Proof that DAS Skidmore is a new broom
AOTW: I think the issue here is one of expectations. The OP had reasonable expectations, got his exemptions, and went away happy. Others will only be happy if the new DAS tears up the entire regulatory framework, renounces any past connection with the RAAF, and then does whatever Dick and his fan club demand (i.e. a glove puppet of a different sort). I'd suggest that this isn't a reasonable expectation, and isn't likely to be fulfilled. At least it'll allow some to continue with their chosen hobby of venting furiously on Internet forums. 
What, then, is Mr Skidmore's job?
I will guarantee that whatever you and AOTW pluck out of the air will be as wrong as what "Dick and his fan club", and Mr Skidmore, pluck out of the air.
Therein lies another fundamental problem.
I will guarantee that whatever you and AOTW pluck out of the air will be as wrong as what "Dick and his fan club", and Mr Skidmore, pluck out of the air.
Therein lies another fundamental problem.
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
Anybody that adds to the "dog's breakfast" called Regulatory Review is not capable of carrying out the duties that the office holds. Exemptions add to the nightmare. Isn't 20+ years and $millions wasted enough to call a halt and have a hard look at "that problem" which, by all accounts he believes does not exist?
Until Skidmore admits there is a problem he can't address it.
An apologist for the DAS is worse than any perceived "fan club" of realists is I would suggest. His listening days are over, the Forsyth Review said it all and he's done nothing. One can only imagine he is part of the fantastic new world order without aircraft except for the "enlightened ones".
Until Skidmore admits there is a problem he can't address it.
An apologist for the DAS is worse than any perceived "fan club" of realists is I would suggest. His listening days are over, the Forsyth Review said it all and he's done nothing. One can only imagine he is part of the fantastic new world order without aircraft except for the "enlightened ones".
Thread Starter
Frank,
Given the dog's breakfast that has the hide to call itself the Australian Government, how do you propose swift and effective changes, fixes and allowances be made to Federal legislation?
How long do you suggest it will take to wait for a legislative amendment to fix a problem that is damaging aviation businesses TODAY? How long is acceptable?
Six weeks?
Six months?
How does the DAS change the direction of CASA's legislative re-drafting debacle without MINISTERIAL DIRECTION to do so?
While we all agree Mr Skidmore is a public servant, is it his job to read PPRuNe and direct CASA accordingly?
...or is it his job to steer the ship in accordance with the policy and directives of the government of the day?
All the screaming in the world, all the invective you smash into your keyboard, all the spittle you have to wipe off your screen as you vent your spleen through these pages is totally wasted if directed (vicariously) at the DAS.
The Regs as they stand are a product of Australian politics. Use your vote wisely at the next election
Given the dog's breakfast that has the hide to call itself the Australian Government, how do you propose swift and effective changes, fixes and allowances be made to Federal legislation?
How long do you suggest it will take to wait for a legislative amendment to fix a problem that is damaging aviation businesses TODAY? How long is acceptable?
Six weeks?
Six months?
How does the DAS change the direction of CASA's legislative re-drafting debacle without MINISTERIAL DIRECTION to do so?
While we all agree Mr Skidmore is a public servant, is it his job to read PPRuNe and direct CASA accordingly?
...or is it his job to steer the ship in accordance with the policy and directives of the government of the day?
All the screaming in the world, all the invective you smash into your keyboard, all the spittle you have to wipe off your screen as you vent your spleen through these pages is totally wasted if directed (vicariously) at the DAS.
The Regs as they stand are a product of Australian politics. Use your vote wisely at the next election
The regulations are not a product of politics in the sense of competing world views. They are a product of BOTH SIDES of politics wishing to ignore/be insulated from aviation accident political costs.
THAT is the product CASA sells. THAT is why all pilots are "criminals who haven't been caught yet". There are precisely no votes in Aviation. Its rather like prison reform or regulation of feral animals.
The politicians pay CASA an insurance fee so that they don't have to pay attention to aviation. CASAs customer is the Government not us. We don't matter.
That is why I say that absent a political party or strike action, or a major accident the politicians are right in believing that noises from us can be safely ignored.
Skidmore? Nodding donkey, "safe pair of hands", "won't rock the boat", "One of us", "trusted", "steady".
