CASA investigators
Just to give you an idea, I had the owner of one of the aircraft I have on line get himself into a pickle on a private flight a few years back.
A couple of days later I had a No Caller ID phone call demanding details and I told them I didn't have details and they would need to speak to the Pilot in Command. He carried on asking questions and I said that as I had no idea who was on the line (could have been our friend Geoffrey T!) and no details of the incident other than it had already been decided by ATSB that there was no airworthiness issue, he became very angry insisting that I give him information, so I hung up. As you do.
.
Next thing I know I have a letter from CASA airworthiness saying that as I was refusing to take responsibility for something one of my line pilots did he was going to come and conduct an audit of my operations with it made pretty clear that he had already decided I was not a fit and proper person to be a Chief Pilot and that the AOC should be revoked.
Just one problem there. I am not a Chief Pilot, I do not have an AOC and haven't had one since Part 61 came in; I do not have line pilots, and he had no authority, being from Airworthiness, to conduct any audits into a Part 141 operation. He got even more angry especially when I pointed out there is a difference between an Air Operators Certificate and a Registered Operator of an aircraft, he was unaware of the difference and insisted that being a Registered Operator meant that I was conducting Charter operations and had line pilots (never have, never will).
Luckily his boss is one of the good guys who I had worked with before he went to the dark side and he put this idiot back in his box very quickly and even recommended I file a formal complaint (I didn't see the point and just requested that this person never be allowed to contact me again), but it shows you just how incredibly incompetent they are and how they attempt to intimidate you. They really can't take it when you stand up to them, even when they are telling blatent and easily provable lies.
A couple of days later I had a No Caller ID phone call demanding details and I told them I didn't have details and they would need to speak to the Pilot in Command. He carried on asking questions and I said that as I had no idea who was on the line (could have been our friend Geoffrey T!) and no details of the incident other than it had already been decided by ATSB that there was no airworthiness issue, he became very angry insisting that I give him information, so I hung up. As you do.
.
Next thing I know I have a letter from CASA airworthiness saying that as I was refusing to take responsibility for something one of my line pilots did he was going to come and conduct an audit of my operations with it made pretty clear that he had already decided I was not a fit and proper person to be a Chief Pilot and that the AOC should be revoked.
Just one problem there. I am not a Chief Pilot, I do not have an AOC and haven't had one since Part 61 came in; I do not have line pilots, and he had no authority, being from Airworthiness, to conduct any audits into a Part 141 operation. He got even more angry especially when I pointed out there is a difference between an Air Operators Certificate and a Registered Operator of an aircraft, he was unaware of the difference and insisted that being a Registered Operator meant that I was conducting Charter operations and had line pilots (never have, never will).
Luckily his boss is one of the good guys who I had worked with before he went to the dark side and he put this idiot back in his box very quickly and even recommended I file a formal complaint (I didn't see the point and just requested that this person never be allowed to contact me again), but it shows you just how incredibly incompetent they are and how they attempt to intimidate you. They really can't take it when you stand up to them, even when they are telling blatent and easily provable lies.
"Idiot" is one description, Clare. "Corruptly incompetent" is the description I'd use.
CASA should have in place governance processes that prevent conversations and correspondence like that starting and going anywhere. The letter sent to you was evidently not the subject of sufficient - or any - review and clearance by anyone with any understanding of the regulatory regime. Sadly, I see lots of CASA correspondence citing provisions which the inept author evidently hasn't read or understood, because the provisions cited don't actually support the crap asserted by the author.
Insufficient corporate competence and insufficient corporate integrity.
CASA should have in place governance processes that prevent conversations and correspondence like that starting and going anywhere. The letter sent to you was evidently not the subject of sufficient - or any - review and clearance by anyone with any understanding of the regulatory regime. Sadly, I see lots of CASA correspondence citing provisions which the inept author evidently hasn't read or understood, because the provisions cited don't actually support the crap asserted by the author.
Insufficient corporate competence and insufficient corporate integrity.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Apart from the problem of their characteristics, ie bullies, etc they have the power and the taxpayers deep pockets to protect their idiotic and criminal behaviours and the perpetrators.
Since corporatisation CAsA has gone to the dogs and dragged GA down with it.
Its a national disgrace allowed by Governments of all persuasions, but who cares.
The odd Senator perhaps but it’s like shouting at the moon. No response.
What GA there is, is in spite of CAsA, not because of it.
Since corporatisation CAsA has gone to the dogs and dragged GA down with it.
Its a national disgrace allowed by Governments of all persuasions, but who cares.
The odd Senator perhaps but it’s like shouting at the moon. No response.
What GA there is, is in spite of CAsA, not because of it.
