Proof that DAS Skidmore is a new broom
To put it another way, the very fact that you had to do what you did is an indictment of the whole rotten, corrupt system
AOTW, I'm reminded of the old joke about the Curates egg: The pastor is having lunch with the lord of the manor. ""I say pastor! I think the egg we gave you is rotten!". "Oh no my Lord!' "Parts of it are excellent!".
Good on Mr. Leafblower for bearding the lion in his den, getting a good hearing and result and even posting it on Pprune for curmudgeons like me to criticise. The difficulty I have is why an exemption was needed in the first place.
The fact remains that exemptions are an abominable short term fix to bad regulation - they create risk and uncertainty and leave an opening to temptation for abuse. They should only be used as a last resort, not the first port of call for a lazy regulator.
Good on Mr. Leafblower for bearding the lion in his den, getting a good hearing and result and even posting it on Pprune for curmudgeons like me to criticise. The difficulty I have is why an exemption was needed in the first place.
The fact remains that exemptions are an abominable short term fix to bad regulation - they create risk and uncertainty and leave an opening to temptation for abuse. They should only be used as a last resort, not the first port of call for a lazy regulator.
Last edited by Sunfish; 10th Aug 2015 at 21:24.
Characterising it as "a positive" is merely a manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome.
Sunfish nailed it.
Sunfish nailed it.
So, sunfish/lead balloon, how has part 61 impacted your operational and/or business running lives?
Has it cost you more money to get exactly the same things done as you did pre part 61 (think having to do an IPC in a metro, a "single pilot type rated aircraft" because the B200 isn't "good enough" to cover it, only because the metro is over 5700kg despite doing proficiency checks in the metro every 6months anyway, or having to sow to IPCs a year if you fly more than two "type rated" [and we aren't talking airliner jets here for type ratings!] aircraft?). What about being legally able to log co pilot time before, but 61 banning it? It's not as if they were sitting their doing nothing, it's all in the ops manuals!
Do any of you do IPCs or any instrument approach currency in a synthetic trainer? Technically, the component you do in the synthetic is not legal for currency/testing etc under part 61, whereas it was before. I'm still battling this. I've won in the short term but the rules need changing.
Yep the system that has been forced on us is problematic. Sorry for fighting and trying to change it.
Has it cost you more money to get exactly the same things done as you did pre part 61 (think having to do an IPC in a metro, a "single pilot type rated aircraft" because the B200 isn't "good enough" to cover it, only because the metro is over 5700kg despite doing proficiency checks in the metro every 6months anyway, or having to sow to IPCs a year if you fly more than two "type rated" [and we aren't talking airliner jets here for type ratings!] aircraft?). What about being legally able to log co pilot time before, but 61 banning it? It's not as if they were sitting their doing nothing, it's all in the ops manuals!
Do any of you do IPCs or any instrument approach currency in a synthetic trainer? Technically, the component you do in the synthetic is not legal for currency/testing etc under part 61, whereas it was before. I'm still battling this. I've won in the short term but the rules need changing.
Yep the system that has been forced on us is problematic. Sorry for fighting and trying to change it.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You got that exemption because it has basically no "safety" implications whatever. Safe for CASA to do. POA. So what are the safety implications of not having your rego painted on the wing that required 3 exemptions? It did however probably generate a mountain of paperwork and possibly justified another CASA employee.
In-spite of all the negative statements on this matter, this exemption maybe the first step in the process of getting this anomaly out of Part 61.
On several occasions we wrote procedures that required exemptions against a Reg or a CAO which were then incorporated into CAOs and then into the re-write of the Regs.
These changes came about because the capabilities of the industry changed and the Regs/CAOs had not kept pace.
There are other examples where exemptions have morphed into the new Regs.
On several occasions we wrote procedures that required exemptions against a Reg or a CAO which were then incorporated into CAOs and then into the re-write of the Regs.
These changes came about because the capabilities of the industry changed and the Regs/CAOs had not kept pace.
There are other examples where exemptions have morphed into the new Regs.
We're on the same side, Car RAMROD.
My point (and I anticipate Sunfish's point) is that when your captors extend the leash a little, that's not a "positive" for which your captors deserve "thanks".