Skidmore will labor mightily in the garden of the Lord and will, predictably, produce nothing of any import, because his Minister and Department Head chose him to do nothing more than keep aviation out of the headlines. I'm sure he is a nice guy and will try hard an d be granted a small change in the regulations to put his name to (perhaps tyre valve caps will no longer need to be yellow).
Real reform? No hope! As i have said before that would need a reformer backed by a minion or Two from Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as "advisors" (read bureaucratic assassins) to rip CASA apart and restructure it.
The sort of guys needed are, to paraphrase a description of Ohio Political operatives; "guys so smart and clever that you don't even realise they have cut your throat until half an hour after they have taken their leave".
THAT is the product CASA sells. THAT is why all pilots are "criminals who haven't been caught yet". There are precisely no votes in Aviation. Its rather like prison reform or regulation of feral animals.
The politicians pay CASA an insurance fee so that they don't have to pay attention to aviation. CASAs customer is the Government not us. We don't matter.
That is why I say that absent a political party or strike action, or a major accident the politicians are right in believing that noises from us can be safely ignored.
Skidmore? Nodding donkey, "safe pair of hands", "won't rock the boat", "One of us", "trusted", "steady".
Skidmore will labor mightily in the garden of the Lord and will, predictably, produce nothing of any import, because his Minister and Department Head chose him to do nothing more than keep aviation out of the headlines. I'm sure he is a nice guy and will try hard an d be granted a small change in the regulations to put his name to (perhaps tyre valve caps will no longer need to be yellow).
Real reform? No hope! As i have said before that would need a reformer backed by a minion or Two from Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as "advisors" (read bureaucratic assassins) to rip CASA apart and restructure it.
The sort of guys needed are, to paraphrase a description of Ohio Political operatives; "guys so smart and clever that you don't even realise they have cut your throat until half an hour after they have taken their leave".
The politicians pay CASA an insurance fee so that they don't have to pay attention to aviation. CASAs customer is the Government not us. We don't matter.
Mr Skidmore's actual job is to draw flak away from the people actually responsible for aviation safety regulation.
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
HL;
I'm of the opinion the CAsA orchestra is being directed by one senior public servant that's gone rogue and will one day join previous people in the position at the millionaires factory that own things like airports. It's out of the hands of the politicians who see their positions enhanced by the buffer offered by staying at arms length. No party will commit to effective reform let alone allow such a program come to an end. I concur with sunfish. Skidmore is a disappointment that only serves to prolong the misery of an enduring industry extinction. (save for the illuminati).
I'm of the opinion the CAsA orchestra is being directed by one senior public servant that's gone rogue and will one day join previous people in the position at the millionaires factory that own things like airports. It's out of the hands of the politicians who see their positions enhanced by the buffer offered by staying at arms length. No party will commit to effective reform let alone allow such a program come to an end. I concur with sunfish. Skidmore is a disappointment that only serves to prolong the misery of an enduring industry extinction. (save for the illuminati).
Right, that's it for me.
They are how any government deals with its responsibilities. What else do you want?
If you are a criminal, expect to be treated like one. If you do the right thing, then you won't have a problem.
Boo f*&king hoo, I may burst into tears if you hit me with any more whingeing.
See above.
Well mate, any time you're ready, step up and fix the situation - I'm waiting with bated breath to see your solutions to all these terrible problems.
Why don't you jump straight in and do a better job, that should fix everything.
What are you on, you goose?
How's your crystal ball there, Nostradamus?
Did they now? You're mates with them, I suppose? Know how they work?
Any time you're ready to contribute a bit more, go for it!
On ya, champion - whenever you're ready, step up!
Yep, that'll work - get them on the payroll, can't wait for the improvements to flow on from your outstanding input.
The regulations are not a product of politics in the sense of competing world views. They are a product of BOTH SIDES of politics wishing to ignore/be insulated from aviation accident political costs.
THAT is the product CASA sells. THAT is why all pilots are "criminals who haven't been caught yet".
There are precisely no votes in Aviation. Its rather like prison reform or regulation of feral animals.
The politicians pay CASA an insurance fee so that they don't have to pay attention to aviation. CASAs customer is the Government not us. We don't matter.
