An Important Letter to the Prime Minister
CASA needs an immediate injection of increased resources.
What the industry needs is an immediate repeal of the regulations that require, without safety and risk justification, interactions with the regulator, so that you don't have to wait around for the regulator to make time to charge you to consider and grant approvals, permissions, exemptions blah blah blah to scratch your nose.
What Australia has is a typical paternalistic, symbiotic relationship between the regulator and industry. That means more and more regulations requiring more and more interactions between the regulator and the industry, for which the regulator charges to pay for its existence. It's a self-licking ice cream.
I know this may be inconceivable, but it is possible to have rules that do not require as many interactions with the regulator.
For example, the rules could say that an AOC holder can appoint anyone as Chief Pilot provided the candidate satisfies a list of objective licence, ratings an aeronautical experience criteria. Make sure you're seated: It is possible to have a system in which the appointment of a Chief Pilot does not have to be approved by the regulator. It might actually turn out that the regulatory approval process for Chief Pilots is little more than a regulatory ego trip.
I reckon you have more chance of getting the government to repeal a bunch of regulations that require, without safety and risk justification, interactions with the regulator, than getting the government to fork out more money so that more people can be paid circa $100k to process ARN applications.
Just give the government a list of provisions to repeal. CASA will, of course, foreshadow anarchy and aluminium confetti. Mature adults in the aviation industry know better.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GlenB
Reference my comment re class action, I believe these companies will take it on on a "no win no fee" basis. For the sake of a couple of phone calls, why wouldn't you ring them and see if they are interested? Rather than take it on yourself, it has the potential to include ALL affected parties without being necessarily identified individually.(ie subject to retribution) Gee, a couple of phone calls. Just do it.
Reference my comment re class action, I believe these companies will take it on on a "no win no fee" basis. For the sake of a couple of phone calls, why wouldn't you ring them and see if they are interested? Rather than take it on yourself, it has the potential to include ALL affected parties without being necessarily identified individually.(ie subject to retribution) Gee, a couple of phone calls. Just do it.
Thread Starter
Lead Sled
Lead Sled, your points may be valid, but you are coming from a different perspective. I am coming from the perspective of a Business Owner. The problem is that the unnecessary cost in my own Organisation now approaches $250,000. Yes there are many other issues. I am also a CFI and fully aware of all of the issues from that perspective as well,but that's a whole different thread. This thread is specifically targeted at the 300 Flying School Owners across Australia that have had their Businesses severely affected by this process. Repealing the Rules now would do nothing to reimburse me. Cheers.
Thread Starter
Sub Orbital
Cheers. I did approach some legal firms. There was certainly a level of interest. That was some time ago before I regained a false hope. First I am hoping for some legal guidance from someone in this forum. Already Lexair has offered some considerations.
When I approach the Legal Firm, I want to have an understanding of my options and potential pathways. I want to be able to hold my own in a conversation. It may be, that if I hold off a week, someone will be able to offer me some recommendations on the best firms to approach based on personal experience. Cheers.
When I approach the Legal Firm, I want to have an understanding of my options and potential pathways. I want to be able to hold my own in a conversation. It may be, that if I hold off a week, someone will be able to offer me some recommendations on the best firms to approach based on personal experience. Cheers.
Glen, I don't think you have a hope in hell of mounting a successful court case because in my opinion a Court will only act if it can be demonstrated that the regulator has broken the law, not that it is taking too long, etc. etc.
Even if it did find that there was an equity (fairness) issue in play in the processing of regulations, which I doubt, all CASA will do is address the courts findings in the most minimal way possible.
A negative political campaign is the cheapest and quickest way forward.
You do not have to run for Parliament. No one has to run for Parliament. You do not have to wait for the next Federal election. The mere threat of a new player in the election space - a credible aviation lobby group is enough to get the Governments attention right NOW. Fear is what drives them. They will then TELL CASA what is going to happen to it, rather than seeks its always self serving "advice".
All you need to do is open a trust account, put together a list of wants (break up the regulator, NZ/FAA regs, rewrite of the Act. etc) and write one press release stating that the group is going to try to unseat every sitting government member in a marginal seat at the next election unless our wants are addressed.
Then tell us on Pprune where we need to send our donations.
If we can't get that fighting fund up to a million in short order then we deserve the reaming we get from CASA.