We shouldn't be captive to (and have to pay for) this pointless regulatory nonsense in the first place. It's just a self-licking ice cream of more rules and more exemptions, with zero positive safety or efficiency impacts.
"Beyond a certain point, complexity is fraud."
My point (and I anticipate Sunfish's point) is that when your captors extend the leash a little, that's not a "positive" for which your captors deserve "thanks".
We shouldn't be captive to (and have to pay for) this pointless regulatory nonsense in the first place. It's just a self-licking ice cream of more rules and more exemptions, with zero positive safety or efficiency impacts.
"Beyond a certain point, complexity is fraud."
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lead balloon beat me to it.
I was going to discuss an environment with an overreaching and overbearing bully of a regulator and the stockholm syndrome environment that it has created in australian aviation.
lead ballon is on the money.
australian aviation legislation is the greatest assembly of rubbish ever inflicted on an industry.
australia's unique talent is to take the english system of government incompetence and raise it to new levels of stupidity.
what australia has proven beyond doubt is that aeronautical engineering should be preeminent in aviation and that lawyers and the like make no contribution to safety or the development of the technology whatsoever.
CAsA is an enduring farce of clueless bullying.
tallywheel posted a comment a while back that this pox upon us has blown 350million dollars so far.
lead balloon's self licking ice cream has a very large tongue.
I was going to discuss an environment with an overreaching and overbearing bully of a regulator and the stockholm syndrome environment that it has created in australian aviation.
lead ballon is on the money.
australian aviation legislation is the greatest assembly of rubbish ever inflicted on an industry.
australia's unique talent is to take the english system of government incompetence and raise it to new levels of stupidity.
what australia has proven beyond doubt is that aeronautical engineering should be preeminent in aviation and that lawyers and the like make no contribution to safety or the development of the technology whatsoever.
CAsA is an enduring farce of clueless bullying.
tallywheel posted a comment a while back that this pox upon us has blown 350million dollars so far.
lead balloon's self licking ice cream has a very large tongue.
I think credit where it's due. Mark Skidmore didn't implement part 61, his predecessor did. Same person didn't listen to the industry saying it needs changing and as his parting gift to the industry he implemented part 61 and didn't have to deal with the fallout. Mark is listening and yeah, I'll thank him for implementing that change.
I'm cynical, I love a casa bashing (who doesn't?) but I'm not convinced that they issued the original rule and then this exemption just to give us false hope!
Waste of time and money? No doubt. Should have just done the job right to begin with. Whilst I dream of a day that we have better rules to operate under (and easier to comprehend!), I know that the chances of that are remote, so I'll take these small ones happily, it has just made my life a little easier.
And no, I've never been to Stockholm...
I'm cynical, I love a casa bashing (who doesn't?) but I'm not convinced that they issued the original rule and then this exemption just to give us false hope!
Waste of time and money? No doubt. Should have just done the job right to begin with. Whilst I dream of a day that we have better rules to operate under (and easier to comprehend!), I know that the chances of that are remote, so I'll take these small ones happily, it has just made my life a little easier.
And no, I've never been to Stockholm...
So there is a problem in making an exemption after industry has complained is there? Did you not read the explanatory statement?
"It is expected that a regulatory amendment to expand the definition ..... will be made in due course, after which time this instrument will no longer be required."
I.e they have issued the exemption because it is quicker than changing the regulation.
If the instrument expires and the regulation doesn't get changed then you will see me get angry about it. For now it is a step in the right direction as opposed to another backwards step.
I've had a lot of dealings with the regulator, some good some not so. They haven't made me as sour as they have evidently made some others!
"It is expected that a regulatory amendment to expand the definition ..... will be made in due course, after which time this instrument will no longer be required."
I.e they have issued the exemption because it is quicker than changing the regulation.
If the instrument expires and the regulation doesn't get changed then you will see me get angry about it. For now it is a step in the right direction as opposed to another backwards step.
I've had a lot of dealings with the regulator, some good some not so. They haven't made me as sour as they have evidently made some others!
"It is expected that...."
Oh dear.
I didn't think there'd be anyone so naive left in the aviation industry as to not know what: "it is expected that" means when CASA says it.