That is why I say that absent a political party or strike action, or a major accident the politicians are right in believing that noises from us can be safely ignored.
Skidmore? Nodding donkey, "safe pair of hands", "won't rock the boat", "One of us", "trusted", "steady".
Skidmore will labor mightily in the garden of the Lord
and will, predictably, produce nothing of any import
because his Minister and Department Head chose him to do nothing more than keep aviation out of the headlines
I'm sure he is a nice guy and will try hard an d be granted a small change in the regulations to put his name to (perhaps tyre valve caps will no longer need to be yellow).
Real reform? No hope! As i have said before that would need a reformer backed by a minion or Two from Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as "advisors" (read bureaucratic assassins) to rip CASA apart and restructure it.
The sort of guys needed are, to paraphrase a description of Ohio Political operatives; "guys so smart and clever that you don't even realise they have cut your throat until half an hour after they have taken their leave".
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
my don't the ex-raaf hate it when someone criticises one of their number.
I mean, hell we flew jets, how could we be wrong?
you bug smashers know so little.
....problem is that you are regulating bug smashers not jets and your prior experience is actually the problem.
W8
I mean, hell we flew jets, how could we be wrong?
you bug smashers know so little.
....problem is that you are regulating bug smashers not jets and your prior experience is actually the problem.
W8
AOTW:
Not true, and therein lies the problem on Two counts: There is ample evidence of vendettas and capricious, malicious persecution.
But more importantly for those like me and the majority who try and obey the law, CASA has made the regulations so voluminous, difficult and complex that it is almost impossible to "do the right thing" all the time.
AOTW, you have heard of the Forsyth review I trust? Is that all just "whinging"? I'd love to hear your comments.
To put that another way; what part of "CASA has lost the trust of the industry" don't you understand?
If you are a criminal, expect to be treated like one. If you do the right thing, then you won't have a problem.
But more importantly for those like me and the majority who try and obey the law, CASA has made the regulations so voluminous, difficult and complex that it is almost impossible to "do the right thing" all the time.
AOTW, you have heard of the Forsyth review I trust? Is that all just "whinging"? I'd love to hear your comments.
To put that another way; what part of "CASA has lost the trust of the industry" don't you understand?
I mean, hell we flew jets, how could we be wrong?
you bug smashers know so little.
you bug smashers know so little.
People doing the right thing? A lot of the time, but you don't need to turn over too many rocks to find aircraft being flown unserviceable, hours falsified, parts kept in service too long, maintenance not being written up in the MR, rules of the air being methodically busted etc etc ... then when the authorities come after the perpetrators it's a big surprise? Come on. At least some (I'm not saying all) of these so-called vendettas are just the dodgy operator that everyone knows is doing the wrong thing finally getting caught up with. Don't tell me you don't know of stuff like this going on.
what part of "CASA has lost the trust of the industry" don't you understand?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I understand it all right, but stubbornly refusing to budge one little bit to re-engage with them and slagging them off at every opportunity is hardly going to change anything, is it?
If they want better engagement having had industry try for so long, it is time they actually did some and listened and responded. The DAS is trying. I have an acid test for him shortly, but I fear he and JB are two guys trying hard against a bureaucratic monster that can't be tamed with anything less than a 338 Lapua.
And it is not just people in aviation who find them difficult, or impossible to deal with, I was at a shooting industry function last week, during the Q&A session I made reference to aviation and afterwards I got swamped with folks wanting to know how to work with or around the problems at CASA. The news I gave them was not good. And I knew exactly who they were talking about.
Its not just us folks.
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 is a "new broom", and this thread is to support the notion that he is actively achieving anything because of one exemption, I would suggest to his ex Batman and cheers squad that he may like to give the industry some sort of statement to the effect he recognizes a problem exists and he is the man to fix it. I can't over emphasize the need for him to read and act on the Forsyth Review, if only to say he accepts the industry input which highlights a problem. Asking for more input and consulting with industry is akin to "fiddling while Rome burns". Soon there will be no industry. Doesn't he get that? Or doesn't he care?
Perhaps a statement like this would be suitable - if only he'd put one out, the recalcitrant bastard!
