RHS and Boyd at it again?

[Capcom]

Your not taking those pills again, are you creamy?!?!

Now Cream, I cannot believe that even you would take on a job with AsA legal (loosely termed) counsel.

An eminent lawyer such as yourself could surely see you would have no chance of defending the indefensible!!! (assuming you have no idea what will be dumped on your desk day 1, OR DO YOU?!?!?)

One would have to be a legal trained octopus to fill the job and only then if equipped with a fire extinguisher on each tentacle, able to leap tall sh_t piles with a single bound and be sh_t cunning as Chris Murphy.
I would suggest anyone with half a lawyer’s brain would not touch them with a barge pole!!!

Believe me, CB they know they are in deep sh_t!!!!!

Triadic

As usual, spot on. Good to see you still kicking!!!

[gaunty]

This thread has gone on a bit and off thread a lot.

Fol de rol and a hey nonny no.

Blue Eagle got it right the first time;

If my memory serves me correctly licences, be they drivers, firearms, liquor or whatever, are issued by the nominated authority on the proviso that the holder meets certain standards of fitness and suitability. If these standards are not met or maintained then the issuing authority has an obligation in public interests to withdraw that privilege.

CAR 269 inter-alia allows CASA to vary, suspend or cancel a licence, certificate or authority if satisfied that the holder;
„h has contravened a provision of the act,
„h fails to satisfy a prescribed requirement,
„h failed his/her duty in safe navigation of aircraft,
„h is not a fit or proper person to have the responsibilities etc., of such licence, or
„h has contravened a direction or instruction pertaining to safe navigation.

Before taking such action CASA must give notice to the holder and require him/her to show cause why the variation, suspension or cancellation should not take place.

I suggest that if the holder has, say, a medical condition that won¡¦t improve then CASA would be justified in effecting a life suspension regardless of the outcome of any court hearing in relation to other matters. This is supposition on my part because I do not know what the details are relating to the specific incident.

A licence is a privilege, not a right, so what is all the fuss about?

All the rest is just interesting.

Robin Hood may well have been a romantic notion emulated by the "experimental" (AUF) brigade but don't expect me to step up for a ride in your fantasy.
Risk your self by all means, but not the gormless and unsuspecting.

[ulm]

gaunty

Risk your self by all means, but not the gormless and unsuspecting.

It is my understanding that this is what happened, ie NO Passengers.

Now I know you are not a fan of AUF (exp or whatever), BUT, where is the difference between flying a private aircraft and operating a car.

Take it a step further, AUF require a current drivers licence. To drive a 50 tonne truck through inner Sydney requires the same.

Engine (wing, pilot, whatever) fails on an AUF, time to manouvre (in the case of the engine), not one yet has hit a house and killed someone.

Brakes (steering, driver, whatever) fail on a truck/bus. Western NSW 8 years ago, 12 killed 30 odd injured. Newell Hwy, (regularly) but recently, truck clips back of caravn, car crashes, kills two. And so on and so on.

So why is private aviation so over-regulated???

But back to the thread. If we TRUSTED CASA, then it would probably all be OK. but very few do. Why, they are simply corrupting the process - shunting regs through giving them more power. Making regs over prescriptive and stupid, acting with undue haste and no forethought and generally being an uncoordinated flock of self serving egos.

Added to that, the regs are a shambles. No one knows if they have contravened them and few care. It has gone from proactive regulation of a vibrant industry to a random game of russian roulette where only CASA knows where the bullet is!!!

That is why a different form of justice is needed, that is why this guy (and more like him) needs his day in court.

[gaunty]

ulm

May I turn your question

So why is private aviation so over-regulated???

around and ask why is motor vehicle operation so under-regulated.

Should not the privilege of a motor drivers license be conditional on a minimum standard of health.

I see very few truckies at my local truck stop who are NOT dead set candidates for a massive cardiac infarct or stroke as they climb back into their rigs after the regulation "truckies special" with a bag packed with "comfort food" for the odd snack en-route.

They crank up their 40 plus tonne "B" doubles, for which BTW I also hold a licence, and head off on what we loosely call the "highways" of this nation with oncoming traffic closing speeds of over 200kmh with a lateral displacement of a few metres.

What chance you and your children should their ateries decide to slam shut just as they approach you in your 1.5 tonne sedan.

But back to the thread. If we TRUSTED CASA, then it would probably all be OK. but very few do. Why, they are simply corrupting the process - shunting regs through giving them more power. Making regs over prescriptive and stupid, acting with undue haste and no forethought and generally being an uncoordinated flock of self serving egos.

May I suggest that your local State Dept of Transport would elicit the same response should they decide that they have a duty of care responsibility to apply a minimum level of safety to the roads by insisting on the aforementioned "truckies" holding a valid "medical".