Do yourself a favour, Car RAMROD, and do a google search of the terms: "it is expected that" and "CASA".
It's one of the many reasons for the complete distrust of CASA identified in the ASRR Report.
Oh dear.
I didn't think there'd be anyone so naive left in the aviation industry as to not know what: "it is expected that" means when CASA says it.
Do yourself a favour, Car RAMROD, and do a google search of the terms: "it is expected that" and "CASA".
It's one of the many reasons for the complete distrust of CASA identified in the ASRR Report.
Right I give up, let's have the exemption cancelled right now with no chance of changing the rule and go back yet another step! Let's keep the entire Part 61 in all it's glory and not change a single thing, even by way of exemption!
Like I said, I'll get angry if the rule doesn't get changed. Considering this exemption has actually made my job just one tiny bit easier I'm thankful.
Do not confuse "being naive" with trying to be proactive and at least a little hopeful. Forgive me for not letting the system get me down, obviously some people's will is much more easily broken
Rather than pissing and moaning, how about doing something, actually doing something, to try and get rid of some of the bull**** that ties our hands?
Like I said, I'll get angry if the rule doesn't get changed. Considering this exemption has actually made my job just one tiny bit easier I'm thankful.
Do not confuse "being naive" with trying to be proactive and at least a little hopeful. Forgive me for not letting the system get me down, obviously some people's will is much more easily broken
Rather than pissing and moaning, how about doing something, actually doing something, to try and get rid of some of the bull**** that ties our hands?
Nah - I just whinge on pprune.
My point is this: This would be a "positive" and Mr Skidmore would deserve "thanks" if, instead of adopting all of the vacuous, weasel-worded, misleading rhetoric of his predecessors, he actually made a thing called "a commitment".
"The regulations will be changed so as to achieve X. This change will be made no later than Y."
If he's not willing or able to make commitments of that kind, and he has any integrity, he would direct the organisation of which he is now CEO to stop using the vacuous, weasel-worded, misleading rhetoric that nobody (well, almost nobody) believes any more.
My point is this: This would be a "positive" and Mr Skidmore would deserve "thanks" if, instead of adopting all of the vacuous, weasel-worded, misleading rhetoric of his predecessors, he actually made a thing called "a commitment".
"The regulations will be changed so as to achieve X. This change will be made no later than Y."
If he's not willing or able to make commitments of that kind, and he has any integrity, he would direct the organisation of which he is now CEO to stop using the vacuous, weasel-worded, misleading rhetoric that nobody (well, almost nobody) believes any more.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Skidmore can't admit that there is a problem, he isn't capable of fixing something that seems to him to be non existent.
Exemptions further burden the status quo. In fact to achieve regulatory reform, all exemptions must be written into law or cancelled.
It's taken how long to get to the stage we're at now?
Exemptions further burden the status quo. In fact to achieve regulatory reform, all exemptions must be written into law or cancelled.
It's taken how long to get to the stage we're at now?
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 11th Aug 2015 at 05:38. Reason: Don't bother, I'll be dead by then.
OK here is another example of worlds best practice in regulations.
Yesterdays lucky dip of exemptions includes this one.
CASA 105/15 - Instructions — V.F.R. flights conducted by CGG Aviation (Australia) Pty Ltd
It basically allows a survey company to conduct a vfr flight over water without the requirement to be able to fix their position by visual reference to the ground or water when below 2000ft. The exemption only applies if they have an ifr gps and maintain a higher than otherwise required fuel reserve along with a few other conditions.
Now the difficulties that arise are:
1. The exemption is only valid for 1 year. What happens if they have a contract that goes for longer than a year and CASA are too disorganized to extend the exemption. Not knowing more than a year in advance that you are going to be able to continue what you are doing is no way to run a business. What bank would be willing to lend to a company that's lifeblood can be snuffed out simply if a casa office does not renew an exemption on time?
2. This regulation by exemption also makes it very hard to make any changes to the business. Say this company decides to merge with another company. Do you notice that the exemption only applies to 1 particular named company? If during their merger they decide to change the companies legal name then a new exemption is required. Will it be forthcoming?