GPO Box 2005 Canberra ACT 2601 Telephone: (02) 6217 1001 Facsimile: (02) 6217 1555
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF AVIATION SAFETY
Trim Ref: F15/529
23 April 2015
Dear Sir/Madam
Update on new flight crew licensing regulations
I am writing to you about the new flight crew licensing suite of regulations that took effect in September 2014. Following the introduction of the regulations, CASA became aware a number of people and organisations had concerns about some of the new requirements. To address these issues
a special forum with representatives of the aviation community was held in December 2014.
The forum was extremely valuable in providing CASA with first-hand experience and feedback on key issues. As a result of this feedback CASA has made adjustments to the way some aspects of the new rules are being implemented, as well as some changes to the regulatory requirements themselves.
Where requirements have been changed this has been
done by way of instruments and exemptions. Some of the changes already made relate to check pilots conducting proficiency checks, low level rating and aerial mustering training and flight testing, fire fighting operations, aerial application proficiency checks and R22 and R44 helicopter ratings.
Many of the issues identified to date relate to some of the transition arrangements for the new rules and I accept CASA has to do better in this area. The changes being made now by way of instruments and exemptions will be incorporated into a revised rule set at a later date.
Good progress is also being made on a range of other issues that need to be addressed. These include the student pilot dual check period, the low-level rating flight review period, updates to the Part 61 Manual of Standards, English language proficiency, flight examiner ratings and flight testing. We are also developing further guidance and information material to help everyone understand the new rules.
Already more than 10,600 new Part 61 licences have been issued, even though the transition period for pilots runs until September 2018. The fact that we are adjusting the new rules and the way they are applied shows we are committed to continuous improvement. Aviation safety standards are not intended to be static as they must adapt to reflect the real world
environment.
To that end, I need your feedback. While consultation takes place as rules are being developed, inevitably there are issues or unintended consequences that need to be addressed. We need feedback from individuals and organisations about what is working well and what is not. I give my personal assurance that all comments, feedback and criticism will
be looked at carefully and given full consideration. Of course this does not mean CASA can accept every suggestion or agree with every viewpoint, but we will listen and where legitimate issues or problems are identified we will respond.
If you have a contribution you wish to make to the review of the new flight crew licensing suite of regulations please send them to: [email protected]
I thank everyone for their patience and valued contributions as we collectively work to bed down the new licensing regulations and stress again that I want open and honest feedback on what is working and what is not. By co-operating we will get the right safety outcomes from regulations that support a vibrant and strong Australian aviation community.
You can find detailed information on the licensing suite of regulations on CASA’s web site:
www.casa.gov.au/licensingregs.
Safe flying
Mark Skidmore AM
Director of Aviation Safety
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF AVIATION SAFETY
Trim Ref: F15/529
23 April 2015
Dear Sir/Madam
Update on new flight crew licensing regulations
I am writing to you about the new flight crew licensing suite of regulations that took effect in September 2014. Following the introduction of the regulations, CASA became aware a number of people and organisations had concerns about some of the new requirements. To address these issues
a special forum with representatives of the aviation community was held in December 2014.
The forum was extremely valuable in providing CASA with first-hand experience and feedback on key issues. As a result of this feedback CASA has made adjustments to the way some aspects of the new rules are being implemented, as well as some changes to the regulatory requirements themselves.
Where requirements have been changed this has been
done by way of instruments and exemptions. Some of the changes already made relate to check pilots conducting proficiency checks, low level rating and aerial mustering training and flight testing, fire fighting operations, aerial application proficiency checks and R22 and R44 helicopter ratings.
Many of the issues identified to date relate to some of the transition arrangements for the new rules and I accept CASA has to do better in this area. The changes being made now by way of instruments and exemptions will be incorporated into a revised rule set at a later date.
Good progress is also being made on a range of other issues that need to be addressed. These include the student pilot dual check period, the low-level rating flight review period, updates to the Part 61 Manual of Standards, English language proficiency, flight examiner ratings and flight testing. We are also developing further guidance and information material to help everyone understand the new rules.
