View Poll Results: Have CASA achieved clear and concise aviation safety standards as per the Act?
Yes, they have
21
2.15%
No, they have not
893
91.22%
Don't know/undecided
5
0.51%
Should Australia adopt the New Zealand Regs?
60
6.13%
Voters: 979. This poll is closed
A Quick "poll" if you have a moment. Much appreciated
I no longer give a f#c$ about the new CASA regs. I have been flying over 30 years and the aircraft flies the same now as then. Teaching someone how to fly is the same. So I simply get on with the job the same as always and ignore most of the bull$hit.Tick the boxes on the new crap forms but do the job as before.
I have never known an industry to be so meticulous about regulating alcohol intake, whilst at the same time, being the cause of alcohol intake.
Clear and concise? I don't think so.
An acquaintance, who works for our Cherubs Against Sensible Aviation, has just purchased a share in a single engine piston......and is now learning first hand the delights of the regulations for maintenance. He is PPL, so won't learn the true joy of trying to run a (profitable) aviation business under the cumbersome weight of red tape.
Clear and concise? I don't think so.
An acquaintance, who works for our Cherubs Against Sensible Aviation, has just purchased a share in a single engine piston......and is now learning first hand the delights of the regulations for maintenance. He is PPL, so won't learn the true joy of trying to run a (profitable) aviation business under the cumbersome weight of red tape.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excerpts from Australian flying magazine:
The Federal Government released their manifesto Planning for Australia's Future Population last week, a large part of which is effectively a policy of investing in the regions to restrict the relentless march of capital-city suburbia. It talks about new roads, new rail infrastructure and jobs growth among many things. Out of curiosity, I searched the document using the term "aviation" and got NO RESULTS FOUND. Searching again under "airports" found reference to Western Sydney, a rail connection to Tullamarine, and Hobart Airport. That's it. Our industry and community gets no other mention in this tome, which can be taken squarely as a pitch for votes in the May election. Such scant mention of aviation in a policy that boasts about "better connecting regional Australia" tells the aviation community exactly where we stand: nowhere. Despite the rhetoric of successive ministers it is clear the government believes aviation plays no part in the future of Australia other than as gateways to and from the capital cities. How can a serious government honestly believe it can connect regional cities by ignoring the most efficient way of doing it? It is a depressing norm that aviation always gets the rhetoric, but not the action. This time we've even been excluded from the rhetoric, an effect of not representing enough votes to make politicians sweat at night.
Perhaps the goverment would have done well to consider Ken Cannane's position on jobs in the regions. The head of AMROBA last week outlined how he believes regulation is stifling the industry's potential to generate jobs. His plan is allow small operators in flight training and maintenance to function without having to abide by the heavy regulations that load so much cost onto businesses without returning even a reasonable increase in safety. According to Cannane, the industry decline co-incides with the death of the Department of Aviation and the rise of the Civil Aviation Authority and the CARs in 1988. The CAA became CASA in 1996, which it does appear only exacerbated the problem. In short, not all the functions and responsibilities of the DoA were picked up by either CASA or Airservices Australia. One of these was simply looking after an industry that reported employs 200,000 people in this country. Cannane is a firm believer in the concept of independent flying instructors and LAMEs as a way of taking general aviation back to the regional airports and therefore catalysing the process that turns small into medium and results in the very jobs the government says it wants to generate.
The Federal Government released their manifesto Planning for Australia's Future Population last week, a large part of which is effectively a policy of investing in the regions to restrict the relentless march of capital-city suburbia. It talks about new roads, new rail infrastructure and jobs growth among many things. Out of curiosity, I searched the document using the term "aviation" and got NO RESULTS FOUND. Searching again under "airports" found reference to Western Sydney, a rail connection to Tullamarine, and Hobart Airport. That's it. Our industry and community gets no other mention in this tome, which can be taken squarely as a pitch for votes in the May election. Such scant mention of aviation in a policy that boasts about "better connecting regional Australia" tells the aviation community exactly where we stand: nowhere. Despite the rhetoric of successive ministers it is clear the government believes aviation plays no part in the future of Australia other than as gateways to and from the capital cities. How can a serious government honestly believe it can connect regional cities by ignoring the most efficient way of doing it? It is a depressing norm that aviation always gets the rhetoric, but not the action. This time we've even been excluded from the rhetoric, an effect of not representing enough votes to make politicians sweat at night.
Quote:"..the industry decline co-incides with the death of the Department of Aviation.."