Even if it did find that there was an equity (fairness) issue in play in the processing of regulations, which I doubt, all CASA will do is address the courts findings in the most minimal way possible.
A negative political campaign is the cheapest and quickest way forward.
You do not have to run for Parliament. No one has to run for Parliament. You do not have to wait for the next Federal election. The mere threat of a new player in the election space - a credible aviation lobby group is enough to get the Governments attention right NOW. Fear is what drives them. They will then TELL CASA what is going to happen to it, rather than seeks its always self serving "advice".
All you need to do is open a trust account, put together a list of wants (break up the regulator, NZ/FAA regs, rewrite of the Act. etc) and write one press release stating that the group is going to try to unseat every sitting government member in a marginal seat at the next election unless our wants are addressed.
Then tell us on Pprune where we need to send our donations.
If we can't get that fighting fund up to a million in short order then we deserve the reaming we get from CASA.
Thread Starter
Sunfish
I take it all on board, however.
The Civil Aviation Act at 1c requires of CASA that they provide clear and concise aviation Safety standards.
CASA has not achieved that, so surely that alone, with 100% of Industry concurring, would be a strong case that the Act itself has been breached.
Especially when compared with other ICAO organisations that managed to meet the requirements with clear and concise aviation standards.
Surely a Government initiated legislative change that removes 90% of a Businesses income (integrated syllabus) with no demonstrable Safety Case is basis for recompense.
The Civil Aviation Act at 1c requires of CASA that they provide clear and concise aviation Safety standards.
CASA has not achieved that, so surely that alone, with 100% of Industry concurring, would be a strong case that the Act itself has been breached.
Especially when compared with other ICAO organisations that managed to meet the requirements with clear and concise aviation standards.
Surely a Government initiated legislative change that removes 90% of a Businesses income (integrated syllabus) with no demonstrable Safety Case is basis for recompense.
Better way would be to build a solid brick wall, and bang your head against it.
When head hurts continue on!
For all your efforts you not going to achieve anything except fund some lawyers next BMW or Mercedes, give you self a nervous breakdown or drive yourself into an early grave!
When head hurts continue on!
For all your efforts you not going to achieve anything except fund some lawyers next BMW or Mercedes, give you self a nervous breakdown or drive yourself into an early grave!
Thread Starter
Stationair8
I reviewed your post and the only difference between my present experience and the one you suggest is, do I pay CASA or a Lawyer?
At least with the latter I can "go down swinging"
At least with the latter I can "go down swinging"
Don't waste your money on a lawyer.
Being regulated to death by government is not a basis for a cause of action recognised in Anglo-Australian law.
Government agencies making statements about simplicity and red tape reduction and harmonisation and consultations and reform that turn out to be vacuous misrepresentations is not a basis for a cause of action recognised in Anglo-Australian law. Everyone knows they're vacuous misrepresentations, so no reasonable person would rely on them.
A government agency not having the competence and capacity to administer a regulatory system in sufficient time to enable the regulated industry to make confident and timely investment and other decisions is not a basis for a cause of action recognised in Anglo-Australian law.
As you keep getting told - for free - the only remotely possible solution to your problem is political action, not legal action. But given that the majority of participants in the aviation industry will vote for either the Coalition or Labor, notwithstanding what governments of both persuasions have let happen to the industry, you can just BO-HICA.
Being regulated to death by government is not a basis for a cause of action recognised in Anglo-Australian law.
Government agencies making statements about simplicity and red tape reduction and harmonisation and consultations and reform that turn out to be vacuous misrepresentations is not a basis for a cause of action recognised in Anglo-Australian law. Everyone knows they're vacuous misrepresentations, so no reasonable person would rely on them.
A government agency not having the competence and capacity to administer a regulatory system in sufficient time to enable the regulated industry to make confident and timely investment and other decisions is not a basis for a cause of action recognised in Anglo-Australian law.
As you keep getting told - for free - the only remotely possible solution to your problem is political action, not legal action. But given that the majority of participants in the aviation industry will vote for either the Coalition or Labor, notwithstanding what governments of both persuasions have let happen to the industry, you can just BO-HICA.
GlenB,
I have not previously posted on this thread, please do not confuse me with 'm learned friend, Lead Balloon, who has forgotten more about the law than I will ever know, and who is well acquainted with the behavioral pathologies of CASA, both in corporate sense and also the behavior of individuals.