Already more than 10,600 new Part 61 licences have been issued, even though the transition period for pilots runs until September 2018. The fact that we are adjusting the new rules and the way they are applied shows we are committed to continuous improvement. Aviation safety standards are not intended to be static as they must adapt to reflect the real world
environment.
To that end, I need your feedback. While consultation takes place as rules are being developed, inevitably there are issues or unintended consequences that need to be addressed. We need feedback from individuals and organisations about what is working well and what is not. I give my personal assurance that all comments, feedback and criticism will
be looked at carefully and given full consideration. Of course this does not mean CASA can accept every suggestion or agree with every viewpoint, but we will listen and where legitimate issues or problems are identified we will respond.
If you have a contribution you wish to make to the review of the new flight crew licensing suite of regulations please send them to: [email protected]
I thank everyone for their patience and valued contributions as we collectively work to bed down the new licensing regulations and stress again that I want open and honest feedback on what is working and what is not. By co-operating we will get the right safety outcomes from regulations that support a vibrant and strong Australian aviation community.
You can find detailed information on the licensing suite of regulations on CASA’s web site:
www.casa.gov.au/licensingregs.
Safe flying
Mark Skidmore AM
Director of Aviation Safety
perhaps tyre valve caps will no longer need to be yellow
And can legally replace said valve cap, after checking the pressure (Schedule 8), without having to have a torque wrench with a current calibration certificate to tighten the valve cap to the prescribed torque in accord with manufacturer's specification.
Yes!! it is a strict liability offense, not so to do. I bet most of you didn't know how hard it is to check your tyre pressures "legally".
Seriously, spend the time watching the replays of Dick in the Senate last night, and you will get to understand how any aviation reform is sidetracked and stymied by the do nothings of the "public" service, aided and abetted by a group of unions who will fight tooth and nail to make certain their rice bowl is not upset.
And what makes it easy, quite often, is committed union members in CASA riding shotgun on any changes ---- the whole edifice stinks.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 19th Aug 2015 at 15:10. Reason: typo
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
Despite having your arm out the window being a strict liability offence it's hard to take offence when one is reminded how studious one must be to remain current and interpret messages no matter how cryptic in nature and no matter the subject matter can't be brought to mention the review by name. A bit like the regulations that are in their third decade of review.
I rest my case.
I rest my case.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And can be legally replaced said valve cap, after checking the pressure (Schedule 8), without having to have a torque wrench with a current calibration certificate to tighten the valve cap to the prescribed toque in accord with manufacturer's specification.
Yes!! it is a strict liability offense, not so to do. I bet most of you didn't know how hard it is to check your tyre pressures "legally".
Yes!! it is a strict liability offense, not so to do. I bet most of you didn't know how hard it is to check your tyre pressures "legally".
Simply, change the rules, scrap the rules, piss about with them as much as you like. The smart folk will just keep doing one thing…..be sensible, safe and not kill themselves because at the end of the day that is what actually matters. Calibration certificates for my index finger and thumb……..bend over mr FOI/AWI and lets check the calibration with the master tool
Seriously, that is where everyone is headed.
Arm,
Just to remind you, it was a former CASA head of Office of Legal Counsel who stated that, as far as he was concerned, pilots and engineers were ALL just "criminals who had not been caught yet".
The same person also said:" Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".
More than one CASA (or its predecessors) inquiry has commented on the creation of "inadvertent criminals" because of aviation law that is complex, contradictory and generally impossible to wholly comply with.
After all, from the CASA point of view, of great utility is the fact that, for a strict liability offense, CASA (the DPP) does not have to prove the traditional criminal intent (the guilty mind) that used to be fundamental to convicting anybody of a criminal offense.
In other words, despite the best efforts of a law abiding citizen in the aviation world, it is all to easy to wind up with a criminal record (with all the serious consequences that entails) without the slightest criminal intent, other than "committing aviation".
Arm, do you actually understand the travel restrictions that can follow from even a criminal charge, even without a conviction. Just a criminal charge under any aviation statute is enough to bar you from entry to a number of countries, including USA.
Tootle pip!!
Just to remind you, it was a former CASA head of Office of Legal Counsel who stated that, as far as he was concerned, pilots and engineers were ALL just "criminals who had not been caught yet".
The same person also said:" Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".
