industry, the FAA and NZ rules, etc whilst not knowing what his field office staff were doing, demonstrated what type of person you have to deal with and why CASA field staff act in the manner. The one thing for sure – industry’s respect for CASA took a nose-dive.
Based on today’s response from CASA’s CEO, we now understand why our members and others have had unsatisfactory relations with CASA.
Like all organisations, the staff reflect the boss’s attitude.
The one thing we agree on, if we don’t like how CASA operates then we need to get the Civil Aviation Act changed – that is exactly what we hope to achieve.
AMROBA will continue to put the real facts in front of its membership which continues to grow.
The one thing I am sure of from today’s meeting, is that CASA Executive either does not know how their staff interact with industry by their own answers.
Across this country we see, mainly older experienced CASA staff having good relationships whereas, where new staff predominate, the relationships have soured.
The answer is political and we will work hard to achieve this change.
Ken R Cannane
Executive Director
AMROBA
phone: 61 (0)2 9759 2715 61 (0)2 9759 2715
facsimile: 61 (0)2 9759 2025
mobile: 0408 029 329
0408 029 329 Note: AMROBA site has been hacked, if you want a copy of latest AMROBA newsletter contact Ken or PM me
Cheers
Last edited by owen meaney; 29th Apr 2013 at 01:35.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outbursts, bullying, wankers and fuel oversight!
A bad day for the angry man? Ran out of fuel, mr temper got the better of him yet again, cussing under his breath at some poor lass and treating industry like they are the dirt beneath his feet??
It seems that fuel in his car isn't the only thing that ESSO has run out of. You can add maturity, fairness, patience and humility to the list as well. This man has contempt for other humans.
It seems that ESSO has either truly outdone himself, or as I suspect, the 'real man' is shining through in all his glory. An apology and resignation is required forewith. This man represents the highest bastion of aviation in this land, and this is how this Government appointed representative acts? Not only is the beast off its leash and uncontrollable, the CAsA Board and Minister are sitting on their hands. (Please somebody buy the man 2 cigars, a pot plant and 100mg of Lithium). The Board should also go. As for Mrdak, well if I were the Minister I would be wondering what mr Mrdak has actually been advising me?
I wonder if the general populous, Senators, media and other observers will now,
finally, pay homage and respect to those in industry who have been saying for years that they are being bullied, abused, harassed and victims of 'legalised payback'?
CAsA has self destructed. The situation is palpable and the roles of virtually every executive is untenable. With no disrespect to AMROBA or to Senator McDonald this issue includes the likes of Aleck and Hampton. They, along with the Skull are all members of the ICC panel, so complaining to them is about as useful as a prisoner in Auschwitz complaining to the Fuhrer about their treatment. The ICC has become a farce since Mr Hart resigned.
The Board are equally useless, however they may recommend action to the Minister, but only if their precious troughs become endangered or if their precious Minister faces potential negative attention.
How much is enough? It is time to pull the plug on the top tier of CASA.
It seems that fuel in his car isn't the only thing that ESSO has run out of. You can add maturity, fairness, patience and humility to the list as well. This man has contempt for other humans.
It seems that ESSO has either truly outdone himself, or as I suspect, the 'real man' is shining through in all his glory. An apology and resignation is required forewith. This man represents the highest bastion of aviation in this land, and this is how this Government appointed representative acts? Not only is the beast off its leash and uncontrollable, the CAsA Board and Minister are sitting on their hands. (Please somebody buy the man 2 cigars, a pot plant and 100mg of Lithium). The Board should also go. As for Mrdak, well if I were the Minister I would be wondering what mr Mrdak has actually been advising me?
I wonder if the general populous, Senators, media and other observers will now,
finally, pay homage and respect to those in industry who have been saying for years that they are being bullied, abused, harassed and victims of 'legalised payback'?
CAsA has self destructed. The situation is palpable and the roles of virtually every executive is untenable. With no disrespect to AMROBA or to Senator McDonald this issue includes the likes of Aleck and Hampton. They, along with the Skull are all members of the ICC panel, so complaining to them is about as useful as a prisoner in Auschwitz complaining to the Fuhrer about their treatment. The ICC has become a farce since Mr Hart resigned.
The Board are equally useless, however they may recommend action to the Minister, but only if their precious troughs become endangered or if their precious Minister faces potential negative attention.
How much is enough? It is time to pull the plug on the top tier of CASA.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 29th Apr 2013 at 02:03.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owen, it is beyond the powers of us plebs. It has to be done at a high level.
The solution is simple, yet it is also difficult. All you need is a half decent media outlet to steer its attention, investigations and direction at the very issues we are tautologically mentioning and have said media throw all this at the Minister, very publicly, over and over and you will likely see at least a couple of scalps taken by Albanese. It could be just the start needed.
The inept board will also be under pressure to remove what they will see as a stain on the Ministers silk shirt, remember the role of the Board is to to protect Big Tony from any loose cannons.
One thing is certain and cannot be hidden any longer - CAsA is in trouble, it has some serious serious problems and after decades they are eeking out like a pus embodied sore that is neglected. Not even a dash of pot plant palm oil will remove the source of the infection.
The solution is simple, yet it is also difficult. All you need is a half decent media outlet to steer its attention, investigations and direction at the very issues we are tautologically mentioning and have said media throw all this at the Minister, very publicly, over and over and you will likely see at least a couple of scalps taken by Albanese. It could be just the start needed.
The inept board will also be under pressure to remove what they will see as a stain on the Ministers silk shirt, remember the role of the Board is to to protect Big Tony from any loose cannons.
