Australian Industry & CASA Meeting, 17 December
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the move...
Age: 58
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian Industry & CASA Meeting, 17 December
On the 17th December, Peter Crook the AHIA President and myself attended a meeting at Aviation House in Canberra.
The meeting was called by CASA and a number of industry associations were invited to give Part 61, 141, 142 post implementation feedback. The meeting was opened by Mark Skidmore who expressed that he was there in a listening mode only as he has not yet taken up the position formally. There were also heads and major players from many CASA departments present and it was clear from the outset that they were there to take note of what we had to say, like it or not! Having said that, it was a very polite and helpful meeting.
The format of the meeting was that each of the industry invitees were given five (5) minutes to list the major points of concern that they held. (There was a request prior to the meeting to provide a detailed email list). We then broke for a coffee and then discussed the list in more detail with CASA the opportunity to come up with solutions.
The major points that I made were;
- The whole premise of the new legislation is reliant upon FE's, and CASA should have created the FE course first and provided a final copy of the Part 61 to industry with a caveat. You have two years before this comes in, make note of what your FE needs are and get them qualified now. Then run loads of courses and later roll out Part 61. Obviously that didn't happen, so now they need to roll it back. It will not go back to CAR 5, but an instrument is being examined that will allow Grade 1 instructors and C&T pilots who previously issued aircraft endorsements to be allowed to conduct the endorsement training and the issue of a type or class rating. I also suggested that some operational ratings, such as low level also be included.
- Aligned with the lack of ATO's / FE's, I requested that a list of every aircraft type be created with a corresponding list of ATO's qualified to conduct tests on that aircraft type. It can be done and a previously list did exist. As Mr Skidmore commented, we can produce a list of DAME's, why not ATO's. Then a pilot needing a flight test can look up the list and know who to book in. I also commented that they will need a plan when they find a type without an ATO qualified.
- Information flow and the use of Grapevine was very poor. Mr Skidmore was not aware that 3 Safety Advisors had been made redundant this year, just when we need need more education, they take away the teachers! I also made a point that within CASA the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing and their education needs to be internal before they take it on the road. There is no consistency of advice.
- The MOS needs more work and the process of changing and reviewing the MOS needs to be more stream lined. The expected changes to the MOS will not be out until January or February.
There was plenty of agreement with all parties and it was interesting to hear from the Qantas and Virgin guys how they are just as hamstrung by the system as GA is. We all made similar lists in different ways and all of them effected costs.
There is still more work to be done and when we walked away there was no change to legislation or new instruments issued on the spot. That was never going to happen. But we have some structure and have identified some things to move us forward and they will be emailed out for us to review before changes are made.
On another note, the instrument varying the aircraft types should be out before Christmas. Read the aircraft type instruments carefully. For example an A109 A or C training can be done by a Part 141 operator, but an AW109S, etc must be done by a Part 142 operator as the aircraft is considered more complex. If a school or organisation was already conducting that training before Sept and had an approved course, then they continue to teach it under Part 202, continuing authorisations. They are in effect a Part 142 school.
Finally, the question has been asked what is the point of being a member of the AHIA. Here is my answer. Because it funds a number of things, not least of all for me to go to this meeting and raise issues with CASA and get a meeting with the incoming Director. The AHIA has the respect of the regulator and they are listening. They also answer my questions quickly, which is very important to business. The wheels turn slowly, but they are turning.
The other associations out there are also pushing their barrows, but Qantas and Virgin have different needs to us. Phil at the Aerial Ag has some overlap with what we do. but is not going to represent a Helicopter Flight School or EMS, that's not his job. That's the interest of the AHIA. The volunteers that have stepped in to their roles have accepted the responsibility to represent our industry. We don't travel business class and we don't stay in the best accommodation, but it does cost money for us to get around. We couldn't afford to do it without your help. For those who are not members, you will still reap the benefits of our work, but imagine what else we could do if there was more in the kitty.
Enjoy Christmas and there is some hope on the horizon.
Colin Clarke
Legislative Change Officer,
AHIA.
CASR @ Austhia.com
The meeting was called by CASA and a number of industry associations were invited to give Part 61, 141, 142 post implementation feedback. The meeting was opened by Mark Skidmore who expressed that he was there in a listening mode only as he has not yet taken up the position formally. There were also heads and major players from many CASA departments present and it was clear from the outset that they were there to take note of what we had to say, like it or not! Having said that, it was a very polite and helpful meeting.
The format of the meeting was that each of the industry invitees were given five (5) minutes to list the major points of concern that they held. (There was a request prior to the meeting to provide a detailed email list). We then broke for a coffee and then discussed the list in more detail with CASA the opportunity to come up with solutions.
