CASA do something good
Folks,
Re. the RPL medical standard, it is so close to the Class 2, that if you can't get a Class 2, you are most unlikely to get an RPL medical certificate.
This is about as far removed from the original intent for the RPL as you can get, which was a medical the same as RAOz.
There is a CASA story behind this, all about "pilots are no going to get away with this" --- in short, risk management didn't get a look in, certain people were not going to let pilots "get away with ----".
Another reason to emulate the US (or RAOz.), legislation now in the Congress and Senate will eliminate the FAA Class 3 (the equivalent of our Class 2) altogether, and substitute their national driver's license standard, for all aircraft up to around 6000lb, with a maximum of 6 seats ---- there will be no other limitations, ie: no limits on IFR or multi-engine etc.
Great for me, all I will have to do is renew my CA driver's license and do a biennial and I will be away --- no more "special issuance".
Tootle pip!!
PS: Australian ATPLs have been issued for years without flight test, those of you who think the new requirements will make any difference to safety outcomes (as opposed to a huge increase in costs) simply have no idea what is required before any pilot get to fly an aircraft as PIC where an ATPL is required.
Re. the RPL medical standard, it is so close to the Class 2, that if you can't get a Class 2, you are most unlikely to get an RPL medical certificate.
This is about as far removed from the original intent for the RPL as you can get, which was a medical the same as RAOz.
There is a CASA story behind this, all about "pilots are no going to get away with this" --- in short, risk management didn't get a look in, certain people were not going to let pilots "get away with ----".
Another reason to emulate the US (or RAOz.), legislation now in the Congress and Senate will eliminate the FAA Class 3 (the equivalent of our Class 2) altogether, and substitute their national driver's license standard, for all aircraft up to around 6000lb, with a maximum of 6 seats ---- there will be no other limitations, ie: no limits on IFR or multi-engine etc.
Great for me, all I will have to do is renew my CA driver's license and do a biennial and I will be away --- no more "special issuance".
Tootle pip!!
PS: Australian ATPLs have been issued for years without flight test, those of you who think the new requirements will make any difference to safety outcomes (as opposed to a huge increase in costs) simply have no idea what is required before any pilot get to fly an aircraft as PIC where an ATPL is required.
Just in regards to your "PS" Leadsled, I've always agreed with this point but never been quite sure how to properly express it, I think what most people would agree with is that getting an ATPL shouldn't be heavily burdened by impossible regulations, ie, CASA shouldn't be saying "All ATPLs should be able to fly a Multi-Crew Jet if they have an ATPL" instead CASA should be telling all operators "If you want to operate Jets you should appropriately train your ATPL Pilots as required", it should come down to the operator taking on the additional costs associated with higher level operations rather than the entire industry taking the costs regardless of what they will use the ATPL for.
Great example is anyone conducting an RPT Operation in something like a Caravan which will now be prohibitively expensive to pay for crew as they will either have to fork out a heap for new Captains to do the Flight Test or hire people who already have an ATPL that have forked out the money themselves and will of course expect a return on investment.
And there will be those of you who say "Well, there aren't that many operations like that anyway" and nor will there be any more as these new Regs make it too damned expensive, once again strangling future possibilities within Aviation unless you're flying Jets.
Let's not forget that yes, you can probably get an exemption for these operations, but as others have said the Regs should be designed so there aren't a need for huge numbers of exemptions within the industry!!
Even worse now we'll probably end up with double dipping where the ATPL Candidate needs to complete an MCC course to gain an ATPL and be able to fly a relatively complex Multi-Crew Aircraft before they're awarded it and then the Company that employs them will need to redo all this again anyway.
Great example is anyone conducting an RPT Operation in something like a Caravan which will now be prohibitively expensive to pay for crew as they will either have to fork out a heap for new Captains to do the Flight Test or hire people who already have an ATPL that have forked out the money themselves and will of course expect a return on investment.
And there will be those of you who say "Well, there aren't that many operations like that anyway" and nor will there be any more as these new Regs make it too damned expensive, once again strangling future possibilities within Aviation unless you're flying Jets.
Let's not forget that yes, you can probably get an exemption for these operations, but as others have said the Regs should be designed so there aren't a need for huge numbers of exemptions within the industry!!