The skyrocketing costs being imposed by CASA are as horrendous as are they unjustified regulations that create the costs, and "you ain't seen nuttin" yet!!
Skidmore simply refuses to acknowledge publicly that cost of regulation is even an issue.
Tootle pip!!
I have not previously posted on this thread, please do not confuse me with 'm learned friend, Lead Balloon, who has forgotten more about the law than I will ever know, and who is well acquainted with the behavioral pathologies of CASA, both in corporate sense and also the behavior of individuals.
The skyrocketing costs being imposed by CASA are as horrendous as are they unjustified regulations that create the costs, and "you ain't seen nuttin" yet!!
Skidmore simply refuses to acknowledge publicly that cost of regulation is even an issue.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards
Glen,
Yours and the industry’s specific problems are nothing new. Ever since the incorporation of CASA as a government business unit (GBE) (for whatever devious reason) it has taken on a life of its own. This enables CASA (among other things) to impose costly requirements arbitrarily on an individual operator without due process as to cost/safety benefit analysis, then to charge the operator for the “service” and also for ongoing compliance audits at rates that can be varied simply by altering the published charges.
A succession of incompetents, with the exception of Bruce Byron, CASA has dictated to both government and industry. My loss of TRUST started with Toller and his handling of the AvGas contamination cover-up. Instead of admitting complicity or at least incompetency, he went on to blame industry. Once the digging started the hole got bigger and bigger, maybe it’s time we filled it in. CASA getting away with such misconduct only encouraged further outrages.
The ASR Review commenced some 24 months ago, received great support from industry and its findings were conclusive; yet a few weeks ago CEO Skidmore in his “Ten Commandments” started off by stating “maintaining trust!” Strange, is it not, how the ASRR had come up with 35 out of 37 comments about “distrust”? He is either oblivious to its meaning or in denial like the rest of the organisation, instead of offering to identify where and why trust was lost. These are the “creatures” who look after the ultimate safety of the flying public? It’s true that Mark only joined the organisation recently, but the review has been around since May 2014 for all to read.
In terms of “CASA can sue and be sued,” that’s true in both cases but no one has yet been able to “plumb” the depths of their bottomless legal money pit. Politicians are just told it is all to do with “safety”.
Considering the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) re Part 61, in regard to a change from circa 100 to 2,929 pages, the reading alone without the necessary time for comprehension would take several weeks; but then CASA has now promised to supply more explanatory paperwork. No need even to start on Parts 141 and 142. The costs of application of new requirements, manuals and staffing although dealt with in the RIS, appear to be regarded as “insignificant” yet will easily run into the tens of thousands for each G.A. business. Why were the changes necessary in the first place? Certainly not “safety” as the leading global “safety” authority!
As far as I am aware one of the prime goals of the regulatory rewrite was to comply more closely with ICAO, reducing the “differences” to appear more compliant. The adaptation of ICAO Annex 1 would have saved a lot of anguish and cost. 130 pages vs 2,929. CASA claims “the changes are relatively minor.” Had they been major, how many pages/volumes would they have produced? This has become a debate of quantity over quality.
Civil Aviation Act 1988 - Sect 9 (1)(c) “developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards:
CASA, by its extension of the compliance time-frame, has now admitted there is nothing “clear” about the regulations. So that leaves the matter of “concise”. A simple comparison with those of other countries will show the meaning of “concise” for legal purposes.
A telephone call to industry leaders will not gain a true picture as many will feel obliged to answer positively for fear of the all too common reprisal action from the regulator. Only a survey in writing from the PM’s office allowing for strict anonymity may elicit an answer.
With its prime focus being on “Parkinson’s law” CASA no longer needs a safety case, its own definition of “safety” being more along the lines of “job security”. There is no actual ministerial oversight of CASA, its immediate superior being the secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) He who is doing such an appalling job in monitoring the “sale” of our G.A. Airports – just look at the YSBK mess and similar situations at other secondary airports.
A punitive component should not be dismissed, but should take the form of restitution of previous regulations or an immediate adaptation of FARs or ICAO annexes in an exercise to which the industry would no doubt be prepared to contribute.
Compensation should be to industry in general and this could take the form of funding on an ongoing basis of an industry representative body along the lines of GAAA established in the 70’s or AusAC 2004; a body to be consulted by CASA on an ongoing basis (not behind closed doors) It would be funded to represent “members” in contentious legal actions taken by CASA contrary to principles proposed by the Director’s “ten commandments.”