The major points that I made were;
- The whole premise of the new legislation is reliant upon FE's, and CASA should have created the FE course first and provided a final copy of the Part 61 to industry with a caveat. You have two years before this comes in, make note of what your FE needs are and get them qualified now. Then run loads of courses and later roll out Part 61. Obviously that didn't happen, so now they need to roll it back. It will not go back to CAR 5, but an instrument is being examined that will allow Grade 1 instructors and C&T pilots who previously issued aircraft endorsements to be allowed to conduct the endorsement training and the issue of a type or class rating. I also suggested that some operational ratings, such as low level also be included.
- Aligned with the lack of ATO's / FE's, I requested that a list of every aircraft type be created with a corresponding list of ATO's qualified to conduct tests on that aircraft type. It can be done and a previously list did exist. As Mr Skidmore commented, we can produce a list of DAME's, why not ATO's. Then a pilot needing a flight test can look up the list and know who to book in. I also commented that they will need a plan when they find a type without an ATO qualified.
- Information flow and the use of Grapevine was very poor. Mr Skidmore was not aware that 3 Safety Advisors had been made redundant this year, just when we need need more education, they take away the teachers! I also made a point that within CASA the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing and their education needs to be internal before they take it on the road. There is no consistency of advice.
- The MOS needs more work and the process of changing and reviewing the MOS needs to be more stream lined. The expected changes to the MOS will not be out until January or February.
There was plenty of agreement with all parties and it was interesting to hear from the Qantas and Virgin guys how they are just as hamstrung by the system as GA is. We all made similar lists in different ways and all of them effected costs.
There is still more work to be done and when we walked away there was no change to legislation or new instruments issued on the spot. That was never going to happen. But we have some structure and have identified some things to move us forward and they will be emailed out for us to review before changes are made.
On another note, the instrument varying the aircraft types should be out before Christmas. Read the aircraft type instruments carefully. For example an A109 A or C training can be done by a Part 141 operator, but an AW109S, etc must be done by a Part 142 operator as the aircraft is considered more complex. If a school or organisation was already conducting that training before Sept and had an approved course, then they continue to teach it under Part 202, continuing authorisations. They are in effect a Part 142 school.
Finally, the question has been asked what is the point of being a member of the AHIA. Here is my answer. Because it funds a number of things, not least of all for me to go to this meeting and raise issues with CASA and get a meeting with the incoming Director. The AHIA has the respect of the regulator and they are listening. They also answer my questions quickly, which is very important to business. The wheels turn slowly, but they are turning.
The other associations out there are also pushing their barrows, but Qantas and Virgin have different needs to us. Phil at the Aerial Ag has some overlap with what we do. but is not going to represent a Helicopter Flight School or EMS, that's not his job. That's the interest of the AHIA. The volunteers that have stepped in to their roles have accepted the responsibility to represent our industry. We don't travel business class and we don't stay in the best accommodation, but it does cost money for us to get around. We couldn't afford to do it without your help. For those who are not members, you will still reap the benefits of our work, but imagine what else we could do if there was more in the kitty.
Enjoy Christmas and there is some hope on the horizon.
Colin Clarke
Legislative Change Officer,
AHIA.
CASR @ Austhia.com
Thanks, Col, for helping to represent our concerns to the regulator.
I'd like to hear the inputs and impressions from some of the other reps who went to this meeting.
I'd like to hear the inputs and impressions from some of the other reps who went to this meeting.
Folks,
The first question that should have been asked:
If US, NZ, Canada etc. can cover the field of licensing in under 100 pages of regulations, why does it take something like 1600 pages of legislation in Australia??
Make no mistake about it, the MOS is a legislative document. Even if it wasn't, the question would only change to ask why we need 600 plus pages of legislation, compared to less than 100 in comparable countries.??
If you add the internal CASA policy/training documents, that adds about 500 more pages.
How can you seriously expect, even with time and training for FOIs and their managers (and the CASA lawyers) to be intimately familiar with 2200+ pages of documentation, and expect each and every one of them to have the same standard of knowledge of 2200+ pages, let alone each and every one to have the same "interpretation".
Part 61/141/142 is a guaranteed failure. It is not just about time and training, the whole licensing structure is now a grotesque nightmare.
Ask yourselves, what has Australian aviation done to deserve this nonsense.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Wait until you see what Part 135 is going to do to light GA, it will put the Part 61 debacle in the shade. Why have they done it? Because they can.
The first question that should have been asked:
If US, NZ, Canada etc. can cover the field of licensing in under 100 pages of regulations, why does it take something like 1600 pages of legislation in Australia??
