Scenic Flights NPRM
out about, would you care to comment on the proportions of australian and american pilots holding Ifr ratings? Perhaps under the less costly US system, the Angel flight pilot would have simply filed IFR?
Of course, the PIFR, which was intended to be, and for a time was, a simple and straightforward minimum cost basic instrument rating, it has been distorted out of all recognition now, so that it is little different to the full command rating.
This has not been entirely CASA's fault, typical of the reactionary "no change, we do it best" brigade, there was constant lobbying against the PIFR by the self confessed "professionals".
In US, an instrument rating is just another rating, here it is more a "badge of office", something "special" that only special pilots can aspire to etc etc, a "ring of fire" to be jumped through, along the lines of "back in my day, sonny, when we were real pilots, we had to XXXXX (fill in favourite horror story).
Or, put another way, the US "cooperation" model versus the "Australian Way", the "conflict" model.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Australia more safe or less safe than the USA?
Is NZ more safe or less safe than Australia?
NZ completely reformed their regs in a couple of years and around five millions dollars.(based on US reg's)
Most of the pacific seems to consider NZ reg's work very well, I don't see too many adopting OZ reg's.
At the end of the day it comes down to power, ego's, opinions and rice bowls. If its CAsA's opinion to morph into
a pseudo police force, squander a half billion or so of public money reinventing the wheel along with our over
representation trying to influence ICAO, there seems little likelihood the opinions from what's left of industry being
considered, CAsA is the "Ruling Class" dontchaknow and you plebs will damned will do what your told.
We will decide who can commit aviation in Australia and the manner in which they can do it.
Is NZ more safe or less safe than Australia?
NZ completely reformed their regs in a couple of years and around five millions dollars.(based on US reg's)
Most of the pacific seems to consider NZ reg's work very well, I don't see too many adopting OZ reg's.
At the end of the day it comes down to power, ego's, opinions and rice bowls. If its CAsA's opinion to morph into
a pseudo police force, squander a half billion or so of public money reinventing the wheel along with our over
representation trying to influence ICAO, there seems little likelihood the opinions from what's left of industry being
considered, CAsA is the "Ruling Class" dontchaknow and you plebs will damned will do what your told.
We will decide who can commit aviation in Australia and the manner in which they can do it.
IMHO, there are two other glaring holes in the new Scenic Flights scenario:
1/ It is my understanding that a scenic flight is deemed to be a flight that departs from Point A, and returns to Point A, with no landings in between. Who is going to police the young CPL who is offering "scenic flights" to ensure he / she is only offering scenic flights, and not charter?
2/ A scenic fight operator who is offered a charter, from Point A to Point B, is going to take it. No doubt about it.
In my opinion, there is no point in introducing / amending a regulation unless it's going to be enforced. At the moment, it appears that The Regulator has so many people tied up with re-writing regs to the point of incomprehensibility that they have little time or staff to educate or enforce. It is my opinion that The Regulator has always relied on competitors to dob in cowboys.....and they may, or may not, choose to act. Either way, it is an unhealthy way to have an industry.
1/ It is my understanding that a scenic flight is deemed to be a flight that departs from Point A, and returns to Point A, with no landings in between. Who is going to police the young CPL who is offering "scenic flights" to ensure he / she is only offering scenic flights, and not charter?
2/ A scenic fight operator who is offered a charter, from Point A to Point B, is going to take it. No doubt about it.
In my opinion, there is no point in introducing / amending a regulation unless it's going to be enforced. At the moment, it appears that The Regulator has so many people tied up with re-writing regs to the point of incomprehensibility that they have little time or staff to educate or enforce. It is my opinion that The Regulator has always relied on competitors to dob in cowboys.....and they may, or may not, choose to act. Either way, it is an unhealthy way to have an industry.
Dont worry outnabout...when casa select a target , staff, time, money (lots) can be piled in there to make a case for 'enforcement and punishment' If the evidence is a bit thin they can always cobble up some BS and think up a fairy story to make the case.
Read up on the J Quadrio event... and be disgusted. And angry that in this country this is even allowed to happen.
Casa and a 'just culture', my ar$e !
Read up on the J Quadrio event... and be disgusted. And angry that in this country this is even allowed to happen.
Casa and a 'just culture', my ar$e !
Lead, I apologise for defaming your good name by referring to you as ex-CASA, ie., here to help or otherwise.
Victa left, when, in the 70's ? Why ?
Did Gippsland Aviation run out of money ? Why ?
So, get FAA and EASA.
As for CS and QF, is CASA the lead agency in aviation trade policy as a subset of Australia's foreign policy ? Nope, they get the memo or if they're lucky they get the script to read at the appropriate time. Agreements at the CS and QF level and maybe even at the GA aircraft export level if competing against a friendly US or EU trade partner, happen between governments as a part of trade deals within the foreign policy context, ie DFAT and PMC, and both regard CASA as an equivalent of the Dept of Health's chain of venereal disease clinics.
Other than that, Government in general has no interest in GA and is more than happy to leave CASA to it's playpen, pulling the wings off flies, etc.
In matters of manufacturing and export generally, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...t_Organization Look carefully at the reference to the 1975 Lima Agreement and don't take the conspiracy stuff to heart.
Victa left, when, in the 70's ? Why ?
Did Gippsland Aviation run out of money ? Why ?
So, get FAA and EASA.
As for CS and QF, is CASA the lead agency in aviation trade policy as a subset of Australia's foreign policy ? Nope, they get the memo or if they're lucky they get the script to read at the appropriate time. Agreements at the CS and QF level and maybe even at the GA aircraft export level if competing against a friendly US or EU trade partner, happen between governments as a part of trade deals within the foreign policy context, ie DFAT and PMC, and both regard CASA as an equivalent of the Dept of Health's chain of venereal disease clinics.
Other than that, Government in general has no interest in GA and is more than happy to leave CASA to it's playpen, pulling the wings off flies, etc.
In matters of manufacturing and export generally, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...t_Organization Look carefully at the reference to the 1975 Lima Agreement and don't take the conspiracy stuff to heart.