Perhaps the goverment would have done well to consider Ken Cannane's position on jobs in the regions. The head of AMROBA last week outlined how he believes regulation is stifling the industry's potential to generate jobs. His plan is allow small operators in flight training and maintenance to function without having to abide by the heavy regulations that load so much cost onto businesses without returning even a reasonable increase in safety. According to Cannane, the industry decline co-incides with the death of the Department of Aviation and the rise of the Civil Aviation Authority and the CARs in 1988. The CAA became CASA in 1996, which it does appear only exacerbated the problem. In short, not all the functions and responsibilities of the DoA were picked up by either CASA or Airservices Australia. One of these was simply looking after an industry that reported employs 200,000 people in this country. Cannane is a firm believer in the concept of independent flying instructors and LAMEs as a way of taking general aviation back to the regional airports and therefore catalysing the process that turns small into medium and results in the very jobs the government says it wants to generate.
This is one of the key points I made in my submission to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review:
This is one of the comments I made in my submission to the ‘Discussion Paper’ on AVMED:
On any objective analysis, the answer is an emphatic ‘no’.
The regulatory reform program has failed and, in its current structure, is beyond repair
In the unlikely event that the ‘new’ package of aviation safety rules is implemented (not merely “completed”) sometime, the package will still be a complicated, convoluted mish-mash which fails to achieve the aims of the reforms.
Despite 155 pages of regulations growing to 2,827 pages (so far) there is almost no practical consequence for the way aircraft are operated and maintained today compared with when the regulatory reform program commenced.
The volume and complexity of the rules, combined with the symbiotic nature of the regulatory regime, results in unnecessarily high risks of inconsistent interpretations of the rules as between individual staff of the regulator, and unnecessarily disruptive (and, in some cases, destructive) consequences for industry participants.
In the unlikely event that the ‘new’ package of aviation safety rules is implemented (not merely “completed”) sometime, the package will still be a complicated, convoluted mish-mash which fails to achieve the aims of the reforms.
Despite 155 pages of regulations growing to 2,827 pages (so far) there is almost no practical consequence for the way aircraft are operated and maintained today compared with when the regulatory reform program commenced.
The volume and complexity of the rules, combined with the symbiotic nature of the regulatory regime, results in unnecessarily high risks of inconsistent interpretations of the rules as between individual staff of the regulator, and unnecessarily disruptive (and, in some cases, destructive) consequences for industry participants.
I gave up reading the ever-growing pile of civil aviation laws in about the year 2000, when it became obvious to me that almost none of it made any practical operational difference compared with the rule set in force when I attained my pilot licence. I have subsequently successfully completed seven Flight Reviews, therefore demonstrating either that my judgment of the safety-relevance of the current regulatory mish-mash was correct or that the various Approved Testing Officers who conducted the reviews are as ‘dangerous’ as I am.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA takes two tragic incidents during private community service flights and extrapolates that to make conclusions about the safety of CSFs generally.
Lies, damned lies and statistics...
Lies, damned lies and statistics...
Thread Starter
Piston Broke, if I get 30,000 replies I would be ecstatic, and I will get the kids to run the percentages. If 30,000 pilots voted one way and all 900 CASA staff voted the other way. That would be 97% against 3%, if my maths is right. By the way, I reckon that about 850 of the CASA staff would be as fed up with it as much as we are, they have to work with the same rubbish as we do!!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viva le revolution...
Folks,
I am staggered that there are (at 23.44 on 26/03) eleven people who voted YES??
Who are they ---- lawyers??
Or trolls??
Or smoking No.1 Good S---t.
There has to be some reason for such deviant behaviour.
Tootle pip!!
I am staggered that there are (at 23.44 on 26/03) eleven people who voted YES??
Who are they ---- lawyers??
Or trolls??
Or smoking No.1 Good S---t.
There has to be some reason for such deviant behaviour.
Tootle pip!!
Several years ago I was involved in writing a Part 142 Expositon for a medium sized flying school. There was much back and forth with the CASA FOI as I tried to meet each of the 450 tick box items he had to sign off before we gained approval.
When one piece of feedback came back to me stating that nowhere in the document had I mentioned that the Flying School’s facilities had ‘climate control’ I knew there was something grossly wrong with the system. The cost of that Part 142 Exposition (in addition to a Training Managanent System and Staff Training and Checking Manual that had to be written as well) I estimate would be somewhere in the vicinity of $50-75k. And that manual did nothing to improve safety - all it did was explain the procedures the flying school currently operated under. And I fear all it will have done is create additional burden every time the school has an audit.
A fun fact - the new manuals totalled about 30,000 words. That equates to about 1500 words for every aircraft the school had....for no discernible increase in safety 🙄
When one piece of feedback came back to me stating that nowhere in the document had I mentioned that the Flying School’s facilities had ‘climate control’ I knew there was something grossly wrong with the system. The cost of that Part 142 Exposition (in addition to a Training Managanent System and Staff Training and Checking Manual that had to be written as well) I estimate would be somewhere in the vicinity of $50-75k. And that manual did nothing to improve safety - all it did was explain the procedures the flying school currently operated under. And I fear all it will have done is create additional burden every time the school has an audit.