Make no mistake about it, the MOS is a legislative document. Even if it wasn't, the question would only change to ask why we need 600 plus pages of legislation, compared to less than 100 in comparable countries.??
If you add the internal CASA policy/training documents, that adds about 500 more pages.
How can you seriously expect, even with time and training for FOIs and their managers (and the CASA lawyers) to be intimately familiar with 2200+ pages of documentation, and expect each and every one of them to have the same standard of knowledge of 2200+ pages, let alone each and every one to have the same "interpretation".
Part 61/141/142 is a guaranteed failure. It is not just about time and training, the whole licensing structure is now a grotesque nightmare.
Ask yourselves, what has Australian aviation done to deserve this nonsense.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Wait until you see what Part 135 is going to do to light GA, it will put the Part 61 debacle in the shade. Why have they done it? Because they can.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was it broke??
Show me the justification for these changes, and the cost benefit analysis....
What problem is CASA trying to fix??
Thanks for the update Col, keep it coming pls
What problem is CASA trying to fix??
Thanks for the update Col, keep it coming pls
I'm not usually one to join organisations, but having seen your efforts publicising and making sense of the Part 61 changes here and on another well-known bulletin board, I will do so now.
Thanks mate, you've done a sterling job, so please be aware it's very much appreciated.
On the subject of the changes themselves, I think most people must be getting sick of the flood of venting which ensues as soon as anyone mentions the acronym CASA, and I'd like to respectfully suggest that rather than bash them at every opportunity, we aim to be constructive and forward-thinking in our criticism from here on in.
Cheers
Thanks mate, you've done a sterling job, so please be aware it's very much appreciated.
On the subject of the changes themselves, I think most people must be getting sick of the flood of venting which ensues as soon as anyone mentions the acronym CASA, and I'd like to respectfully suggest that rather than bash them at every opportunity, we aim to be constructive and forward-thinking in our criticism from here on in.
Cheers
CAsA critics...
Many, many folk put forward to the ASRR constructive criticisms of CAsA and practical remedies on how the serious issues with CAsA might be dealt with.
After a long wait we got the 'dust bunnies' from under the sofa.
Lots of ifs and maybes and how time consuming some of the changes might be. ie the fluff. And like so much promised in the past , much will evaporate with the passing of time with this lot.
CAsA is corrupt, morally bankrupt and unethical... the venting will continue until real changes are made....which are unlikely
AOTW Are you aware that there are serious governance and issues with "investigations" out of the Cairns office?. What constructive forward thinking remedies do you suggest to rectify those situations.
This sort of sh*t is going on all over the country...how to stop it?
After a long wait we got the 'dust bunnies' from under the sofa.
Lots of ifs and maybes and how time consuming some of the changes might be. ie the fluff. And like so much promised in the past , much will evaporate with the passing of time with this lot.
CAsA is corrupt, morally bankrupt and unethical... the venting will continue until real changes are made....which are unlikely
AOTW Are you aware that there are serious governance and issues with "investigations" out of the Cairns office?. What constructive forward thinking remedies do you suggest to rectify those situations.
This sort of sh*t is going on all over the country...how to stop it?
I think most people must be getting sick of the flood of venting which ensues as soon as anyone mentions the acronym CASA, and I'd like to respectfully suggest that rather than bash them at every opportunity, we aim to be constructive and forward-thinking in our criticism from here on in.
Do you work for CASA?
Do you have any conception of the damage CASA ( and its predecessors) has done to the whole of the Australian aviation industry.
Perhaps you would like to explain the why all the many inquiries into whatever the aviation regulator was called at the time --- including the "Morris" inquiry, the longest inquiry conducted into a Commonwealth Government entity since federation.
I use the term inquiry to include all formal inquiries, from the Royal Commissions downwards.
"Most people" in the industry are getting progressively more vocal due to the lack of action of the Forsyth Report. I am more than a little amused at the frantic efforts within CASA to denigrate the Forsyth (ASRR) report --- all characterized as just being a few malcontents --- not your "most people" --- probably a view, with which you would agree.
Well, that handful of malcontents, the ones described by a senior CASA person as being an examples of the "ills of society" include both major airline groups, every aviation representative body in Australia, and several hundred individuals, many of them notables in the industry.
You really should re-consider your thoughts on the matter, you are way off the pace.
Tootle pip!!
Whether you accept it or not, the various ICAO and FAA audits have been damning of CASA, with Australia narrowly avoiding a downgrade to Cat 2 after the last FAA audit, I assume you understand the commercial carnage that would be visited on both Qantas and Virgin, if that happened.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Colin, well said.
