Reform Scenic Flights regulation!
Scavenger
My then correct interpretation of CAR 206 was formed independently and predates your "Mr Fice's" by 12 years.
CASA should hang their heads in shame. They lost in 2011 when the AAT upheld that, "The adverb, generally, cannot qualify or modify the noun persons. Unfortunately, it appears that this is the way in which the expression has been understood by CASA. It has resulted in attempts to distinguish charter from RPT on a basis which makes no sense and is not related to the safety of air navigation."
CASA then it appears, had the collossal hide to take this minor matter to the Federal Court at who knows what tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs to the Australian taxpayer to score a questionable victory.
Believe me, I referred to my old company's brochures that I still hold on file, the wording of which was approved by my FOI many years ago, before making these posts.
If this is so important, why did CASA or its predecessors not take any action 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago? Answer: It's not. They are just bully boys who want to win at any cost.
Scavenger, your post shows that you, like CASA, find the English language a bit of a challenge. I have always used the past tense when referring to my operation, so you know what you can do with your threat...
CASA should hang their heads in shame. They lost in 2011 when the AAT upheld that, "The adverb, generally, cannot qualify or modify the noun persons. Unfortunately, it appears that this is the way in which the expression has been understood by CASA. It has resulted in attempts to distinguish charter from RPT on a basis which makes no sense and is not related to the safety of air navigation."
CASA then it appears, had the collossal hide to take this minor matter to the Federal Court at who knows what tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs to the Australian taxpayer to score a questionable victory.
Believe me, I referred to my old company's brochures that I still hold on file, the wording of which was approved by my FOI many years ago, before making these posts.
If this is so important, why did CASA or its predecessors not take any action 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago? Answer: It's not. They are just bully boys who want to win at any cost.
Scavenger, your post shows that you, like CASA, find the English language a bit of a challenge. I have always used the past tense when referring to my operation, so you know what you can do with your threat...
Last edited by Possum1; 28th Feb 2014 at 15:11.
This was a very minor matter at the time and I don't know why some people are sweating on this.
In 1999, CASA was directed to "minimise the distinction between charter and Regular Public Transport (RPT) operators"
Not true, this has been a long running CASA misstatement of the findings of the Seaview Royal Commission. Further, all a Royal Commission can do is make recommendations. not directions.
CASA have further (in my opinion) misstated the words and intent of the Minister's S12 Policy Letter of the day, but, once again, a S.12A does not bind CASA.
CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 12A
Minister may give the Board notices about its strategic direction etc. (1) The Minister may notify the Board in writing of the Minister's views on the following matters:
(a) the appropriate strategic direction for CASA;
(b) the manner in which CASA should perform its functions.
(1A) Subsection (1) does not permit the Minister to notify views in relation to a particular case or a particular holder of a civil aviation authorisation.
(2) In performing its functions, the Board must act in accordance with notices given under subsection (1).
Tootle pip!!
Folks,
During the reform program overseen by the PAP from late 1996 until 1999, one of the policy positions agreed between the PAP and the then CASA Director (but, very significantly, not the control freaks of the "Iron Ring") was that "A to A" joy-flights/sightseeing flights" in small GA aircraft up to six POB would operated under the then proposed Part 91, without AOC.
Quite simply, the AOC system, that was never intended for other than RPT, had filtered down through the whole system, was not judged to add anything to air safety outcomes, compared to simply complying with the basic "rules if the air".
As AOC "conditions" have progressively become more onerous,( regulatory creep) these conditions have become more and more divorced from reality --- and held hostage to the whims and prejudices of FOIs, whose lack of knowledge and experienced is continually obvious. I feel really sorry for the good FOIs around (and there are some, carrying the rest) whose reputations suffer for the sins of the incompetents.
For those of us who remember the old "Charter" licenses, the very first Charter License I obtained, for operations in FNQ, entailed a "manual" that was about 12mm thick, most of which was the heavy cardboard cover. The only important page was page 2, which simply stated that all operations will be conducted in accordance with the Air Navigation Act, Air Navigation Regulations, Air Navigation Orders and the AIP.
The only thing that the present AOC requirements does is greatly increase cost and complexity, and the opportunity to become an "inadvertent criminal", without adding one iota to the cause of air safety.
Sadly, many of you, whom I meet, do not know another system, and don't seem to be able to cope with the idea of operating without a modern CASA style Operations Manual/Exposition hanging like a noose around your neck.
Finally, on the subject of "negotiating" law.
jus publicum privatorum pactis mutari non potest
public law cannot be changed by the agreements of private individuals
Sadly, given the shambles that is the Act and Regulations, it happens all the time.
Tootle pip!!
During the reform program overseen by the PAP from late 1996 until 1999, one of the policy positions agreed between the PAP and the then CASA Director (but, very significantly, not the control freaks of the "Iron Ring") was that "A to A" joy-flights/sightseeing flights" in small GA aircraft up to six POB would operated under the then proposed Part 91, without AOC.
Quite simply, the AOC system, that was never intended for other than RPT, had filtered down through the whole system, was not judged to add anything to air safety outcomes, compared to simply complying with the basic "rules if the air".
As AOC "conditions" have progressively become more onerous,( regulatory creep) these conditions have become more and more divorced from reality --- and held hostage to the whims and prejudices of FOIs, whose lack of knowledge and experienced is continually obvious. I feel really sorry for the good FOIs around (and there are some, carrying the rest) whose reputations suffer for the sins of the incompetents.