Clinton McKenzie I guess this article from Australian Flying a few years ago could be an example of "Corruptly incompetent" and "Insufficient corporate competence and insufficient corporate integrity"?
Names in this thread featured in that "corporate competence and insufficient corporate integrity".
18 February 1999:
An AAT-directed teleconference is scheduled for 1700, between Uzu counsel, the AAT registrar, and CASA's office of legal counsel, to determine the process of an AAT hearing on the second suspension, and to enable Uzu's counsel to advise CASA of the witnesses Uzu required to examine. Uzu counsel and the AAT were connected. CASA's phone rings out without answering.
19 February 1999:
CASA Office of Legal Counsel telephones Uzu to advise they had confused the day, thinking the teleconference was set for the following day. Uzu's lawyers indicate that there was no utility in having a telephone conference for a hearing in relation to the first suspension (which is what the telephone conference on 18 February was intended to do) because a second suspension had been issued. Uzu's lawyers indicated that Uzu would now be applying to the AAT for a stay of the second suspension for hearing in the following week.
On the same day Uzu Air provides CASA with a detailed 50-page response to the further 28 day suspension of its AOC, detailing the foregoing events and again raising the question of RPT versus charter.
24 February 1999:
UZU's lawyers request the AAT issue three subpoenas to involved CASA staff members to attend the hearing the following day. AAT declines due to inadequate time.
25 February 1999:
At a cost of about $10,000, Uzu attend AAT Sydney at 0915. At 0930, AAT Vice President's associates advise that CASA will not be attending, due to commitments in Brisbane, but CASA will not object to a telephone hearing. (CASA claims it had earlier advised Uzu and the AAT it would be unable to attend but would not object to a telephone hearing.)
However CASA's counsel objects to any evidence being tendered or any witnesses being called, "on the basis that it is inappropriate for oral evidence to be given at a stay hearing.” Deputy President Chappell rules that oral evidence was not appropriate for that reason.UZU which has now not earned any revenue for 36 days, is therefore again denied an opportunity to confront its accusers, some of whom are on "stress leave", a luxury unavailable to Uzu's general manager or his staff, some of whom have been stood down. CASA however successfully objects to the lifting of the suspension on the grounds of "Air Safety," relying on Section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act.
19 February 1999:
CASA Office of Legal Counsel telephones Uzu to advise they had confused the day, thinking the teleconference was set for the following day. Uzu's lawyers indicate that there was no utility in having a telephone conference for a hearing in relation to the first suspension (which is what the telephone conference on 18 February was intended to do) because a second suspension had been issued. Uzu's lawyers indicated that Uzu would now be applying to the AAT for a stay of the second suspension for hearing in the following week.
On the same day Uzu Air provides CASA with a detailed 50-page response to the further 28 day suspension of its AOC, detailing the foregoing events and again raising the question of RPT versus charter.
24 February 1999:
UZU's lawyers request the AAT issue three subpoenas to involved CASA staff members to attend the hearing the following day. AAT declines due to inadequate time.
25 February 1999:
At a cost of about $10,000, Uzu attend AAT Sydney at 0915. At 0930, AAT Vice President's associates advise that CASA will not be attending, due to commitments in Brisbane, but CASA will not object to a telephone hearing. (CASA claims it had earlier advised Uzu and the AAT it would be unable to attend but would not object to a telephone hearing.)
However CASA's counsel objects to any evidence being tendered or any witnesses being called, "on the basis that it is inappropriate for oral evidence to be given at a stay hearing.” Deputy President Chappell rules that oral evidence was not appropriate for that reason.UZU which has now not earned any revenue for 36 days, is therefore again denied an opportunity to confront its accusers, some of whom are on "stress leave", a luxury unavailable to Uzu's general manager or his staff, some of whom have been stood down. CASA however successfully objects to the lifting of the suspension on the grounds of "Air Safety," relying on Section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act.
Then I'd urge you to write to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, if you consider there was any corruption involved. The NACC is accepting complaints in relation to events prior to its creation.
If you consider there was any incompetence or corruption on my part: I'm happy for you to tell all, here.
For my part, I reckon the failure to fix the classification of operations mess, despite the "urgent" recommendation of Commissioner Staunton, was corporate incompetence but, in fairness to CASA, it should never have had (and shouldn't now have) the job of making those rules because that job is ultimately a political one. I wasn't in the Standards Division at the time of Uzu, so wasn't responsible for writing classification of operations rules. Nor was I in OLC at the time, so wasn't responsible for running the AAT matter.
And you'll correct me if I'm wrong: Didn't Uzu kill a plane load of passengers on Coconut Island and wasn't Uzu subsequently found, by the AAT, to have been conducting RPT without an RPT AOC? The classification of operations mess was a mess, but a mess that someone was still responsible for enforcing.