One thing is certain and cannot be hidden any longer - CAsA is in trouble, it has some serious serious problems and after decades they are eeking out like a pus embodied sore that is neglected. Not even a dash of pot plant palm oil will remove the source of the infection.
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 29th Apr 2013 at 02:43.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owen, not a problem. Hate to think my posts are viewed as hijacking. I saw it as support, however respectfully I shall desist from any further input in this thread.
Best of luck with whatever course of action AMROBA take.
Best of luck with whatever course of action AMROBA take.
Be very careful what you say about people here and remember that this is about developing a just, fair, equitable and economically efficient system of safety regulation.
Failure to stay on message and descending into hatred, ridicule and contempt dooms your cause.
Your best approach is to fail to understand why certain inconsistencies eventuate.
Failure to stay on message and descending into hatred, ridicule and contempt dooms your cause.
Your best approach is to fail to understand why certain inconsistencies eventuate.
He started by stating AMROBA and others are misleading industry and that those attending did not need to obtain Part 145 approval as it only applies to high capacity RPT. Everyone in industry understands that CASR Part 145 applies to aircraft and components of aircraft that are operating under CAR206(1)(c). This can be any aircraft operating a schedule airline service not just high capacity RPT aircraft.
If they are confused, they shouldn’t be.
The definition of “air transport AOC” for the purposes of Part 42 is pretty clear: “an AOC issued for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 206 (1) (b) or (c) of CAR”. That is, all RPT and Charter AOCs (but the transitional arrangements for the application of Part 42 knock out Charter for the time being). There are also definitions of “large aircraft” and “small aircraft” in Part 3 of the Dictionary in CASR, and they are pretty clear too, but have no effect on the definition of “air transport AOC”.
But the important bit is CASR 42.295, which sets out who is permitted to carry out maintenance on Australian aircraft to which Part 42 applies (which, as a consequence of the transitional provisions, means aircraft operated under an AOC authorising RPT). CASR 42.306 is the corresponding provisions for maintenance of aeronautical products.
The table in CASR 42.295 lists:
- Part 145 organisations, and individuals doing stuff on behalf of Part 145 organisations, and
- Subpart 42.F organisations, and individuals doing stuff on behalf of Subpart 42.F organisations.
There is no one else on the list.
The table says Subpart 42.F organisations are permitted to carry out maintenance on “small aircraft [that are] not authorised to operate under an air transport AOC”. That means Subpart 42.F organisations are not permitted to carry out maintenance on any RPT aircraft (or Charter aircraft if Part 42 applied to them) of whatever size, given that, by definition, RPT aircraft and Charter aircraft operate under an “air transport AOC”.
Who’s permitted to carry out maintenance on aircraft that Subpart 42.F organisations are not permitted to maintain? That can only be a Part 145 organisation, because that’s all that’s left on the list.
That means only Part 145 organisations are permitted to carry out maintenance on:
- aircraft that are authorised to operate under an RPT AOC (or Charter AOC, if Part 42 applied to them), irrespective of the size of the aircraft, or
- any large aircraft that are not authorised to operate under an RPT or Charter AOC (if Part 42 applied to them).
Maybe there’s an amendment to CAR 206 hidden somewhere?
Explained today by an FOI that charter disappears in 2015 and anyone who carries a passenger for money from point to point is RPT. Even an out and back joy flight is RPT if it lands at a different place during the flight.
"slight changes to the operations manual" was all that was allegedly required.
I said nothing.
So that is the solution to the CAR206 grey area- there will be no such thing as charter, from the point of view of reduced supervision and cost burden. All will require an RPT AOC and associated maintenance.
"slight changes to the operations manual" was all that was allegedly required.
I said nothing.
So that is the solution to the CAR206 grey area- there will be no such thing as charter, from the point of view of reduced supervision and cost burden. All will require an RPT AOC and associated maintenance.
Last edited by Sunfish; 29th Apr 2013 at 09:08.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Creamie 
Now what was all that about?
I know you claim to be just a dumb..."insert profession" but if your explanation of all that is that complex, what chance have industry folk got of making sense of it?
My head hurts.....
Now what was all that about?
I know you claim to be just a dumb..."insert profession" but if your explanation of all that is that complex, what chance have industry folk got of making sense of it?
My head hurts.....
All will require an RPT AOC and associated maintenance.
If the aircraft is operated under an RPT or Charter AOC, the outcome is that the aircraft is operated under an “air transport AOC” as defined in Part 42. If follows, from CASR 42.295, that the only persons permitted to maintain the aircraft will be Part 145 organisations. It’s just that the requirement is, for the time being, confined to aircraft operated under RPT AOCs rather than Charter or RPT AOCs.
Most probably right Creamy. I sense this business will close in 2015.
CASA is part of a wider economic malaise whose chief characteristic is waste and inefficiency.
By contrast I had to renew a licence via Vicroads in person today and I was simply amazed at how fast and efficient the whole process was, I was out in twenty minutes.
CASA is part of a wider economic malaise whose chief characteristic is waste and inefficiency.
By contrast I had to renew a licence via Vicroads in person today and I was simply amazed at how fast and efficient the whole process was, I was out in twenty minutes.
Looks like the 'Ex FSO Griffo' Tiger Moth Joyflight / Charter bizzo is about to become an RPT....and fade off, stage left...into the sunset...???
Or I could go and do the ATPL / B727 Course....to qualify on the Tiger again....
And, Part 145 Maintenance.....do they handle Gipsy Majors...??
Or I could go and do the ATPL / B727 Course....to qualify on the Tiger again....
And, Part 145 Maintenance.....do they handle Gipsy Majors...??
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 29th Apr 2013 at 12:05.