I cannot agree with the need to inject further funds. The crisis is of the government’s own making. This whole exercise of change has exposed CASA’s incompetence as an institution and although there have to be some capable people, they are stymied by the “iron ring” which has prevailed over the past decades. That ANZAC spirit apparently only applies “offshore”. Currently the only person with proven industry credentials is the Chairman of the Board, but apparently the Board is deemed to have insufficient authority, so let’s wait and see when the writs start flying.
There’s probably some regulation against that too.
Yours and the industry’s specific problems are nothing new. Ever since the incorporation of CASA as a government business unit (GBE) (for whatever devious reason) it has taken on a life of its own. This enables CASA (among other things) to impose costly requirements arbitrarily on an individual operator without due process as to cost/safety benefit analysis, then to charge the operator for the “service” and also for ongoing compliance audits at rates that can be varied simply by altering the published charges.
A succession of incompetents, with the exception of Bruce Byron, CASA has dictated to both government and industry. My loss of TRUST started with Toller and his handling of the AvGas contamination cover-up. Instead of admitting complicity or at least incompetency, he went on to blame industry. Once the digging started the hole got bigger and bigger, maybe it’s time we filled it in. CASA getting away with such misconduct only encouraged further outrages.
The ASR Review commenced some 24 months ago, received great support from industry and its findings were conclusive; yet a few weeks ago CEO Skidmore in his “Ten Commandments” started off by stating “maintaining trust!” Strange, is it not, how the ASRR had come up with 35 out of 37 comments about “distrust”? He is either oblivious to its meaning or in denial like the rest of the organisation, instead of offering to identify where and why trust was lost. These are the “creatures” who look after the ultimate safety of the flying public? It’s true that Mark only joined the organisation recently, but the review has been around since May 2014 for all to read.
In terms of “CASA can sue and be sued,” that’s true in both cases but no one has yet been able to “plumb” the depths of their bottomless legal money pit. Politicians are just told it is all to do with “safety”.
Considering the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) re Part 61, in regard to a change from circa 100 to 2,929 pages, the reading alone without the necessary time for comprehension would take several weeks; but then CASA has now promised to supply more explanatory paperwork. No need even to start on Parts 141 and 142. The costs of application of new requirements, manuals and staffing although dealt with in the RIS, appear to be regarded as “insignificant” yet will easily run into the tens of thousands for each G.A. business. Why were the changes necessary in the first place? Certainly not “safety” as the leading global “safety” authority!
As far as I am aware one of the prime goals of the regulatory rewrite was to comply more closely with ICAO, reducing the “differences” to appear more compliant. The adaptation of ICAO Annex 1 would have saved a lot of anguish and cost. 130 pages vs 2,929. CASA claims “the changes are relatively minor.” Had they been major, how many pages/volumes would they have produced? This has become a debate of quantity over quality.
Civil Aviation Act 1988 - Sect 9 (1)(c) “developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards:
CASA, by its extension of the compliance time-frame, has now admitted there is nothing “clear” about the regulations. So that leaves the matter of “concise”. A simple comparison with those of other countries will show the meaning of “concise” for legal purposes.
A telephone call to industry leaders will not gain a true picture as many will feel obliged to answer positively for fear of the all too common reprisal action from the regulator. Only a survey in writing from the PM’s office allowing for strict anonymity may elicit an answer.
With its prime focus being on “Parkinson’s law” CASA no longer needs a safety case, its own definition of “safety” being more along the lines of “job security”. There is no actual ministerial oversight of CASA, its immediate superior being the secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) He who is doing such an appalling job in monitoring the “sale” of our G.A. Airports – just look at the YSBK mess and similar situations at other secondary airports.
A punitive component should not be dismissed, but should take the form of restitution of previous regulations or an immediate adaptation of FARs or ICAO annexes in an exercise to which the industry would no doubt be prepared to contribute.
Compensation should be to industry in general and this could take the form of funding on an ongoing basis of an industry representative body along the lines of GAAA established in the 70’s or AusAC 2004; a body to be consulted by CASA on an ongoing basis (not behind closed doors) It would be funded to represent “members” in contentious legal actions taken by CASA contrary to principles proposed by the Director’s “ten commandments.”