More than one CASA (or its predecessors) inquiry has commented on the creation of "inadvertent criminals" because of aviation law that is complex, contradictory and generally impossible to wholly comply with.
After all, from the CASA point of view, of great utility is the fact that, for a strict liability offense, CASA (the DPP) does not have to prove the traditional criminal intent (the guilty mind) that used to be fundamental to convicting anybody of a criminal offense.
In other words, despite the best efforts of a law abiding citizen in the aviation world, it is all to easy to wind up with a criminal record (with all the serious consequences that entails) without the slightest criminal intent, other than "committing aviation".
Arm, do you actually understand the travel restrictions that can follow from even a criminal charge, even without a conviction. Just a criminal charge under any aviation statute is enough to bar you from entry to a number of countries, including USA.
Tootle pip!!
Three subjects:
To be fair, for once, to Mr. Arm Out The Window he does have a point; constructive engagement with the regulator is the usual way of achieving progress in its widest sense, but what he is missing is that constructive engagement - sweet reason, has been tried by an alphabet soup of organisations for a very long time with no results.
The culmination of the failure of the engagement process was the Forsyth review - and its conclusion was that CASA had lost the trust of the industry. Since the publication of the findings of the review nothing has happened. One is therefore left to conclude that those in charge do not accept that change is either necessary or desirable.
Given that there appears no willingness to change, and the fact that industry has already engaged with CASA for Ten plus years in dialogue, could we be forgiven for believing that there is no point in wasting our time with any more consultation?
Furthermore, all that anyone is doing in bringing anything to CASAs attention, is to risk the possibility of victimisation and persecution in future - as evidenced by the number of confidential submissions to the Forsyth Review and the committees warnings to CASA regarding this subject.
With knowledge of that past history, why would anyone want to give AVM. Skidmore "full and frank" feedback? Especially with his senior management in attendance and taking notes???? At the risks of invoking Godwins law, its a little like Himmler asking inmates at Dachau for "feedback". The ball is in the Governments court. Feedback has been given. Mountains of it. Some at great cost. No upside and plenty of downside by feeding back.
The second matter I want to raise is "The Vision Thing". I was transfixed by what I saw on the South Island of New Zealand in the way of aviation in GA. The place was buzzing. Virtually every town had a strip with (turbine!) helicopters operating scenic or hunting and fishing operations. I stopped at Milford Sound on a sunny day(!) and the airstrip was literally buzzing with operations, fixed wing and helicopters. If you go to YouTube you can see some of the back country STOL stuff New Zealanders engage in -- landing on river banks to fish, flying to remote beaches, even landing on mountain tops. Can anyone not imagine the jobs, investment and economic growth this aviation regulatory environment provides????
Can anyone not understand the economic opportunity costs of an Australian regulatory environment that virtually prohibits us from having an aviation sector as vibrant as New Zealand??? Then of course there is the USA…
To put that another way; aviation camping tours? Landing aircraft in national parks, let alone river banks and beaches? Back country grass airstrips and camping? Forget it in Australia except by stealth. In my own region and for example; where is the floatplane service on Lake Eildon? Where are the helicopter scenic tours and transfers to the snow country? Where are the high country airstrips for summer camping? Why are our airstrips always under threat of closure and housing development? Why can't we have a vibrant, growing, employing, GA sector? Because the dead hand of CASA imposes almost impossible regulatory costs and burdens on the industry and furthermore CASA has no duty towards that sector at all.
To put that another way; we fly "in spite of CASA", not with CASAs blessing.
The final matter is the RAAF mindset and how it interacts with "The Vision Thing". I would have thought that "vision" is not encouraged in the services, nor is independent action well regarded in relation to operating or maintaining Government aircraft. I suspect , but cannot confirm, that a career spent in a rigid hierarchy does not make for free thinking and a light approach to regulation, but I'd love to be proved wrong.
To be fair, for once, to Mr. Arm Out The Window he does have a point; constructive engagement with the regulator is the usual way of achieving progress in its widest sense, but what he is missing is that constructive engagement - sweet reason, has been tried by an alphabet soup of organisations for a very long time with no results.