A fun fact - the new manuals totalled about 30,000 words. That equates to about 1500 words for every aircraft the school had....for no discernible increase in safety 🙄
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hawk_eye,
your post goes a long way to explaining why those little aero clubs
that used to be scattered around the "kickatinalong" towns who
perhaps, if they were lucky, trained a dozen pilots a year, are no
longer there.
I occasionally watch the odd Tube videos of pilots out and about
their country sides of their countries, having fun with their flying machines
doing all sorts of fun things that would simply not be allowed here, or be
made so expensive nobody would bother.
I believe that's a part of why the industry is so much in decline, the
regulator has taken the fun out of it.
your post goes a long way to explaining why those little aero clubs
that used to be scattered around the "kickatinalong" towns who
perhaps, if they were lucky, trained a dozen pilots a year, are no
longer there.
I occasionally watch the odd Tube videos of pilots out and about
their country sides of their countries, having fun with their flying machines
doing all sorts of fun things that would simply not be allowed here, or be
made so expensive nobody would bother.
I believe that's a part of why the industry is so much in decline, the
regulator has taken the fun out of it.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piston Broke, if I get 30,000 replies I would be ecstatic, and I will get the kids to run the percentages. If 30,000 pilots voted one way and all 900 CASA staff voted the other way. That would be 97% against 3%, if my maths is right. By the way, I reckon that about 850 of the CASA staff would be as fed up with it as much as we are, they have to work with the same rubbish as we do!!!
You clearly won't get anywhere near 30,000 responses because only a small percentage of pilots and other licensed parties would be PPRuNe members.
As it is, the topic has had over 3000 views but only 152 have taken the poll. That in itself says something i.e. perhaps only those who have had issues or have an axe to grind have voted. Maybe you should have had a third option "Don't know or undecided" to cater for all those (I suspect the vast majority) who have had little or no involvement interpreting the regs..
The current 152 responses is only 0.5% of the 30,000, so you can hardly say that is a representative sample, and trying to extrapolate that to CASA employees is another matter.
FWIW a friend who works in the federal area of transport and security has said if you think the CASA regs are difficult to interpret, have a look at the various Acts and Regulations related to aviation and maritime transport and facilities security.
Last edited by Piston_Broke; 26th Mar 2019 at 23:35.
So the 2848 people who did not vote are the majority scared silly by CASA goons? Can't really blame them but as a Pilot group we all need to stand up to these idiots in Fort Fumble and just say no, NO, NO WAY IN HELL, F#CK NO!!!
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,967
Received 93 Likes
on
54 Posts
I am staggered that there are (at 23.44 on 26/03) eleven people who voted YES??
Who are they ---- lawyers??
Or trolls??
Or smoking No.1 Good S---t.
There has to be some reason for such deviant behaviour.
Who are they ---- lawyers??
Or trolls??
Or smoking No.1 Good S---t.
There has to be some reason for such deviant behaviour.
As of now, 1614 CSuT on 27/3 there are sixteen who voted YES.
Re your question as to who they are, may I venture the opinion that they could possibly be CASA Lawyers smoking No.1 Good S--t.
That is the only reason I can think of anyway!
NO writ large.
Only people like Carmody, Smart Aleck, P Gobsome, A Anustasi and few other criminal employees, who have had their arses covered by CAsA would posit that the Rotten Regulator is doing a good job.
Well, they think they are....while 'busy' faarking an industry with an ever continuing avalanche of strict liability criminal BS. And they even go beyond their legit safety remit, with regulations about commerce
IMHO Cretins Against Sensible Aviation are a national disgrace.
As others have said , just ignore all the crap as best you can and get on with it.
Its no safer now than it was 40 years ago, in spite of a fright train load of regulations and paperwork.
Jobs and Growth...yeah. THEIRS
Way passed the time for CAsA to be told to Foxtrot Oscar.
Oh for some political testicular fortitude, someone,? somewhere?....anyone ???
Keep banging that Judicial Inquiry drum.!
Only people like Carmody, Smart Aleck, P Gobsome, A Anustasi and few other criminal employees, who have had their arses covered by CAsA would posit that the Rotten Regulator is doing a good job.
Well, they think they are....while 'busy' faarking an industry with an ever continuing avalanche of strict liability criminal BS. And they even go beyond their legit safety remit, with regulations about commerce
IMHO Cretins Against Sensible Aviation are a national disgrace.
As others have said , just ignore all the crap as best you can and get on with it.
Its no safer now than it was 40 years ago, in spite of a fright train load of regulations and paperwork.
Jobs and Growth...yeah. THEIRS
Way passed the time for CAsA to be told to Foxtrot Oscar.
Oh for some political testicular fortitude, someone,? somewhere?....anyone ???
Keep banging that Judicial Inquiry drum.!