Even worse now we'll probably end up with double dipping where the ATPL Candidate needs to complete an MCC course to gain an ATPL and be able to fly a relatively complex Multi-Crew Aircraft before they're awarded it and then the Company that employs them will need to redo all this again anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel in danger of being cast as an apologist for CASA which I am not.....they employ folks to do that and can fight their own fights.
But.....
An operator can quite happily build the MCC training into their type rating and induction training ......Low and High Capacity operators under CAOs 82.3 and 82.5 have been required to do this for quite some time and will no doubt continue.
And....
The operator who has an ATPL candidate on strength or is intending to hire such a person can adapt an IPC to include the elements of the ATPL test so there is no extra check session required. Only cost would be for CASA to attend to check out one of the operator's check pilots to hold the ATPL testing approval for the future.
Unless a pilot is going to go directly to a command position he/she does not have to have an ATPL when hired
Other than the above I have no idea about the good the bad and the ugly of Part 61.
But.....
An operator can quite happily build the MCC training into their type rating and induction training ......Low and High Capacity operators under CAOs 82.3 and 82.5 have been required to do this for quite some time and will no doubt continue.
And....
The operator who has an ATPL candidate on strength or is intending to hire such a person can adapt an IPC to include the elements of the ATPL test so there is no extra check session required. Only cost would be for CASA to attend to check out one of the operator's check pilots to hold the ATPL testing approval for the future.
Unless a pilot is going to go directly to a command position he/she does not have to have an ATPL when hired
Other than the above I have no idea about the good the bad and the ugly of Part 61.
Sherm,
All true, and what has happened in airlines since Pontius was a pilate.
But is does not help one little bit the young chap or chapess looking to progress, and the job add says an ATPL is a requirement for the application.
Then the job is filled by somebody on a 457 visa because they already have an ALTP/ATPL/ATR.
Tootle pip!!
All true, and what has happened in airlines since Pontius was a pilate.
But is does not help one little bit the young chap or chapess looking to progress, and the job add says an ATPL is a requirement for the application.
Then the job is filled by somebody on a 457 visa because they already have an ALTP/ATPL/ATR.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
They did another good thing today - student at the school where I work did his flight test, a week later the licence turns up in the mail, and it's not the first time recently CLARC have been right on the ball.
Good on you whoever made that happen, and I hope it's a portent of things to come. I believe they were largely left with this Part 61 ****fight by the outgoing DAS, and that there's a strong push from Skidmore (who many of you bag without knowing anything about him) to make it work more in the customer's (that is, our) favour.
Call me a CASA apologist if you will, but there needs to be more balance in this whole raft of threads upon threads slagging them off.
Good on you whoever made that happen, and I hope it's a portent of things to come. I believe they were largely left with this Part 61 ****fight by the outgoing DAS, and that there's a strong push from Skidmore (who many of you bag without knowing anything about him) to make it work more in the customer's (that is, our) favour.
Call me a CASA apologist if you will, but there needs to be more balance in this whole raft of threads upon threads slagging them off.
Another manifestation of how long the Australian aviation frogs have been swimming in the warming water:
A regulatory authority doing the job for which it is (handsomely) paid and charges a (rip off) fee is a "good thing" for which we should, apparently, be grateful.
Apparently they've achieved this astonishing outcome more than once.
Yay!
You're not a CASA apologist, AOTW. You just live in a world in which these costs and delays and uncertainties don't affect your capacity to feed your family and pay the mortgage.
They did another good thing today - student at the school where I work did his flight test, a week later the licence turns up in the mail, and it's not the first time recently CLARC have been right on the ball.
Apparently they've achieved this astonishing outcome more than once.
Yay!
You're not a CASA apologist, AOTW. You just live in a world in which these costs and delays and uncertainties don't affect your capacity to feed your family and pay the mortgage.
Thread Starter
Just a bit of credit for an efficient turnaround as opposed to the previous long delays. Everyone's happy to sink the boot in, but there's no balance. That's all I'm doing, because I'm sick of the toxic sense of hopeless negativity displayed here.
It's all too easy to criticise, much harder to look past that and admit that you can't go back. Let's sack all of CASA and bring back CAR 5! GA will flourish once more!