If you consider there was any incompetence or corruption on my part: I'm happy for you to tell all, here.
For my part, I reckon the failure to fix the classification of operations mess, despite the "urgent" recommendation of Commissioner Staunton, was corporate incompetence but, in fairness to CASA, it should never have had (and shouldn't now have) the job of making those rules because that job is ultimately a political one. I wasn't in the Standards Division at the time of Uzu, so wasn't responsible for writing classification of operations rules. Nor was I in OLC at the time, so wasn't responsible for running the AAT matter.
And you'll correct me if I'm wrong: Didn't Uzu kill a plane load of passengers on Coconut Island and wasn't Uzu subsequently found, by the AAT, to have been conducting RPT without an RPT AOC? The classification of operations mess was a mess, but a mess that someone was still responsible for enforcing.
The following users liked this post:
Another from the same region with a seriously bad reputation,(We were maintaining the night freight MU2 fleet at the time ,so we were absolutely in the crosshairs) However the same attitudes are not to be found in all regions. In my time is Tasmania the co operation from the VicTas region (Airworthiness)could not have been any more helpfull
Clinton McKenzie I'm really not interested in writing to anyone nor did I suggest you were in any way responsible.
I was merely quoting an example from Australian Flying to reinforce your comment regarding "Corruptly incompetent", an apt description of the Regulator, past, present and probably well into the future.
Not that I recall - I don't think CASA, in its arrogance, ever turned up at the AAT often enough for the AAT to make any findings against the operator?? To the contrary, the Australian Flying article notes:
I don't believe I ever saw any competent, credible interpretation of CAR 206, other than the various interpretations made by CASA Office of Legal Council. Certainly other senior CASA staff and highly qualified legal minds did not concur with the various CASA OLC interpretations. Indeed, the CASA Darwin office issued an air charter AOC to conduct single piston engine RPT services to remote air strips in the Northern Territory. Had CASA been a competent, professional regulator it would have recognised the essential need in Australia for remote, rural scheduled air services (previously Reg 203 services) and provided the regulatory framework for their operation. It took the Uzu matter to subsequently force CASA to create the Remote Area RPT AOC, which was later awarded to Uzu.
Previously, on 31 May 1987 the CAA/CASA Regional Manager in Brisbane issued me an Air Charter AOC to conduct scheduled passenger services from Brisbane and Townsville, in turbine, pressurised aircraft, over major Queensland regional air routes, services which were subsidised by Government, advertised and available publically via a major airline reservations system.
Whilst CASA, in its crass, vindictive incompetence from 3,000 kilometers away, made a decision the Islander accident was caused by corrosion in a mixture control rod, BASI strongly objected to that CASA interpretation, finding the mixture control rod was broken by impact forces. Months later the Coroner determined the accident was the result of the AQIS Land Cruiser utility driving across the strip immediately in front of the landing aircraft, causing the aircraft to stall.
It is all water under the bridge now. My only sadness is that CASA's vindictive incompetence resulted in many good staff being out of work and in two cases, the end of very promising careers.
I was merely quoting an example from Australian Flying to reinforce your comment regarding "Corruptly incompetent", an apt description of the Regulator, past, present and probably well into the future.
And you'll correct me if I'm wrong: Didn't Uzu kill a plane load of passengers on Coconut Island and wasn't Uzu subsequently found, by the AAT, to have been conducting RPT without an RPT AOC? The classification of operations mess was a mess, but a mess that someone was still responsible for enforcing.
24 March 1999: In a pre-hearing teleconference between Uzu, CASA and the AAT, the Tribunal indicated that it expects CASA to restore the AOC by close of business on March 26, provided the three CASA conditions are met (which Uzu insists they already are).
In anticipation of a full AAT hearing the following week, Uzu has already applied for summonses requiring CASA personnel to be present at the hearing. This means they will almost certainly be called upon to give evidence and to face cross examination.
26 March 1999: The AAT official indicates that she will be in her office for a further half hour after close of business, and if the AOC is not restored by that time she will arrange for a "substantive" hearing on Monday 29 March.
Late on Friday afternoon CASA blinks. In a faxed message Uzu is advised its charter AOC is restored "subject to the company implementing Class A maintenance" and check and training - a unique requirement, but at least the company is back in business.
In anticipation of a full AAT hearing the following week, Uzu has already applied for summonses requiring CASA personnel to be present at the hearing. This means they will almost certainly be called upon to give evidence and to face cross examination.
26 March 1999: The AAT official indicates that she will be in her office for a further half hour after close of business, and if the AOC is not restored by that time she will arrange for a "substantive" hearing on Monday 29 March.