May I also suggest that the "dialogue" necessary between the Regulator and whoever, does not go forward in any useful way whilst that is held and communicated as a personal view.

My mother in law may well be ugly, bossy and interfering (she is not and a beautiful person, but just for the example ) but she is not going to go away, so we must work out a means of communication that serves us both and keeps the peace.

Calling her ugly, bossy and interfering just isn't going to get her attention and in a mood to transact a workable truce.

[grip-pipe]

I have to concur with the views of BLUE-HAULER. AXIOM friend you need to take a broader view, you might find CASA are not as bad as you think.

Two issues here Mr AXIOM, CASA's exercise of it's formal powers and the views of Mr Dick and Mr Boyd on CASA's excercise of it's formal powers.

For others of similar views you do not appear to understand the law.

Parliament, the peoples representatives, determined that people who wished to own, operate and or fly aircraft should be subject to legal and regulatory oversight, it is after all a major economic transport system. So the powers of oversight are exercised by several bodies.

One, Parliament, considers all matters excepting those in the province of the Courts. Parliament drafts and passes the laws and by Government decisions sets policy guidelines for portfolio administration. Parliament decided eighty years ago that a person to exercise the privileges of flying an aircraft has to have a license, has to comply with the Rules of the Air, and respective legislated requirements for the operation and maintenance of aircraft. That is a community accepted and sound proposition. That the State via CASA requires you to be licensed means that the authority for you to fly is regulated by the State, therefore it is a privilege, not a right. Your continuation of the exercise of that privilege is conditional upon your compliance with all relevant laws of the land.

The other major form of oversight, the Courts, exercise oversight by adjudicating on matters brought before them. The broader Common Law has over time determined that you exercise the privileges of your license with a duty of care and with the actions of a reasonable man or woman.

The ATSB/BASI have the powers of oversight and report with respect to aircraft accidents and incidents. They exercise an oversight of aeronautical safety on behalf of the Australian public.

Your insurers also require that you comply with the law of the land and exercise your duty of care responsibly. That is the condition upon which insurance risk is covered.

The State (i.e. CASA) can bring an action or a person (business or individual) can bring an action before the Courts. CASA has no discretionary power accepting in those matters where alternative remedies are allowed for in the Act and Regulations. So a CASA officer as an officer of the law cannot ignore a breach of the law, its called perverting the cause of justice if you do.

Judicial power means the power to decide whether or not the claims of one party are true beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal matters) or true on the balance of probabilities (civil matters). They are also able to rule if the exercise of power is excessive, that is 'ultra-vires'.

The fact that the hypothetical bankrunner is being visited regularly by CASA and the said employee is being summonsed as a result is proper exercise of authority. How would your employers company stack up against say any of the majors or regionals ?

The Courts not finding for CASA but for you, shows the proper exercise of their authority. The State makes the allegation, you defend, the Courts makes a finding. That is the way the system works.

If you worked for a proper company you would soon realise that regulatory compliance is a big deal, you spend the time to do it legally, it costs, but thats the way to do it. CASA's happy, the Insurers are happy and the Board is happy. The travelling public is happy and so the Politicians are happy. See the picture ?

If you choose to fly, without a valid medical then you are choosing to fly without a valid license, simple. You do so in the full knowledge that it is summonsable offence, that is you can be made to answer for your actions in a criminal court. Your also choosing to fly knowing you will now be uninsured and liable for any torts that may result from a accident or other injury claim - brave pilot thats all I'll say.

There is no point in griping about it or being too busy with everything else. It's simply a matter of personal organisation. So why attack CASA for simply doing there job.

Now such a person whose license was out of medical currency could have also rung CASA and sought an extension on the medical, that may have been possible too. There's a thought!

Finally, there are a lot of rich and noisy galahs who think they are eagles.

[axiom]

grip-pipe;

I believe you haven't learn't a thing on this post, I AM a victim of CASA's incompetence and corruption of the very things you hold so dearly to your simplistic (or, as I read it, that of a knowledgeable view) of the separation of the powers.

When you can give me a positive (not what's written in the Reg's), version of the state of affairs in GA in Australia today, I'll throw the towel in.

You mentioned "the State, (ie CASA)".

Maaaate ! CASA are not "The State", they are a mob of functionaries of "The State". Nothing else and believe it or not,
CASA used to have discretionary power, and as they should, (as DOCS, when it comes to childrens welfare), but both of these entitities had legislation put to Government and passed (and, are still doing so), to remove any such power, simply so they can't be sued for doing what is in the Reg's.

CASA are worse than I think and it is only by objecting to their out of control antics through forums such as pprune, local State and Federal Government Ministers and their elected representatives that things change.