It's all too easy to criticise, much harder to look past that and admit that you can't go back. Let's sack all of CASA and bring back CAR 5! GA will flourish once more!
Let's sack all of CASA and bring back CAR 5!
GA will flourish once more!
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They did another good thing today - student at the school where I work did his flight test, a week later the licence turns up in the mail, and it's not the first time recently CLARC have been right on the ball
Thread Starter
I swear you have Stockholm syndrome mate.
Still, I think there are signs they are emerging from a self-induced virtual paralysis to a point where they are making progress towards being more what we would want from a regulatory body - more customer focussed and willing to listen, at least in some areas, and that this is being driven by the bloke who many here seem to love to hate without even knowing him, Mark Skidmore. He knows they've stuffed things up royally but is, I believe, putting a lot of effort into trying to fix it, within the legal limits he and we are all forced to work with.
And what would the down side of that be?
CASA leadership over the years has produced dismal results, but I'm a fan of Skidmore and think he will do whatever he can to achieve at least a partial rapprochement. Naysayers will now refer to the 'unbreakable iron ring' etc. etc, but one reason for this thread is that I'm heartily sick of hearing people carp on unchallenged with the most ridiculous and over-the-top suggestions about how everything is stuffed and it's all CASA's fault.
Like I said, a bit of balance and a bit of positive thought is needed, not a bunch of grumpy whingeing old bastards sitting around in the pub trying to top one another's stories about how the government are a pack of pricks and how they could do better if only given the chance.
This is a case where when something is f***ed, it's very hard to unf***.
I personally think the new regs are just as hard to read and hard to interpret as the old ones and not easier to work with at all[.]
[B]ut changing back from here would cost further millions and not really achieve anything worthwhile except to confuse everyone more.
And it does not have to be a change "back". It could be - call me crazy - putting the job in the hands of people who know how to build regulatory regimes. That ain't CASA and never will be.
I'm a fan of Skidmore[.]
AOTW
Sorry AOTW. Nothing personal.
To be making those Statements Im not suggesting you are right or Wrong but
What I can DEFINITELY say, you don't own an aeroplane and you MOST DEFINITELY do not depend on, or Own a Small or Medium Sized Aviation Business.
Its not the bloke in the pub winging. Its the Business Owner fighting tooth and nail to save their Businesses. The cost of Regulatory Compliance has increased over 10 fold in the last 18 moths alone. It REALLY is crippling.
Improved Safety? Actually. Quite the Opposite.
To be making those Statements Im not suggesting you are right or Wrong but
What I can DEFINITELY say, you don't own an aeroplane and you MOST DEFINITELY do not depend on, or Own a Small or Medium Sized Aviation Business.
Its not the bloke in the pub winging. Its the Business Owner fighting tooth and nail to save their Businesses. The cost of Regulatory Compliance has increased over 10 fold in the last 18 moths alone. It REALLY is crippling.
Improved Safety? Actually. Quite the Opposite.
Thread Starter
It could be - call me crazy - putting the job in the hands of people who know how to build regulatory regimes.
We'll take that as confirmation you don't own an aeroplane and do not depend on, or own a small or medium sized aviation business, AOTW.
You make a very important practical point.
While ever Australians continue to elect the stultifying mediocrities that have presumed the description 'government' over the last couple of decades, there will be no critical mass of competence or capacity to do the job properly. Laura Tingle's and George Megalogenis's recent quarterly essays are instructive on this issue.
This passage from Patty Noonan's recent article in the Wall Street Journal also struck a familiar chord (my bolding at the end):
Yes, but how is this supposed actually work in practice? How much is it going to cost, really? Who's going to take over from the current mob? Are they going to be able to do any better? How's the business owner going to do any better under a 'new' regime? Get real!
While ever Australians continue to elect the stultifying mediocrities that have presumed the description 'government' over the last couple of decades, there will be no critical mass of competence or capacity to do the job properly. Laura Tingle's and George Megalogenis's recent quarterly essays are instructive on this issue.
This passage from Patty Noonan's recent article in the Wall Street Journal also struck a familiar chord (my bolding at the end):
The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.
I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.
They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.
Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.
I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.
They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.
Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.
Thread Starter
No, it's true I don't own an aeroplane or depend on my own aviation business. I work for one though, and while I could get other jobs if I had to, that's what pays the bills.