All pilots and owners should be participants of the relevant associations. Problem is apathy gave way to "don't give a ****" attitude long ago.
Leadie, stop posting things I can agree with would ya
The answer is nothing. Literally. 
All pilots and owners should be participants of the relevant associations. Problem is apathy gave way to "don't give a ****" attitude long ago.
Leadie, stop posting things I can agree with would ya
Ask yourselves, what has Australian aviation done to deserve this nonsense.
Arm-out-the window,
Do you work for CASA?
Do you work for CASA?
You really should re-consider your thoughts on the matter, you are way off the pace.
I think that suggesting Australian aviation has done "nothing" is a bit of an overstatement, Jabba. 
Lots of people put in lots of work to make well-reasoned, factually-based and constructive submissions to the Senate Aviation Accident Inquiry and the Aviatian Safety Regulatory Review Panel. They were encouraged to put their faith in those processes and are now expecting real action, not the usual empty rhetoric.
We all know who'd prefer to do "nothing" and let things like the regulatory reform Frankenstein continue to gobble up millions and produce thousands more pages of rules that make no substantive contribution to safety, indefinitely. It's not the people who have to pay money to cop this crap.
Lots of people put in lots of work to make well-reasoned, factually-based and constructive submissions to the Senate Aviation Accident Inquiry and the Aviatian Safety Regulatory Review Panel. They were encouraged to put their faith in those processes and are now expecting real action, not the usual empty rhetoric.
We all know who'd prefer to do "nothing" and let things like the regulatory reform Frankenstein continue to gobble up millions and produce thousands more pages of rules that make no substantive contribution to safety, indefinitely. It's not the people who have to pay money to cop this crap.
There is a very simple fix to a lot of the CASA problems.
If I remember rightly Dick Smith tried to have it implemented.
Basically make each CASA employee personally liable for their actions and decisions.
If my accountant or Doctor stuffs up I have the legal right to sue them for either breech of contract or mal practice. It then gets taken up by their professional insurer and eventually right is corrected.
In the case of CASA, either the organisation or the individual would need professional indemnity insurance.
This simple change to make the individual responsible for their actions would see CASA staff at least think twice before going off on some tangent other than the law.
But I forgot CASA lives in a very special world of do what I say not what I do.
If I remember rightly Dick Smith tried to have it implemented.
Basically make each CASA employee personally liable for their actions and decisions.
If my accountant or Doctor stuffs up I have the legal right to sue them for either breech of contract or mal practice. It then gets taken up by their professional insurer and eventually right is corrected.
In the case of CASA, either the organisation or the individual would need professional indemnity insurance.
This simple change to make the individual responsible for their actions would see CASA staff at least think twice before going off on some tangent other than the law.
But I forgot CASA lives in a very special world of do what I say not what I do.
Arm Out The Window:
I agree with you that it is generally in your best interests to be both "constructive and forward thinking" in any discussion and negotiation.
However that only applies when you are dealing with someone who shares your values, beliefs and accepts that you have a right to continue to exist. This is generally termed as dealing in good faith.
CASA, if even ten percent of the evidence tendered is true, does not meet the criteria of dealing in good faith and therefore cannot be treated "constructively" and in a forward thinking manner as you would a reasonable person.
This is at the core of the review which found that there is a total lack of trust between regulator and regulated. Furthermore CASA again demonstrated a total untrustworthiness last month when it published a proposed rule making that would destroy the Jabiru brand if it was enacted the day before a scheduled consultation meeting on engine reliability was to be held.
Hence the advice of others here never to talk to CASA at all if possible and if absolutely necessary, take a witness, tape recorder and perhaps a lawyer as well.
To put that another way, you can't negotiate at all,, let alone be constructive and forward thinking with someone who has tried to kill you with an axe moments before and could just as easily try again. You overpower them, disarm them and have them locked up.
Anything less than condemnation of CASA and keeping them at arms length is just plain stupid until the beast demonstrates its changed.
On the subject of the changes themselves, I think most people must be getting sick of the flood of venting which ensues as soon as anyone mentions the acronym CASA, and I'd like to respectfully suggest that rather than bash them at every opportunity, we aim to be constructive and forward-thinking in our criticism from here on in.
However that only applies when you are dealing with someone who shares your values, beliefs and accepts that you have a right to continue to exist. This is generally termed as dealing in good faith.
CASA, if even ten percent of the evidence tendered is true, does not meet the criteria of dealing in good faith and therefore cannot be treated "constructively" and in a forward thinking manner as you would a reasonable person.