For those of us who remember the old "Charter" licenses, the very first Charter License I obtained, for operations in FNQ, entailed a "manual" that was about 12mm thick, most of which was the heavy cardboard cover. The only important page was page 2, which simply stated that all operations will be conducted in accordance with the Air Navigation Act, Air Navigation Regulations, Air Navigation Orders and the AIP.
The only thing that the present AOC requirements does is greatly increase cost and complexity, and the opportunity to become an "inadvertent criminal", without adding one iota to the cause of air safety.
Sadly, many of you, whom I meet, do not know another system, and don't seem to be able to cope with the idea of operating without a modern CASA style Operations Manual/Exposition hanging like a noose around your neck.
Finally, on the subject of "negotiating" law.
jus publicum privatorum pactis mutari non potest
public law cannot be changed by the agreements of private individuals
Sadly, given the shambles that is the Act and Regulations, it happens all the time.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled
You are right about the old days, charter was less onerous and I believe safer.
With the exception of a couple of dramatic accidents such as Monarch Airlines at Young, General Aviation was reasonably safe.
However private flying was decidedly unsafe with CIFT a predominate factor in accidents. Now we don't hear of many probably due to the transition to RA type aircraft.
What I find amazing is the proliferation of Travel Agencies such as Captains Choice etc operating Air Tours. Even when they use Qantas Aircraft the route is a non standard RPt and would have to be listed as a Charter. I cannot see CASA TELLING Qantas to stop!!!!!!!!!!
You are right about the old days, charter was less onerous and I believe safer.
With the exception of a couple of dramatic accidents such as Monarch Airlines at Young, General Aviation was reasonably safe.
However private flying was decidedly unsafe with CIFT a predominate factor in accidents. Now we don't hear of many probably due to the transition to RA type aircraft.
What I find amazing is the proliferation of Travel Agencies such as Captains Choice etc operating Air Tours. Even when they use Qantas Aircraft the route is a non standard RPt and would have to be listed as a Charter. I cannot see CASA TELLING Qantas to stop!!!!!!!!!!
Now we don't hear of many probably due to the transition to RA type aircraft.
Indeed, with RAOz statistics now becoming big enough to be meaningful, it would seem that the overall accident rates of RAOz aircraft operations is a little better than the bottom end of GA. Don't forget that a very significant proportion of pilots flying RAOz aircraft hold or have held a conventional PPL or higher license. There is no shortage of CPL/ATPL holder and ex-military types flying RAOz aircraft.
However private flying was decidedly unsafe with CIFT a predominate factor in accidents
CFIT has never been a major factor in private operations, but GA UCFIT, from various cause certainly has ---- indeed, not limited to private operations or PPLs.
There is one section where there does seem to have been some improvement, weather related accidents, VMC into IMC and uncontrolled flight into terrain. I would like to attribute this to the PIFR rating, and not just on the basis of pilots who have a PIFR, but pilots who have done some of the training, and discovered just how short their life is going to be, if they blunder into IMC, without training and currency. However, I have not completed a detailed study, it is just an impression, looking at the raw data.
Perhaps needless to say, CASA have managed to bugger up the PIFR, by making the recency requirements hard limits, like the normal CIR, the whole intent of the PIFR was some flexibility, and to leave it to the PIC and personal responsibility, which seems to have worked very well. Pilots, are not by nature, suicidally stupid.
But trust CASA to ignore the whole philosophy of a successful program, all in the quest for strict prescription, because, in their view, pilots cannot be trusted, despite the evident success of the PIFR.
Tootle pip!!
Nulli Secundus, 601 et al
I had the brochure for my three scenic flights approved in writing by the ______ Area Office on CASA letterhead as follows:
Revised Brochure
I refer to your correspondence by fax dated 2nd February 2004, concerning a review of wording in your brochure.
This revised brochure is acceptable.
If you should have any queries please call this office.
XXXXXXXXXXX
Team Leader
Flying Operations
XXAO
05 February 2004
CC Chief Pilot
XXXXXXX Pty Ltd
This new brochure listed my 3 Scenic Flights and descriptions including a per person price, but with the departure times now removed.
Another section of the brochure listed bullet points of what all the flights included, the last two bullet points being:
- Departs: 7.00 a.m. (9.45 a.m. departures also available)
- Returns 9.30 a.m. Available 7 days
I was happy, particularly as this actually improved the presentation by making the brochure more concise, less cluttered and imparting the info to my prospective customers in fewer words.
CASA was happy(at least the Area Office was) as my brochure no longer looked like a fixed schedule or timetable.
Especially on Saturdays, I would often do a 7.00 a.m. flight and a 9.45 a.m. flight.
Revised Brochure
I refer to your correspondence by fax dated 2nd February 2004, concerning a review of wording in your brochure.
This revised brochure is acceptable.
If you should have any queries please call this office.
XXXXXXXXXXX
Team Leader
Flying Operations
XXAO
05 February 2004
CC Chief Pilot
XXXXXXX Pty Ltd
This new brochure listed my 3 Scenic Flights and descriptions including a per person price, but with the departure times now removed.
Another section of the brochure listed bullet points of what all the flights included, the last two bullet points being:
- Departs: 7.00 a.m. (9.45 a.m. departures also available)
- Returns 9.30 a.m. Available 7 days
I was happy, particularly as this actually improved the presentation by making the brochure more concise, less cluttered and imparting the info to my prospective customers in fewer words.
CASA was happy(at least the Area Office was) as my brochure no longer looked like a fixed schedule or timetable.
Especially on Saturdays, I would often do a 7.00 a.m. flight and a 9.45 a.m. flight.
Last edited by Possum1; 2nd Mar 2014 at 02:07.