I cannot agree with the need to inject further funds. The crisis is of the government’s own making. This whole exercise of change has exposed CASA’s incompetence as an institution and although there have to be some capable people, they are stymied by the “iron ring” which has prevailed over the past decades. That ANZAC spirit apparently only applies “offshore”. Currently the only person with proven industry credentials is the Chairman of the Board, but apparently the Board is deemed to have insufficient authority, so let’s wait and see when the writs start flying.
There’s probably some regulation against that too.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under Class C
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
westboundflyer
^^ I call dead**** ^^
^^ I call dead**** ^^
Isn't it amazing how everyone loves to whinge about the state of affairs, but the moment someone steps up, they get shot down. There have been some helpful posts on here, but some absolute w@nkers too.
Thread Starter
Westbound Flyer
No idea who you are Westbound Flyer, quite likely a half decent person. Anyway. If you call "Bull****" you have to be prepared to "step up to the plate"
Here's an offer. PM me your details. I will fly you to my Business, from anywhere in Australia. Spend a day in my Company. Engage my staff and my students. I will have all 10 years of Profit and Loss Statements for you to view. Ill show what we have achieved in 10 years, and what projects are on the backburner. I will endeavour to have my accountant there and he will explain our "approach" to running a Flying School in Australia.Then jump back on here and either confirm or retract your previous statement.
Its a very genuine offer. I genuinely hope you can step up to the plate.
Here's an offer. PM me your details. I will fly you to my Business, from anywhere in Australia. Spend a day in my Company. Engage my staff and my students. I will have all 10 years of Profit and Loss Statements for you to view. Ill show what we have achieved in 10 years, and what projects are on the backburner. I will endeavour to have my accountant there and he will explain our "approach" to running a Flying School in Australia.Then jump back on here and either confirm or retract your previous statement.
Its a very genuine offer. I genuinely hope you can step up to the plate.
GlenB, if you attempt to sue CASA, all you will do is trigger a CASA audit a few months after your lawsuit is dismissed.
That audit, will find numerous non compliances, after which CASA will deem you not to be a "fit and proper person" to be associated with Aviation in any form*. Your business will then bleed to death while you try to legally challenge CASAs ruling as has happened to many others.
Either start a political campaign as I have suggested or follow Dick Smiths suggestion and get out while you can.
Everything else, from tinkering around the edges, to negotiation and sweet reason, to the Administrative appeals tribunal, to the courts, to a full blown Senate review has been tried and has failed.
CASA is a parasite on the Aviation body. Your business or CASA - only one of you can survive.
* CASA willl deliver its verdict to you on Christmas Eve or the Thursday before Good Friday to maximise your pain by preventing an immediate injunctive response.
That audit, will find numerous non compliances, after which CASA will deem you not to be a "fit and proper person" to be associated with Aviation in any form*. Your business will then bleed to death while you try to legally challenge CASAs ruling as has happened to many others.
Either start a political campaign as I have suggested or follow Dick Smiths suggestion and get out while you can.
Everything else, from tinkering around the edges, to negotiation and sweet reason, to the Administrative appeals tribunal, to the courts, to a full blown Senate review has been tried and has failed.
CASA is a parasite on the Aviation body. Your business or CASA - only one of you can survive.
* CASA willl deliver its verdict to you on Christmas Eve or the Thursday before Good Friday to maximise your pain by preventing an immediate injunctive response.
How many GA businesses charter to politicians, government and government-funded enterprises?
If you want legal civil disobedience, you could all get together and refuse to do business with the above and explain why you refuse.
If such a proposal destroys your collective business model, then perhaps you should re-read that pact with the devil...
If you want legal civil disobedience, you could all get together and refuse to do business with the above and explain why you refuse.
If such a proposal destroys your collective business model, then perhaps you should re-read that pact with the devil...
Good on you glen for giving it a go. There is plenty of negativity being thrown your way but I can only encourage you to have a crack at trying to change things.
Its interesting that those advocating civil disobedience and the establishment of negative political campaigns are not actually putting their hands up to say they will organise and do those things.
Its interesting that those advocating civil disobedience and the establishment of negative political campaigns are not actually putting their hands up to say they will organise and do those things.
Reference my comment re class action, I believe these companies will take it on on a "no win no fee" basis.
I seem to recollect something like that happening in Aust. in just the past few months?