Late on Friday afternoon CASA blinks. In a faxed message Uzu is advised its charter AOC is restored "subject to the company implementing Class A maintenance" and check and training - a unique requirement, but at least the company is back in business.
Previously, on 31 May 1987 the CAA/CASA Regional Manager in Brisbane issued me an Air Charter AOC to conduct scheduled passenger services from Brisbane and Townsville, in turbine, pressurised aircraft, over major Queensland regional air routes, services which were subsidised by Government, advertised and available publically via a major airline reservations system.
Whilst CASA, in its crass, vindictive incompetence from 3,000 kilometers away, made a decision the Islander accident was caused by corrosion in a mixture control rod, BASI strongly objected to that CASA interpretation, finding the mixture control rod was broken by impact forces. Months later the Coroner determined the accident was the result of the AQIS Land Cruiser utility driving across the strip immediately in front of the landing aircraft, causing the aircraft to stall.
It is all water under the bridge now. My only sadness is that CASA's vindictive incompetence resulted in many good staff being out of work and in two cases, the end of very promising careers.
Last edited by Torres; 26th Sep 2023 at 22:40.
Colonel Klink aka Clinch. Gawd what apiece of ‘orrible work he was. Bully, consummate liar, nasty.
But that’s CAsA for ya and the standard of trough dwellers they employ.
But that’s CAsA for ya and the standard of trough dwellers they employ.
He was amongst some an excess of like company.
Conversely, there were some really good, practical guys in DCA/CAA/CASA. Unfortunately much of their good work was undone by the excess of those very aptly described above as "Corruptly incompetent".
Conversely, there were some really good, practical guys in DCA/CAA/CASA. Unfortunately much of their good work was undone by the excess of those very aptly described above as "Corruptly incompetent".
The following users liked this post:
My apologies, Torres. The AAT matter I was thinking of was the Coral Sea Airlines decision. I think it was that decision that resulted in the invention of CHARPTER as yet another classification of operations, so that all the RPT being conducted in the Torres Strait under Charter AOCs could lawfully continue. A dog's breakfast.
I don't understand how a competently conducted baulked landing causes a stall, but as you say: It's all water under the bridge (and very sad).
I don't understand how a competently conducted baulked landing causes a stall, but as you say: It's all water under the bridge (and very sad).
The following users liked this post:
Clinton McKenzie When a white Toyota Landcruiser fills an Islander windscreen at estimated 10 to 20 meters in front of the landing aircraft, the pilot's natural reaction is to immediately pull up. That immediately induced a stall and the aircraft went into the beach nose first. The alternate option of hitting the Landcruiser may have saved the three that died in the aircraft (two in the back survived) however the AQIS officer may not have survived. I guess it is easy to think of operational alternates in retrospect. The young woman pilot who lost her life was competent, capable, a very dedicated aviator with 2,700 hours, a Grade 1 instructor and excellent employee and a friend. I could never fault the performance and professionalism of the Uzu pilots operating in the Torres Strait. And neither could two excellent CASA FOI's from Brisbane that were sent up especially to carry out a surveillance of the Uzu operation.
CASA attempting to kill off Australian remote and rural scheduled air services and mail services (over 100 remote airports around Australia were serviced by RASS or Australia Post subsidised mail, freight and passenger air services) will always remain one of the darkest hours in CAA/CASA bleak history. Mumbles and a few others should hang their heads in shame for what they did to remote and rural air services. Had a competent legal interpretation of CAR 206 been obtained and appropriate regulatory matters put in place, it all never would have happened.
By 2000 I'd departed the aviation industry after 30 plus years and returned to my original profession based in Western Queensland for 13 years until retirement. I saw first hand what an appalling impact the un-Australian wanton destruction of RASS and Australia Post services caused to so many small rural towns.. If CASA had only tried to meet the needs of rural Australia the air service losses would never have occurred.
As the DAS said to me at that time "It should have been handled very differently". Amen to that!
CASA attempting to kill off Australian remote and rural scheduled air services and mail services (over 100 remote airports around Australia were serviced by RASS or Australia Post subsidised mail, freight and passenger air services) will always remain one of the darkest hours in CAA/CASA bleak history. Mumbles and a few others should hang their heads in shame for what they did to remote and rural air services. Had a competent legal interpretation of CAR 206 been obtained and appropriate regulatory matters put in place, it all never would have happened.
By 2000 I'd departed the aviation industry after 30 plus years and returned to my original profession based in Western Queensland for 13 years until retirement. I saw first hand what an appalling impact the un-Australian wanton destruction of RASS and Australia Post services caused to so many small rural towns.. If CASA had only tried to meet the needs of rural Australia the air service losses would never have occurred.
As the DAS said to me at that time "It should have been handled very differently". Amen to that!