Appeasement doesn't work, I know, because I am a poor sparrow, thanks to CASA.

STRUTH !!

[ulm]

Gaunty

I have no qualms with making truckies get medicals, for there lies the heart of the problem (no pun intended ), they can, and regularly do, kill other people.

When I used to drive boats for a living I had to have a valid licence and medical. Fiarynuff too.

But now, if I feel so inclined, I can take my little boat out into the remnants of a cyclone, ignore the wall of black rain coming at me and get my main sail torn to shreds. I don't need a licence, I don't need a medical, but I don't risk anyone else.

Now I aint suggesting aviation is like boating. You need to be taught to fly for your own safety and that of the people on the ground. But in the sailing world we get given a little book that tells us what we should do to stay alive. If we ignore it, then so be it!!! Occasionally we get some light touch regulation (lifejacket inspections etc), but that is done in such a way as to be mostly welcomed.

So, why not give the PVT and AWK people the little book, after all, it is in their own heads. Then CASA can go regulate areas where other lives at at stake.

And, to the Sir Humpry gobbeldygook above. Bah!!!! Any 'agency' that cannot use discretionary powers properly is of no futher use to 'the state' and should be shut down. CASA does have those powers and uses them regularly (and usually improperly, ATOs, seatbelt labels, away maintenance approvals etc etc). Now there are some great people beavering away in CASA, I deal with them daily. But it is so hard for them to get things done properly while they are dodging sh!t from soaring turkeys dressed up as eagles.


Chuck

[Blue Hauler]

Ulm

I can take my little boat out into the remnants of a cyclone…I don't need a licence, I don't need a medical, but I don't risk anyone else

Full medical and psychiatric examination of all boaties should be compulsory. I don’t know how many searches I have participated in during the past thirty-odd years looking for thoughtless boaties. In some instances, the risk factor to ourselves was increased due to the distance off shore of the search area or the prevailing weather conditions. One occasion I recall departing Cairns just before cyclone Justin struck, to search 400 miles south of Honiara!

Boats have been around longer than medicals and in particular psychiatrists and bringing such legislation in retrospectively for private boating would raise hell.

As far as private operations are concerned – don’t forget that some private operators are flying turbine aircraft and transporting their employees about. Wonder how they would feel if they felt their front end operators didn’t have to undertake medical examinations?

[ulm]

BH

Don't really want to go there, smacks of Private Aerial Work to me and CASA are just waiting to pounce!!!

And I don't think we should dump medicals, just make them easier to get (not by dropping standards, but by allowing more GPs to do provate medicals).

But medicals was not the gist of my point, regulation was. Why not make a rule book and just give it out. The AYF do, all diving organisations do, the GFA do, and that all works really well.

[axiom]

ulm:

In what capacity do you daily deal with these CASA "Beavers"? and since when are they the "goodies"?

Who are these soaring "turkeys" dropping daily sh!t on these industrious rodents, and when did you become a truck expert?

Where do I buy this little Red book that is going to do away with all the beaver's hard work?

It's not a good idea to go diving and flying thereafter, gives you embolism of the brain, and I'd give boats away altogether, too expensive when you're an aircraft owner, (sorry eagle).

An old Hindu proverb said, "a man without a stick will be bitten even by a sheep",

Are you still yeilding the AOPA stick or gone Canberra happy?

Baaaaaaaad luck if you get bitten.

[Woomera]

ulm

OK so you wont mind if I remove, by legislation, the burden of the cost of search, rescue and medical care for those who either don't read your "little red book" and can be shown to have not done so, or have taken the advice therein, but have chosen to depart with a known and precarious medical condition into the teeth of said 'remnants of cyclone'.

I will however leave in the legislation the opportunity for those who wish, to submit themselves to an examination of said “little red book” and a medical and if found reasonably fit, “license” them to go do their thing, in the knowledge that if they do it by the rules and then come unstuck, because sh!t does happen, we will move heaven and earth and the public purse to look after them.

Fair trade I think! Sound familiar too eh!.

Part of the social contract that we have with each other and that we support with our taxes is that we behave responsibly, for own own safety and others benefit.

Since that is a principal not widely understood by a good number of our fellow citizens, a demonstration of which one can see daily on the roads for example, we have found it necessary to do a spot of policing. Not that they always set all that good an example of smarts either, but it's the best we've got.

In any event until that unlikely day comes, we have to protect ourselves and themselves from themselves.

I love axioms which is very apt.

An old Hindu proverb said, "a man without a stick will be bitten even by a sheep",

[ulm]

Axiom

By your post I figure you think every CASA officer is a bad apple. Far and away not true.

Without going into names, I had to do flight manuals for 2 of my own aircraft and assist with a lot more. One particular guy in CASA went absolutely out of his way to make it easy.