The culmination of the failure of the engagement process was the Forsyth review - and its conclusion was that CASA had lost the trust of the industry. Since the publication of the findings of the review nothing has happened. One is therefore left to conclude that those in charge do not accept that change is either necessary or desirable.
Given that there appears no willingness to change, and the fact that industry has already engaged with CASA for Ten plus years in dialogue, could we be forgiven for believing that there is no point in wasting our time with any more consultation?
Furthermore, all that anyone is doing in bringing anything to CASAs attention, is to risk the possibility of victimisation and persecution in future - as evidenced by the number of confidential submissions to the Forsyth Review and the committees warnings to CASA regarding this subject.
With knowledge of that past history, why would anyone want to give AVM. Skidmore "full and frank" feedback? Especially with his senior management in attendance and taking notes???? At the risks of invoking Godwins law, its a little like Himmler asking inmates at Dachau for "feedback". The ball is in the Governments court. Feedback has been given. Mountains of it. Some at great cost. No upside and plenty of downside by feeding back.
The second matter I want to raise is "The Vision Thing". I was transfixed by what I saw on the South Island of New Zealand in the way of aviation in GA. The place was buzzing. Virtually every town had a strip with (turbine!) helicopters operating scenic or hunting and fishing operations. I stopped at Milford Sound on a sunny day(!) and the airstrip was literally buzzing with operations, fixed wing and helicopters. If you go to YouTube you can see some of the back country STOL stuff New Zealanders engage in -- landing on river banks to fish, flying to remote beaches, even landing on mountain tops. Can anyone not imagine the jobs, investment and economic growth this aviation regulatory environment provides????
Can anyone not understand the economic opportunity costs of an Australian regulatory environment that virtually prohibits us from having an aviation sector as vibrant as New Zealand??? Then of course there is the USA…
To put that another way; aviation camping tours? Landing aircraft in national parks, let alone river banks and beaches? Back country grass airstrips and camping? Forget it in Australia except by stealth. In my own region and for example; where is the floatplane service on Lake Eildon? Where are the helicopter scenic tours and transfers to the snow country? Where are the high country airstrips for summer camping? Why are our airstrips always under threat of closure and housing development? Why can't we have a vibrant, growing, employing, GA sector? Because the dead hand of CASA imposes almost impossible regulatory costs and burdens on the industry and furthermore CASA has no duty towards that sector at all.
To put that another way; we fly "in spite of CASA", not with CASAs blessing.
The final matter is the RAAF mindset and how it interacts with "The Vision Thing". I would have thought that "vision" is not encouraged in the services, nor is independent action well regarded in relation to operating or maintaining Government aircraft. I suspect , but cannot confirm, that a career spent in a rigid hierarchy does not make for free thinking and a light approach to regulation, but I'd love to be proved wrong.
Points taken - it's galling to be threatened with strict liability and penalty units whenever you read the regs, and if they can take the threatening tone and intent down a bit well and good. I don't know about the legal side of it - objectively speaking they need to be able to deter people from doing the wrong thing and have a means of punishing those who do, but I don't want draconian and anti-common sense rules either.
Likewise, I would like to see GA thriving without undue restriction, but I don't see it being achieved with an adversarial 'get f@&#ed CASA' stance and prejudice against individuals because of perceptions of how their backgrounds mould them.
I would honestly say most military people I know are as free-thinking as anyone else, and one of my main bugbears is the use of these silly comments about what happened in the mess, or similar - they're just irrelevant and simply cloud the real issues at hand.
We are stuck with these guys, at least in the short term, and constructive engagement with honest feedback is the only way to go in my view - by all means, stage a revolution if you can muster up the support, but I don't see it getting far ...
Likewise, I would like to see GA thriving without undue restriction, but I don't see it being achieved with an adversarial 'get f@&#ed CASA' stance and prejudice against individuals because of perceptions of how their backgrounds mould them.
I would honestly say most military people I know are as free-thinking as anyone else, and one of my main bugbears is the use of these silly comments about what happened in the mess, or similar - they're just irrelevant and simply cloud the real issues at hand.
We are stuck with these guys, at least in the short term, and constructive engagement with honest feedback is the only way to go in my view - by all means, stage a revolution if you can muster up the support, but I don't see it getting far ...