3. Exemptions make it hard to set up a competitor. Any company that wants to do the same work has to apply for an exemption too. Will they get this and in what timeframe? While this may sound good for the company it leads to an inefficient sector.
While the requirements are sensible and good airmanship the way it is implemented is a dog breakfast. Interesting to note that in the USA this activity wouldn't require an exemption because it isn't prohibited by their regulations.
Yesterdays lucky dip of exemptions includes this one.
CASA 105/15 - Instructions — V.F.R. flights conducted by CGG Aviation (Australia) Pty Ltd
It basically allows a survey company to conduct a vfr flight over water without the requirement to be able to fix their position by visual reference to the ground or water when below 2000ft. The exemption only applies if they have an ifr gps and maintain a higher than otherwise required fuel reserve along with a few other conditions.
Now the difficulties that arise are:
1. The exemption is only valid for 1 year. What happens if they have a contract that goes for longer than a year and CASA are too disorganized to extend the exemption. Not knowing more than a year in advance that you are going to be able to continue what you are doing is no way to run a business. What bank would be willing to lend to a company that's lifeblood can be snuffed out simply if a casa office does not renew an exemption on time?
2. This regulation by exemption also makes it very hard to make any changes to the business. Say this company decides to merge with another company. Do you notice that the exemption only applies to 1 particular named company? If during their merger they decide to change the companies legal name then a new exemption is required. Will it be forthcoming?
3. Exemptions make it hard to set up a competitor. Any company that wants to do the same work has to apply for an exemption too. Will they get this and in what timeframe? While this may sound good for the company it leads to an inefficient sector.
While the requirements are sensible and good airmanship the way it is implemented is a dog breakfast. Interesting to note that in the USA this activity wouldn't require an exemption because it isn't prohibited by their regulations.
It's called evidence- and risk-based regulation. There was evidence of a risk that an activity was occurring without the benefit of regulatory micro-management (for which a fee is payable, naturally, for the 'service'). There is just no way that an operator could work out and implement its own mitigation strategies to deal with the risks of these extraordinarily complex and dangerous over-water survey operations.
And when that exemption expires, it stands to reason that the operator and the operation become dangerous. Why else would the rules prohibit it?
The USA? Pfffft. What would the USA know about aviation regulation.
And when that exemption expires, it stands to reason that the operator and the operation become dangerous. Why else would the rules prohibit it?
The USA? Pfffft. What would the USA know about aviation regulation.
"No One" neatly details some of the problems with exemptions and raises the issues of "FUD" - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Anyone who has worked with major vendors in the computer industry will be well aware of "FUD".
Strangely though, it seems our regulator also understands the use of these tools to keep an industry in perpetual subjugation and the granting of an "exemption" is a perfect way to do it. String them along year after year.
It appears that some in CASA really subscribe to O'Briens dictum from Orwells 1984
Why for example are experimental aircraft owners perpetually wondering if their ability to maintain their aircraft via an "exemption" will continue?
Why is it not possible to make a once and for all determination regarding aircraft markings on undersides of wings?
Surely simple determinations can be made as they are in every other jurisdiction?
"It is expected" that the exemption will rendered nugatory by regulation! My ass! Why give up a perfectly good tool that causes intense cockpit pain? Look at Dick Smith tying himself in knots over ADS-B. Look at John Quadrio.
CASA seems to take pleasure in the infliction of pain.
Strangely though, it seems our regulator also understands the use of these tools to keep an industry in perpetual subjugation and the granting of an "exemption" is a perfect way to do it. String them along year after year.
It appears that some in CASA really subscribe to O'Briens dictum from Orwells 1984
He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: ‘How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.
Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.
Why for example are experimental aircraft owners perpetually wondering if their ability to maintain their aircraft via an "exemption" will continue?
Why is it not possible to make a once and for all determination regarding aircraft markings on undersides of wings?
Surely simple determinations can be made as they are in every other jurisdiction?
"It is expected" that the exemption will rendered nugatory by regulation! My ass! Why give up a perfectly good tool that causes intense cockpit pain? Look at Dick Smith tying himself in knots over ADS-B. Look at John Quadrio.
CASA seems to take pleasure in the infliction of pain.