We had an aircraft doing 5 AM NDB approaches on a Sunday near where I live. Not illegal, just plain stupid. Got all the retired judges, pollies, Major Generals etc all up in arms about the airport.

But the aircraft was 'under receivership', so who was flying it. A really nice lady from CASA found out for me so I could give them a friendly phone call. (No, that wasn't illegal, it was a cure for an anomoly in a publicly available register).

A friend had an altercation with Cairns ATC about trans oceanic flights in single engine aircraft. They reported it, the FOI dealt with it in such a matter both sides actually learned from it with no hard feelings either way.

Yes, there are @ssh@les, but don't blame them all.

Woomera. The little red book is hardly similar to what we have now, just more user interactive. You are beginning to sound like a wanna be regulator mate

[axiom]

ulm:

I have a few good blokes within CASA who keep me up to date on a lot of issues and there ARE good people there.

Trouble is, it isn't the apples in the barrel, as you suggest, it's the barrel that's rotten, and it needs replacing ! It's beyond repair!

I am a bit perplexed about what is stupid about doing 5am NDB approaches and why you would want to ring CASA up about it ?

Sounds more like fraternization than curing an anomoly.

[ulm]

Heh heh.

Nice try, but I will leave that lure for Open Mike

When you are talking small country airports, that are a burden for the council, and when you are talking Bkt based aircraft, then there is a problem.

It caused a big outcry from the people under the flightpath and caused problems. But i whinged about it once before, so I will leave it be. Suffice to say, there are rights and responsibilities and that was just plain irresponsible.

As for CASA, the rot in the barrell started with some of the apples at the top.

[THREEGREENS]

AXIOM; I'll take the bait!

What is wrong about 5am on a Sunday NDB's?
Surely, you've got to be joking or are you one of the mindless few who always seem to 'stuff it up' for the majority!
We have a right to use the airspace for sure, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that our activities DO NOT unnecessarily encroach on others. Surely, there is nothing to be achieved doing NDB training at 5am on a Sunday that couldn't be done at 10am when the activities will not impact on others?
That type of attitude and behaviour only serves to p*ss people off and all too often, it is avoidable. Bit like some of the 'dirt-dart' operators who persist in climbing to height over the same bit of realestate day in and day out in noisy aircraft AND THEN WHINGE when JQ Public gets a group together to shut them down. If they only took the time out to modify there operation to minimise the impact, then they might not always be in conflict with the general masses!
With that attitude, is there any wonder you have an ongoing love-hate relationship with the regulator?

[axiom]

ulm:

I still don't get the NDB bit and what you are on about, and nor do I get the thing about open mike!

Is this another thing like the airport being there before the houses and then complain about the noise ?

Why would airports be a burden to local Government if they were given money to take them over and then free reign to charge the users.

Most of these airports were built with TAXPAYERS money, given to local RATEPAYERS and then fees levied upon TAXPAYERS to use them.

I was of the belief that rate paying locals were given concessions.

However;

God couldn't be everywhere, so he made CASA. If we agree about the barrel, where do we go to from here ? and how do we get God to fix the barrel ?

And what has this got to do with a bloke in Horsham going to court ?



threegreens:

I still don't get what is wrong with doing 5am NDB work at say Quirindi, or do you have first hand knowledge of the curfew at ulm's airport that he omitted to tell us ?

I have a twin turboprop come over my place every morning before first light and I don't go ringing CASA about it.

I take objection to being linked with the mindless few and perhaps it is your bloody minded attitude that piss*s pilots past persuasive passiveness.

I bet you are the dog owner who lets his mastiff sh!t over my lawn.

Again I ask, what has this inane courtesy thing got to do with a Horsham court case ?

Start a new topic if you want a winge.

I just thought about something;

Is this the threegreens and the democrats swapping preferences already ? mmmmmmmm

[ulm]

threegreens

I think he was laying a bait for me. He aint that bad

[Lead Balloon]

Mate... why are you such a bitter and twisted old git.

There never seems to be an ounce of humour or humility in your posts.

Let me guess JustApplHere.

You are probably a woollen vest wearing career public servant who has spent a lifetime as a behind the back critic - and after 30 years have risen to the dizzy heights of a SOGB.


I think its probably the old-gaurd of CASA like yourself that make it such a disfunctional organisation, unwillingly to hear reasoned argument from anyone that doesn't fit your idea of an administrator.

The sooner CASA is run like a real administration instead of an old-boys network the better for everyone.

[Lodown]

Woohoo Lead Balloon. I think you got it in one.

[axiom]

Sorry threegrees,

It may be that it is someone else's dog who is sh!tting on my front lawn.

Leadbaloon, whatever you do don't ask me about the "Cathay Club".

What's a SOGB ?