This is at the core of the review which found that there is a total lack of trust between regulator and regulated. Furthermore CASA again demonstrated a total untrustworthiness last month when it published a proposed rule making that would destroy the Jabiru brand if it was enacted the day before a scheduled consultation meeting on engine reliability was to be held.
Hence the advice of others here never to talk to CASA at all if possible and if absolutely necessary, take a witness, tape recorder and perhaps a lawyer as well.
To put that another way, you can't negotiate at all,, let alone be constructive and forward thinking with someone who has tried to kill you with an axe moments before and could just as easily try again. You overpower them, disarm them and have them locked up.
Anything less than condemnation of CASA and keeping them at arms length is just plain stupid until the beast demonstrates its changed.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a moment to read through the Aviation Trader.
"For sale - Sick of CASA. Want out ASAP"
'For sale - Tired of CASA. Getting out of GA"
Sentiments echoed by everyone that I know from inside the industry. Even those with long standing friends in the department.
"Yeah he's a good mate. Just have to be a bit careful with conversations over lunch"
Late 20's LAME and Pilot and I am very much afraid of CASA.
I'd love to hear that I'm mistaken, but am yet to be shown otherwise.
"For sale - Sick of CASA. Want out ASAP"
'For sale - Tired of CASA. Getting out of GA"
Sentiments echoed by everyone that I know from inside the industry. Even those with long standing friends in the department.
"Yeah he's a good mate. Just have to be a bit careful with conversations over lunch"
Late 20's LAME and Pilot and I am very much afraid of CASA.
I'd love to hear that I'm mistaken, but am yet to be shown otherwise.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Creamie, I agree and disagree 
The vast majority have done nothing. The few who really care get burdened and burnt out trying to do the right thing.
Does that make more sense?
Sadly, right or wrong, aviators observation is not uncommon.
The vast majority have done nothing. The few who really care get burdened and burnt out trying to do the right thing.
Does that make more sense?
Sadly, right or wrong, aviators observation is not uncommon.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sunfish, that is the best post in a year or two. 
It really is simple. Skidmores goal needs to be simply prove Sunfish is wrong. Not by BS words and argument, by actions.
Not holding breath.......
It really is simple. Skidmores goal needs to be simply prove Sunfish is wrong. Not by BS words and argument, by actions.
Not holding breath.......
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref the FAA rules:
Use to do reviews of some business ops in OZ. One day I was given a job on a business op and then found out that the aircraft etc came under FAA rules. Mild panic and then looked up the rules and did the job. The rules were so straight forward that it was easy.
Scrub CASA rules and adopt FAA rules.
Use to do reviews of some business ops in OZ. One day I was given a job on a business op and then found out that the aircraft etc came under FAA rules. Mild panic and then looked up the rules and did the job. The rules were so straight forward that it was easy.
Scrub CASA rules and adopt FAA rules.
To put that another way, you can't negotiate at all,, let alone be constructive and forward thinking with someone who has tried to kill you with an axe moments before and could just as easily try again. You overpower them, disarm them and have them locked up.
This is the kind of rhetoric you hear from a lot of people but it just boils down to posturing and venting. No offence, and I understand that there are people who've been wronged, but it doesn't achieve much.
I'm not trying to tell people who've had seriously bad experiences with CASA to forget it, but if everyone adopts a 'they're all a bunch of bastards and the whole organisation must be scrapped before anything else can happen', then nothing will happen.
It sounds like the acceptance of most of the recommendations of the Forsyth review (e.g. the need to ensure regulations are reviewed and rewritten in plain language if needed) and the appointment of a new DAS are a good start. Expressions and actions of good faith on both sides will be needed to start and keep the ball rolling, however slowly. That's all I'm saying.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Last Resort
Age: 52
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beating CASA
The only way to get results with CASA is to run orchestrated political campaigns in the electorates of relevant ministers. Having been involved in a few it requires money, determination and balls of steel. There can be no compromise it is a fight to the death. Forget the courts they are stacked with yes men and you will be bled dry before you achieve a result. Watching the industry being divided and conquered is heartbreaking for me. However given the total wankers that exist in the industry, getting a united front is like herding cats. The industries malaise is mirrored by the whole country, and the Commonwealth of Australia is now in the hands of a very wealthy few.
Australian Aviation reports that the number of bus jets sold to overseas from Australia has increased by 82%.
From 11 in 2013 to 20 in 2014. Can't fathom out why. Nothing to do with $130,000 Adsb leading the world by 5 years. Or new part 91.
All the go. Unaffordable Safety!
From 11 in 2013 to 20 in 2014. Can't fathom out why. Nothing to do with $130,000 Adsb leading the world by 5 years. Or new part 91.
All the go. Unaffordable Safety!