Most of the talk on here is about how CASA are hopeless, how they should be gotten rid of, and so on. This is all so much empty waffle, because the proponents of it never say what they'd put in its place, even if they had the power to make it happen in the first place.
If you don't like 'em, fine, but you either have to work with them or somehow get something better in place. That's all there is to it, so carry on all you like, but as I said it's only pub talk when it comes down to it.
I see a bit of improvement, that's all.
Most of the talk on here is about how CASA are hopeless, how they should be gotten rid of, and so on. This is all so much empty waffle, because the proponents of it never say what they'd put in its place, even if they had the power to make it happen in the first place.
If you don't like 'em, fine, but you either have to work with them or somehow get something better in place. That's all there is to it, so carry on all you like, but as I said it's only pub talk when it comes down to it.
I see a bit of improvement, that's all.
So your domestic and financial security do not depend on aviation. Others are not in the same position. That's why they are a little more animated about and a little less tolerant of matters bureaucratic.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Most of the talk on here is about how CASA are hopeless, how they should be gotten rid of, and so on. This is all so much empty waffle, because the proponents of it never say what they'd put in its place, even if they had the power to make it happen in the first place."
The evidence would support the contention that CAsA are in fact hopeless.
What should be put in its place is firstly recognise that CAsA has completely failed to understand or implement whatever the government of the day's policy was.
As a result,the government should recognise that the independent government business model has been an abject, very expensive failure.
The answer? Disband it completely and absorb its functions back into either the department of infrastructure or preferably a separate department with an aviation minister.
Rewrite the ACT
Accept as a fact that Australia's attempts to write modern effective regulations has been a total and complete failure, has heaped unsustainable costs on industry and has had zero positive affect on safety.
Accept as a fact that others in the world produced regulations that DO enhance safety with minimal effect on the financial viability of their aviation industry.
At the same time accept their regulations encourage investment, foster and promote that investment which has lead to employment and huge contributions to those countries national well being.
The simple most cost affective thing Australia could do, is follow what most of the countries in our region have done. Adopt New Zealand regulations, they may not be perfect, then no regulations are, but they are vastly better than what has been served up to us.
Just where could our industry go if it was unshackled from the "iron ring" and allowed to thrive?
The evidence would support the contention that CAsA are in fact hopeless.
What should be put in its place is firstly recognise that CAsA has completely failed to understand or implement whatever the government of the day's policy was.
As a result,the government should recognise that the independent government business model has been an abject, very expensive failure.
The answer? Disband it completely and absorb its functions back into either the department of infrastructure or preferably a separate department with an aviation minister.
Rewrite the ACT
Accept as a fact that Australia's attempts to write modern effective regulations has been a total and complete failure, has heaped unsustainable costs on industry and has had zero positive affect on safety.
Accept as a fact that others in the world produced regulations that DO enhance safety with minimal effect on the financial viability of their aviation industry.
At the same time accept their regulations encourage investment, foster and promote that investment which has lead to employment and huge contributions to those countries national well being.
The simple most cost affective thing Australia could do, is follow what most of the countries in our region have done. Adopt New Zealand regulations, they may not be perfect, then no regulations are, but they are vastly better than what has been served up to us.
Just where could our industry go if it was unshackled from the "iron ring" and allowed to thrive?
Last edited by thorn bird; 9th Apr 2016 at 10:09.
Thread Starter
So your solution is to adopt NZ regs? Absorb CASA's functions into some other department or group? Who's going to staff it - probably the exact same people who lost their jobs in your total disbandment, because where else will they come from?
Maybe train up a bunch of other people from scratch, that's a good idea too. All too easy to come out with the 'sack 'em all' rubbish; not so easy to think of a clear workable alternative, is it?
Maybe train up a bunch of other people from scratch, that's a good idea too. All too easy to come out with the 'sack 'em all' rubbish; not so easy to think of a clear workable alternative, is it?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOTW is just a CASA apologist.
Why praise a body for doing something to correct a screw up when they caused it in the first place AND WERE TOLD IT WAS A SCREWUP BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION?
Why praise a body for doing something to correct a screw up when they caused it in the first place AND WERE TOLD IT WAS A SCREWUP BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION?