RHS and Boyd at it again?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Illawarra
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grey areas........?
SPLATR,
Totally agree with you.....what grey areas?
Either the MR was valid or not...either the medical was valid or not...where do the grey areas come into the equation. AXIOM; cannot agree with your perception that because you flew the aircraft WITHOUT A VALID MR, and you survived, DOES NOT make it OK by a long shot......I will go as far as saying you were a bloody idiot for doing it; risking the insurance of the owner, a long drawn out legal battle if you injured or killed somebody AND your own licence if you got caught!
I have a lot of trouble with some of the arguments here; these are not new rules or rules that could be claimed to be 'foreign' to any of us.......they are the simplest yet most flaunted in GA without a doubt!
If you don't like the rules, do something about changing them(!) not that you'll get a lot of support 'cause there are quite a few around that think these two rules in particular are pretty much OK.
Totally agree with you.....what grey areas?
Either the MR was valid or not...either the medical was valid or not...where do the grey areas come into the equation. AXIOM; cannot agree with your perception that because you flew the aircraft WITHOUT A VALID MR, and you survived, DOES NOT make it OK by a long shot......I will go as far as saying you were a bloody idiot for doing it; risking the insurance of the owner, a long drawn out legal battle if you injured or killed somebody AND your own licence if you got caught!
I have a lot of trouble with some of the arguments here; these are not new rules or rules that could be claimed to be 'foreign' to any of us.......they are the simplest yet most flaunted in GA without a doubt!
If you don't like the rules, do something about changing them(!) not that you'll get a lot of support 'cause there are quite a few around that think these two rules in particular are pretty much OK.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll give myself up on Monday.
In my last days of feedom let me tell you what a "grey area" is.
Some examples.
"Flight Safety Australia", the CASA blurb of volume 5 number 4, particularly pages 20 and 21. A quote from the analysis by Steve Bell, a LAME and CASA safety promotions officer.
"the maintenance release is the only tool pilots have at their disposal to determine if an aircraft is airworthy. It is the only safe and difinitive method of communicating the aircraft's state to other pilots, maintenance personnel, the operator and the owner". (I concur).
I now quote from some letters to an owner pilot who having relied upon a MR to attest to the airworthiness of an aircraft in a purchase, went through an extended CASA investigation, a Commonwealth Ombudsman's investigation, a Senate inquiry, 5 years of political lobbying, obstruction by CASA, seizing and loosing of vital evidence by CASA and the loss of many, many thousands of dollars;
Dr Paul Scully-Power:
"I have to say to you, as I think has been made clear before, that CASA does NOT suscribe to the view that a maintenance release is the primary document that provides information to a pilot / purchaser about the airworthiness of an aircraft". (I don't concur).
Peter Langhorne, Chief of Staff to Hon John Anderson:
"a maintenance release is a record of required maintenance. It was never intended to be a document that on it's own should be relied to purchase an aircraft. Although it plays an important role, it CANNOT be a guarantee of an airworthy aircraft". (I don't concur).
Honourable John Anderson, Deputy Prime minister and minister for things that fly:
"I am advised that while a maintenance release plays an important role in recording the maintenance of an aircraft it cannot be a guarantee of an irrworthy aircraft". (I don't concur).
This is but one of many examples of "grey areas" and are documented in Paul Phelan's "phelan Papers".
If you feel this information to be less than the truth, ask him for specific examples and get him to give you their contact details.
I'll say again my theory on CASA's problems:
They are "sh*t scared" of being sued and are rewriting the regulations so that everything is "illegal", thus allowing no discretionary movements by their field staff.
I must say, that my dealings with the lower eschelon of CASA have been cordial, however I do remember blokes like "Colonel Klink" (not his real name), who were real bast*rds.
Ask Arthur Pape for some examples of "grey areas" in medicine.
I'll be off to pack my toothbrush now folks, see you in about five years. I'll bet everything is in black and white in my case ???
In my last days of feedom let me tell you what a "grey area" is.
Some examples.
"Flight Safety Australia", the CASA blurb of volume 5 number 4, particularly pages 20 and 21. A quote from the analysis by Steve Bell, a LAME and CASA safety promotions officer.
"the maintenance release is the only tool pilots have at their disposal to determine if an aircraft is airworthy. It is the only safe and difinitive method of communicating the aircraft's state to other pilots, maintenance personnel, the operator and the owner". (I concur).
I now quote from some letters to an owner pilot who having relied upon a MR to attest to the airworthiness of an aircraft in a purchase, went through an extended CASA investigation, a Commonwealth Ombudsman's investigation, a Senate inquiry, 5 years of political lobbying, obstruction by CASA, seizing and loosing of vital evidence by CASA and the loss of many, many thousands of dollars;
Dr Paul Scully-Power:
"I have to say to you, as I think has been made clear before, that CASA does NOT suscribe to the view that a maintenance release is the primary document that provides information to a pilot / purchaser about the airworthiness of an aircraft". (I don't concur).
Peter Langhorne, Chief of Staff to Hon John Anderson:
"a maintenance release is a record of required maintenance. It was never intended to be a document that on it's own should be relied to purchase an aircraft. Although it plays an important role, it CANNOT be a guarantee of an airworthy aircraft". (I don't concur).
Honourable John Anderson, Deputy Prime minister and minister for things that fly:
"I am advised that while a maintenance release plays an important role in recording the maintenance of an aircraft it cannot be a guarantee of an irrworthy aircraft". (I don't concur).
This is but one of many examples of "grey areas" and are documented in Paul Phelan's "phelan Papers".
If you feel this information to be less than the truth, ask him for specific examples and get him to give you their contact details.
I'll say again my theory on CASA's problems:
They are "sh*t scared" of being sued and are rewriting the regulations so that everything is "illegal", thus allowing no discretionary movements by their field staff.
I must say, that my dealings with the lower eschelon of CASA have been cordial, however I do remember blokes like "Colonel Klink" (not his real name), who were real bast*rds.
Ask Arthur Pape for some examples of "grey areas" in medicine.
I'll be off to pack my toothbrush now folks, see you in about five years. I'll bet everything is in black and white in my case ???
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Illawarra
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Vaseline available in 20 litre drums.......
On a serious level.......what you quote above is probably correct BUT, what would the state of the nation be if there was NO maintenance releases???? We, as pilots, have nothing more to go on as to the 'perceived serviceability' of any particular aircraft and therefore rely very heavily indeed on that document. I think we all know there are limits on the ability of the document to ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE the serviceability of the aircraft, but as I said before, that is all we have available to us.
On a not so serious note; do you realise that during your 5 year stint at Her Majesty's Pleasure, if you get a job in either the leather goods workshop or pressing number plates, you will probably earn more than the average GA pilot headdown and arseup out here?!!!!!
On a not so serious note; do you realise that during your 5 year stint at Her Majesty's Pleasure, if you get a job in either the leather goods workshop or pressing number plates, you will probably earn more than the average GA pilot headdown and arseup out here?!!!!!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axiom,
Mate, you really don’t want to go live ‘inside’. In the main, they are indeed a different class of humanity with considerably lower goals and ethics than any CASA representative could ever stoop to. And that’s just the warders. The inmates are worse!
The MR was never the final document to indicate the state of an aircraft as far as a buyer is concerned. I have been responsible for the purchase of a few used aircraft, some worth many millions. It requires an expert to delve through the aircraft logbooks and the various Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives and manufacturers maintenance schedule. Invariably such an audit finds items that have ‘slipped through the cracks’, some compulsory and others advisory.
The MR is issued simply to advise that on the date of issue the aircraft was airworthy and all required maintenance completed to date (and unfortunately E&OE). Additional checks prior to expiry date/TIS are enumerated thereon. If pilots, operators and C or R holders are honest then any further defects will be recorded on the MR. The C or R holder will receive AD’s and SB’s from time to time and will return the aircraft to have such issues rectified. That is the system.
In issuing the MR the authority will not include items for call-up during the next maintenance cycle. Such items may include prop overhaul, engine overhaul, undercarriage inspection, wing bolts inspection, re-weigh, new AD’s and SB’s etc. Therefore if you exceed the specified TIS you risk the possibility of overrunning other mandatory checks scheduled in the next cycle.
Our responsibility is to operate within the system. Grey areas may provide mitigating circumstances that reduce the penalty but are not authorised, justified or excused by law!
Mate, you really don’t want to go live ‘inside’. In the main, they are indeed a different class of humanity with considerably lower goals and ethics than any CASA representative could ever stoop to. And that’s just the warders. The inmates are worse!
The MR was never the final document to indicate the state of an aircraft as far as a buyer is concerned. I have been responsible for the purchase of a few used aircraft, some worth many millions. It requires an expert to delve through the aircraft logbooks and the various Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives and manufacturers maintenance schedule. Invariably such an audit finds items that have ‘slipped through the cracks’, some compulsory and others advisory.
The MR is issued simply to advise that on the date of issue the aircraft was airworthy and all required maintenance completed to date (and unfortunately E&OE). Additional checks prior to expiry date/TIS are enumerated thereon. If pilots, operators and C or R holders are honest then any further defects will be recorded on the MR. The C or R holder will receive AD’s and SB’s from time to time and will return the aircraft to have such issues rectified. That is the system.
In issuing the MR the authority will not include items for call-up during the next maintenance cycle. Such items may include prop overhaul, engine overhaul, undercarriage inspection, wing bolts inspection, re-weigh, new AD’s and SB’s etc. Therefore if you exceed the specified TIS you risk the possibility of overrunning other mandatory checks scheduled in the next cycle.
Our responsibility is to operate within the system. Grey areas may provide mitigating circumstances that reduce the penalty but are not authorised, justified or excused by law!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone is welcome to a copy of the document Axiom refrred to, simply by e-mailing me: [email protected]. It's in .PDF format but don't print it out unless you own a paper mill. Volume ii is being prepared, but the problem is that clique of malevolent individuals which is running its own agenda within CASA, is conducting so many random purges it's hard to keep up with the documentation. Its management is either unaware or encouraging them. If the management is unaware, it is incompetent. If the management is aware but doesn't understand, it is incompetent. If the management is aware and approves of some of the activities, as many now believe, it is worse than incompetent.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANY system works well and most would agree that if we all worked within the system, the if nothing else, we would have conformity.
Trouble is, CASA USE the system, convolute the system, ABUSE the system, alter the system, ammend the system, redefine the system, misinterpret the system, misuse the system and impinge on my freedoms and rights while some (who have never eered in their life), believe that the privelege of working within the system as it stands confers some biblical responsibility on my part to know all the ins and outs.
If a MR is not THE document that tells a pilot that the a/c is airworthy, then what is??
How many pilots out there have been taught how to read and interpret an aircraft or propeller logbook. It was certainly not in my PPL curriculum. I think you would find that most engineers would prefer a pilot to keep his hands off them.
If nothing is transcribed from the MR (ie defects), to the logbooks, then this obviously is not "the document" either.
Are manufacturers bulletins and recommendations incorporated as AD's or is this at the owners whim??
As far as I am concerned, if an enginer signs out an aircraft, then on that day and time the a/c is airworthy. Any subsequent damage should be recorded in the MR and either signed off or a date for rectification annotated.
An estimate for wear and tear should be proportional to the time in service since the MR issue and the aircraft sans cosmetics IS airworthy.
THIS IS BLACK AND WHITE.
IT IS CASA SAYING IT IS GREY !!! and now threegreens is moderating the tempo by saying the system is not infallable.
The system is FLAWED if CASA are allowed to work the system to their advantage.
Thanks for the info blueH, reminds me of that old story;
Freight run, middle of the night, middle of nowhere.
Pilot.. I'm fuc*ing bored !
ATC... unidentified a/c, say your callsign.
Pilot.. I said I'm fuc*ing bored, not fuc*ing stupid !
Read Paul's paper people. sorry for the alliteration.
Trouble is, CASA USE the system, convolute the system, ABUSE the system, alter the system, ammend the system, redefine the system, misinterpret the system, misuse the system and impinge on my freedoms and rights while some (who have never eered in their life), believe that the privelege of working within the system as it stands confers some biblical responsibility on my part to know all the ins and outs.
If a MR is not THE document that tells a pilot that the a/c is airworthy, then what is??
How many pilots out there have been taught how to read and interpret an aircraft or propeller logbook. It was certainly not in my PPL curriculum. I think you would find that most engineers would prefer a pilot to keep his hands off them.
If nothing is transcribed from the MR (ie defects), to the logbooks, then this obviously is not "the document" either.
Are manufacturers bulletins and recommendations incorporated as AD's or is this at the owners whim??
As far as I am concerned, if an enginer signs out an aircraft, then on that day and time the a/c is airworthy. Any subsequent damage should be recorded in the MR and either signed off or a date for rectification annotated.
An estimate for wear and tear should be proportional to the time in service since the MR issue and the aircraft sans cosmetics IS airworthy.
THIS IS BLACK AND WHITE.
IT IS CASA SAYING IT IS GREY !!! and now threegreens is moderating the tempo by saying the system is not infallable.
The system is FLAWED if CASA are allowed to work the system to their advantage.
Thanks for the info blueH, reminds me of that old story;
Freight run, middle of the night, middle of nowhere.
Pilot.. I'm fuc*ing bored !
ATC... unidentified a/c, say your callsign.
Pilot.. I said I'm fuc*ing bored, not fuc*ing stupid !
Read Paul's paper people. sorry for the alliteration.
And what, Axiom, would you have had CASA do to the person who issued the MR to which you referred? There was no personal or property damage when the aircraft flew on the authority of that MR – must be OK merely to smack him on wrist. You wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to say that he should be prosecuted and his licence taken away, would you?
Ignorance is an exquisite flower, and one not lightly to be bruised with facts. It’s especially exquisite and lush in Australian aviation. I’ll try to prune, not bruise.
CASA does not prosecute anyone. The DPP prosecutes. CASA makes its decision as to whether to send a brief to the DPP, and the DPP makes a decision whether to launch the prosecution, on the basis of the Commonwealth’s prosecution policy.
The people who subscribe to the ‘smoking hole’ enforcement policy – that is, you don’t prosecute someone or take their licence away until after they’ve caused a smoking hole with an aircraft at the bottom of it – might ask why should CASA refer anything other than a smoking hole to the DPP.
Australia has ratified the Chicago Convention. Article 12 of that Convention says:
[emphasis added.]
The words ‘insure’, ‘prosecution’, ‘violating’ and ‘regulations’ have meanings in the Convention that are not too far removed from what you might understand them to mean.
Australia – note, not CASA – has signed up to a Treaty that obliges it to prosecute all persons who violate the applicable rules and regulations relating to the flight and manoeuvre of aircraft within its territory or with VH on the tail, or to notify ICAO of a difference. Australia has not notified ICAO of any difference from at least the quoted part of Article 12.
CASA’s – yes CASA’s - obligations include the obligation that:
That was the legislature’s idea. It’s the law.
Hands up those who think CASA should ignore the law.
Some politicians, and indeed some industry demagogues, take advantage of the ignorant by suggesting or failing to refute the suggestion that CASA is autonomous and can effectively do what it likes, however it likes.
Don’t be sucked in.
There is a suggestion in this thread that CASA’s administrative powers are somehow unique and unconstitutional. Bollocks. The last fool lawyer who argued that in the Federal Court had costs awarded against him personally. See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c...2002/1532.html
Ignorance is an exquisite flower, and one not lightly to be bruised with facts. It’s especially exquisite and lush in Australian aviation. I’ll try to prune, not bruise.
CASA does not prosecute anyone. The DPP prosecutes. CASA makes its decision as to whether to send a brief to the DPP, and the DPP makes a decision whether to launch the prosecution, on the basis of the Commonwealth’s prosecution policy.
The people who subscribe to the ‘smoking hole’ enforcement policy – that is, you don’t prosecute someone or take their licence away until after they’ve caused a smoking hole with an aircraft at the bottom of it – might ask why should CASA refer anything other than a smoking hole to the DPP.
Australia has ratified the Chicago Convention. Article 12 of that Convention says:
Article 12.
Rules of the air.
Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying over or manoeuvring within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its nationality mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules and regulations relating to the flight and manoeuvre of aircraft there in force. Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own regulations in these respects uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention. Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention. Each contracting State undertakes to insure the PROSECUTION of all persons violating the regulations applicable.
Rules of the air.
Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying over or manoeuvring within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its nationality mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules and regulations relating to the flight and manoeuvre of aircraft there in force. Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own regulations in these respects uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention. Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention. Each contracting State undertakes to insure the PROSECUTION of all persons violating the regulations applicable.
The words ‘insure’, ‘prosecution’, ‘violating’ and ‘regulations’ have meanings in the Convention that are not too far removed from what you might understand them to mean.
Australia – note, not CASA – has signed up to a Treaty that obliges it to prosecute all persons who violate the applicable rules and regulations relating to the flight and manoeuvre of aircraft within its territory or with VH on the tail, or to notify ICAO of a difference. Australia has not notified ICAO of any difference from at least the quoted part of Article 12.
CASA’s – yes CASA’s - obligations include the obligation that:
CASA shall perform its functions in a manner consistent with the obligations of Australia under the Chicago Convention and any other agreement between Australia and any other country or countries relating to the safety of air navigation.
Hands up those who think CASA should ignore the law.
Some politicians, and indeed some industry demagogues, take advantage of the ignorant by suggesting or failing to refute the suggestion that CASA is autonomous and can effectively do what it likes, however it likes.
Don’t be sucked in.
There is a suggestion in this thread that CASA’s administrative powers are somehow unique and unconstitutional. Bollocks. The last fool lawyer who argued that in the Federal Court had costs awarded against him personally. See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c...2002/1532.html
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear creampuff, nice to see you come out again.
I'll need time to digest your last. I know where you are coming from, but have a gut feeling of the black and white thing / for me against me syndrome.
As Johannes B once said, you can't have one leg either side of the barbed wire fence.
I am on tippy toes right now, so bear with axiom while he digests all this.
By the way, where are these "industry demagogues" when I need them ?
I'll need time to digest your last. I know where you are coming from, but have a gut feeling of the black and white thing / for me against me syndrome.
As Johannes B once said, you can't have one leg either side of the barbed wire fence.
I am on tippy toes right now, so bear with axiom while he digests all this.
By the way, where are these "industry demagogues" when I need them ?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few observations on previous posts:
ISLANDER JOCK
The hypothesis of aeroplanes crashing into a crowded school yard is a popular one with one of the Tribal Elders at Northbourne Avenue, even when he’s discussing aerial photography over the West Australian deserts. However, given the surface area of the planet, the number of crowded school yards thereon and the number of aeroplanes that are crash every year by pilots whose medical certificates have lapsed, is not the crowded school yard a bit unnecessarily emotive?
Likewise, would those same protagonists would be screaming for the blood of the Department of Motor Transport (the regulator) if a loaded semitrailer crashed into a crowded ice cream parlour? I’d have thought they’d be too busy lynching the driver!
BLUE HAULER
“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.”
Do we know whether that happened?
MENEN
“25 CASA charges to answer for.”
Was that 25 flights without a current certificate? Or what? A Queensland operator recently copped a show cause listing 62 items, and it was apparently leaked to a government agency which was one of his customers. At the subsequent show cause almost all the matters were (quite rightly) set aside – mostly because they were CASA errors - and the company was told the recommendation would be that it should be given nine months to address the remainder – which were administrative issues. Of course, there’s no assurance that CASA will follow the recommendations.
It is a standard CASA tactic to itemise a huge number of “facts and circumstances.” This itemisation should in fact have three categories: “facts, circumstances, and uninvestigated allegations made by competitors, untrained and unqualified observers, and former employees.”
“CASA are not all fools and its a good bet that they have had their eyes on this clown for some time before obtaining the hard evidence necessary to nail him to the wall.”
Unfortunately the ones who are not fools keep their heads down and therefore don’t get much done. And do we know enough about the case to denounce him as a clown?
“SPLATR”
“my view is that standards in GA has dived dramatically over the past 30 years”
Having viewed aviation from above for over 40 years, I don’t think you’ll find any statistical support for that statement.
A number of contributors are overlooking the fact that police don’t make traffic laws, they just enforce them. CASA does the lot. It does in effect make the rules, (even though the regulations have to be passed by the Parliament), but it also makes what it describes as rules by endlessly rewriting CAOs (and slipping in little bits that nobody notices), forcing people to write nonsensical prescriptions in their operations manuals under pain of not having their AOC renewals recommended and then accusing the operator or pilot of breaching CAR 215 (9) by not doing what the ops manual says, and also by writing things into the AIP. There are other examples but I don’t want you dozing off over your keyboards.
“If there is a problem with the way they administer the laws then there are avenues of redress.”
Now we’re getting somewhere. Among the avenues of redress all too often overlooked are action against the individual CASA decision maker (whom, we’re told, didn’t even turn up at the court in Horsham.) The following is an extract from a legal opinion obtained by CASA in a not unrelated matter:
“CASA would be covered by the Indemnity in relation to defamation actions as with various other actions which may be brought (eg negligence, including negligent misstatement, breach of confidence, injurious falsehood, misfeasance in public office etc). However, the Indemnity will not apply in favour of a CASA officer, where the officer is guilty of serious or wilful misconduct. The likelihood that such actions would be brought, not only on the grounds of defamation, appears very high. The Commonwealth's exposure to damages in relation to CASA’s liability for defamation or other tortious liability under the Indemnity and to costs for such proceedings, is considerable.”
You ask:
“Are you really suggesting that if CASA finds someone breaking the law that they have to go to court each time to administer the consequence?”
Absolutely! For one thing, if they had to produce evidence and be cross-examined, they wouldn’t be able to take all these unilateral shortcuts. If I’m caught speeding or drink driving I have a choice – on the spot fines, or go to court. Was the gentleman in Horsham offered the choice?
“CASA should act fairly and without malice and I know that individuals within the organisation have not always done that; but that is a management issue within CASA that needs to be addressed”
Could we put a deadline on that, while there are still some aviation businesses operating?
A now-famous saying by a well-known administrator: “But Minister, if I had to have proof, I’d need another hundred inspectors!”
BLUE HEALER
It wasn’t a PA32, it was a PA23, and the autopilot wasn’t working. Nice dog though.
AND LASTLY
Having worked through the whole thread, I can’t find anything that says what happened in court, although I’ve been told the magistrate put a flea in CASA’s ear over something they hadn’t done – possibly sent along the decision maker. I think it was adjourned to a later date. If anyone is aware of the proceedings, why not share the info?
ISLANDER JOCK
The hypothesis of aeroplanes crashing into a crowded school yard is a popular one with one of the Tribal Elders at Northbourne Avenue, even when he’s discussing aerial photography over the West Australian deserts. However, given the surface area of the planet, the number of crowded school yards thereon and the number of aeroplanes that are crash every year by pilots whose medical certificates have lapsed, is not the crowded school yard a bit unnecessarily emotive?
Likewise, would those same protagonists would be screaming for the blood of the Department of Motor Transport (the regulator) if a loaded semitrailer crashed into a crowded ice cream parlour? I’d have thought they’d be too busy lynching the driver!
BLUE HAULER
“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.”
Do we know whether that happened?
MENEN
“25 CASA charges to answer for.”
Was that 25 flights without a current certificate? Or what? A Queensland operator recently copped a show cause listing 62 items, and it was apparently leaked to a government agency which was one of his customers. At the subsequent show cause almost all the matters were (quite rightly) set aside – mostly because they were CASA errors - and the company was told the recommendation would be that it should be given nine months to address the remainder – which were administrative issues. Of course, there’s no assurance that CASA will follow the recommendations.
It is a standard CASA tactic to itemise a huge number of “facts and circumstances.” This itemisation should in fact have three categories: “facts, circumstances, and uninvestigated allegations made by competitors, untrained and unqualified observers, and former employees.”
“CASA are not all fools and its a good bet that they have had their eyes on this clown for some time before obtaining the hard evidence necessary to nail him to the wall.”
Unfortunately the ones who are not fools keep their heads down and therefore don’t get much done. And do we know enough about the case to denounce him as a clown?
“SPLATR”
“my view is that standards in GA has dived dramatically over the past 30 years”
Having viewed aviation from above for over 40 years, I don’t think you’ll find any statistical support for that statement.
A number of contributors are overlooking the fact that police don’t make traffic laws, they just enforce them. CASA does the lot. It does in effect make the rules, (even though the regulations have to be passed by the Parliament), but it also makes what it describes as rules by endlessly rewriting CAOs (and slipping in little bits that nobody notices), forcing people to write nonsensical prescriptions in their operations manuals under pain of not having their AOC renewals recommended and then accusing the operator or pilot of breaching CAR 215 (9) by not doing what the ops manual says, and also by writing things into the AIP. There are other examples but I don’t want you dozing off over your keyboards.
“If there is a problem with the way they administer the laws then there are avenues of redress.”
Now we’re getting somewhere. Among the avenues of redress all too often overlooked are action against the individual CASA decision maker (whom, we’re told, didn’t even turn up at the court in Horsham.) The following is an extract from a legal opinion obtained by CASA in a not unrelated matter:
“CASA would be covered by the Indemnity in relation to defamation actions as with various other actions which may be brought (eg negligence, including negligent misstatement, breach of confidence, injurious falsehood, misfeasance in public office etc). However, the Indemnity will not apply in favour of a CASA officer, where the officer is guilty of serious or wilful misconduct. The likelihood that such actions would be brought, not only on the grounds of defamation, appears very high. The Commonwealth's exposure to damages in relation to CASA’s liability for defamation or other tortious liability under the Indemnity and to costs for such proceedings, is considerable.”
You ask:
“Are you really suggesting that if CASA finds someone breaking the law that they have to go to court each time to administer the consequence?”
Absolutely! For one thing, if they had to produce evidence and be cross-examined, they wouldn’t be able to take all these unilateral shortcuts. If I’m caught speeding or drink driving I have a choice – on the spot fines, or go to court. Was the gentleman in Horsham offered the choice?
“CASA should act fairly and without malice and I know that individuals within the organisation have not always done that; but that is a management issue within CASA that needs to be addressed”
Could we put a deadline on that, while there are still some aviation businesses operating?
A now-famous saying by a well-known administrator: “But Minister, if I had to have proof, I’d need another hundred inspectors!”
BLUE HEALER
It wasn’t a PA32, it was a PA23, and the autopilot wasn’t working. Nice dog though.
AND LASTLY
Having worked through the whole thread, I can’t find anything that says what happened in court, although I’ve been told the magistrate put a flea in CASA’s ear over something they hadn’t done – possibly sent along the decision maker. I think it was adjourned to a later date. If anyone is aware of the proceedings, why not share the info?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walking eagle; I hope you are a friendly demagogue, how come I didn't get a mention?
I have been researching and "brain fadeing" on creampuff's post and think I need counselling. I am still at it though.
If you and I are searching for inner peace, we won't find it here, I'm afraid, but someone must rattle the can now and then.
The drought has just about beaten me, but my wife is beginning to understand me. When I sell the farm, I may take up pprune full time. The pay can't be any worse.
I have been researching and "brain fadeing" on creampuff's post and think I need counselling. I am still at it though.
If you and I are searching for inner peace, we won't find it here, I'm afraid, but someone must rattle the can now and then.
The drought has just about beaten me, but my wife is beginning to understand me. When I sell the farm, I may take up pprune full time. The pay can't be any worse.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walking Eagle
You don’t for one minute suspect that a politician would have the necessary nous to write and modify traffic laws? Police departments have legal sections staffed by experienced police officers with prosecutor skills and/or legal qualifications that do the leg work and forward it up to the Minister. Since most politicians are former farmers, union shop stewards or article clerks they put the law up for parliament as is. If it wasn’t for concerned citizens such as Axiom many of these bills would be passed. Those concerned citizens who lobby their local member for change and the police officers are the real writers of the Traffic Act (and other Acts and Regulations)
CASA would be no different.
Buggar'd if I know – the case hasn’t made the new papers in my neck of the woods.
…A number of contributors are overlooking the fact that police don’t make traffic laws, they just enforce them….
CASA would be no different.
… “Before taking such action CASA must give notice…to show cause why the variation, suspension or cancellation should not take place.”
Do we know whether that happened?
Do we know whether that happened?
Walking Phelan…..I mean Paul Eagle….. I mean Walking Eagle
Which Civil Aviation Orders aren’t disallowable instruments and therefore subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny process as regulations? Which bits of AIP don’t reflect disallowable instruments?
And don’t go all journalist on me: specify the paragraphs of the CAO or the AIP to which you are referring. Which of them has the "little bits that nobody notices"?
But in any case, you won’t have to worry for much longer, at least in so far as the CAOs are concerned: apparently there won’t be any under the ‘new rules’. Just a few more decades of consultation and drafting, and the tunnel at the end of the light will be upon us.
On the compliance and enforcement policy front, I’m pleased to note that CASA (through a headhunter) yesterday advertised two new positions in the Office of Legal Counsel, one of whom will be Deputy General Counsel and whose job description includes formulating CASA’s compliance policy and processes. I suppose they’ve figured out that you can put a thousand pilots - or even aviation journalists - in front of a thousand typewriters for a thousand years, and they won’t produce a coherent regulatory compliance policy and procedures.
Which Civil Aviation Orders aren’t disallowable instruments and therefore subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny process as regulations? Which bits of AIP don’t reflect disallowable instruments?
And don’t go all journalist on me: specify the paragraphs of the CAO or the AIP to which you are referring. Which of them has the "little bits that nobody notices"?
But in any case, you won’t have to worry for much longer, at least in so far as the CAOs are concerned: apparently there won’t be any under the ‘new rules’. Just a few more decades of consultation and drafting, and the tunnel at the end of the light will be upon us.
On the compliance and enforcement policy front, I’m pleased to note that CASA (through a headhunter) yesterday advertised two new positions in the Office of Legal Counsel, one of whom will be Deputy General Counsel and whose job description includes formulating CASA’s compliance policy and processes. I suppose they’ve figured out that you can put a thousand pilots - or even aviation journalists - in front of a thousand typewriters for a thousand years, and they won’t produce a coherent regulatory compliance policy and procedures.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walking eagle
I have to very strongly agree with SPLATR on this one. The average product out of the training sausage machine these days is the worse it has been for 40 years. There are very few exceptions. There is more emphasis on cost control than on flying standards and knowledge. Get them out the door at a price, blow the standard. And with an in-house ATO you can set the standard where you like! Bring back external/independent testing I say!
Airmanship was the first thing to fall of the truck some 10+ years ago. Now stick and rudder skills are making way for systems management and GPS and the like. Just sit on the fence one day and watch the average x/w landings from 150's to Jets. It is really obvious. And many pilots when you ask were not trained in x/w because the instructor thought it was too windy that day!!!! Many think the peddles on the floor are for taxi and brakes! One new CPL recently was observed to place his feet on the floor just after takeoff in a twin – when queried he said they are not needed in flight…!!!
geeeez.
I could go on.
This is very clearly a CASA problem but their own FOIs are victims of the same system and many don't know any better themselves. CASA wont let them fly or do tests so they continue to live in wonderland. I guess they won't see it as a problem until there is a 'smoking hole'.
CASA are NOT a safety based organisation, but a regulatory and compliance body that seems to believe that if you comply you will be safe. And we are the victims of this mismanagement!!
“SPLATR”
“my view is that standards in GA has dived dramatically over the past 30 years”
Having viewed aviation from above for over 40 years, I don’t think you’ll find any statistical support for that statement.
“my view is that standards in GA has dived dramatically over the past 30 years”
Having viewed aviation from above for over 40 years, I don’t think you’ll find any statistical support for that statement.
Airmanship was the first thing to fall of the truck some 10+ years ago. Now stick and rudder skills are making way for systems management and GPS and the like. Just sit on the fence one day and watch the average x/w landings from 150's to Jets. It is really obvious. And many pilots when you ask were not trained in x/w because the instructor thought it was too windy that day!!!! Many think the peddles on the floor are for taxi and brakes! One new CPL recently was observed to place his feet on the floor just after takeoff in a twin – when queried he said they are not needed in flight…!!!
geeeez.
I could go on.
This is very clearly a CASA problem but their own FOIs are victims of the same system and many don't know any better themselves. CASA wont let them fly or do tests so they continue to live in wonderland. I guess they won't see it as a problem until there is a 'smoking hole'.
CASA are NOT a safety based organisation, but a regulatory and compliance body that seems to believe that if you comply you will be safe. And we are the victims of this mismanagement!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, I cannot let your last post go unanswered regarding what I would have CASA do to the engineer in question and that particular MR.
This bloke did call for the blood of the engineer and, you guessed it, he (the engineer), was SUMMARILY slapped on the wrist. Other similar situations have had the full wrath of CASA descend upon engineers (see again the Phelan papers), and they are out of business.
INCONSISTENCY !
If the system is so black and white, WHY ?
THEN a company search discovers a direct link between the engineering company and the top end of the CASA food chain.
CO INCIDENCE ?
This is not ignorance on the part of the person in question, and it has the hallmarks of a CASA set up. It is a lack of probity and integrity that borders on the corrupt.
Given this, now NO I would not call for a suspension or licence removal, waste of time actually.
There are a lot of other people who don't support the system, like me, but try our best to work within it. When something like this happens it only reinforces our already jaundiced opinion of things. Chigago Convention or not.
I wish we could all depend on it for support, not prosecution of varying degrees and I guess until it happens, people like you and I will be at odds with each other.
Things have change since the old DCA days, I think for the worse.
It is the Office of legal Counsel and their "ILK" that are the problem, not the solution as you seem to imply.
I appreciate your reply however and I did read it vigourously.
This bloke did call for the blood of the engineer and, you guessed it, he (the engineer), was SUMMARILY slapped on the wrist. Other similar situations have had the full wrath of CASA descend upon engineers (see again the Phelan papers), and they are out of business.
INCONSISTENCY !
If the system is so black and white, WHY ?
THEN a company search discovers a direct link between the engineering company and the top end of the CASA food chain.
CO INCIDENCE ?
This is not ignorance on the part of the person in question, and it has the hallmarks of a CASA set up. It is a lack of probity and integrity that borders on the corrupt.
Given this, now NO I would not call for a suspension or licence removal, waste of time actually.
There are a lot of other people who don't support the system, like me, but try our best to work within it. When something like this happens it only reinforces our already jaundiced opinion of things. Chigago Convention or not.
I wish we could all depend on it for support, not prosecution of varying degrees and I guess until it happens, people like you and I will be at odds with each other.
Things have change since the old DCA days, I think for the worse.
It is the Office of legal Counsel and their "ILK" that are the problem, not the solution as you seem to imply.
I appreciate your reply however and I did read it vigourously.
Correction
It's Airservices, not CASA, that's advertised for those lawyers.
Apologies
Perhaps the metaphor's a thousand controllers tapping on a thousand typewriters....
More to follow, Ax.
Apologies
Perhaps the metaphor's a thousand controllers tapping on a thousand typewriters....
More to follow, Ax.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of points.
1. Seaview. Paul did in fact have a valid medical. He also had an infection, so the question was, was he fit to fly, not was his medical legally valid, fit to fly is essentially at the pilots discretion!!! (thus opening up a whole new grey area for axiom to contemplate).
So how about we get our facts straight before we disturb any more ghosts!!!
2. Creampuff. Nice try at outing, you ain't so secure yourself are you
Gonna go for one of those AsA jobs mate????
Chuck
1. Seaview. Paul did in fact have a valid medical. He also had an infection, so the question was, was he fit to fly, not was his medical legally valid, fit to fly is essentially at the pilots discretion!!! (thus opening up a whole new grey area for axiom to contemplate).
So how about we get our facts straight before we disturb any more ghosts!!!
2. Creampuff. Nice try at outing, you ain't so secure yourself are you
Gonna go for one of those AsA jobs mate????
Chuck
Ulm: everyone knows who I are. I’ve admitted to our identities on numerous occasions.
Of course we will be applying for those jobs.
And BTW: Fit to fly is not at the pilot’s discretion. I suggest you read CAR 6.16A(1), twice:
Of course we will be applying for those jobs.
And BTW: Fit to fly is not at the pilot’s discretion. I suggest you read CAR 6.16A(1), twice:
The holder of a medical certificate must not do an act authorised by the flight crew licence … while his or her ability to do the act efficiently is, or is likely to be, impaired to any extent by an illness or injury, no matter how minor.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greyer and greyer.
So, I scratched my knee on my boat yesterday. Does that impair me???
How do I know??? Go to a doctor every time I get a zit, or a scratch, or a headache??? (yeah, some are stupid, but where do you draw the line, axiom oh guru of grey, can you shed some light).
I know, why not have a medical before each flight, that would be safe now, wouldn't it!!! (but not affordable )
Perhaps, as some in CASA have suggested, I should write on my MR every time I have a bugsmash on my windscreen and then fill the MR up explaining how I rectified it and in accordance with what stupid CAR.
May the Gods save us from rampant lawyers and their idiot regulations!!!
So, I scratched my knee on my boat yesterday. Does that impair me???
How do I know??? Go to a doctor every time I get a zit, or a scratch, or a headache??? (yeah, some are stupid, but where do you draw the line, axiom oh guru of grey, can you shed some light).
I know, why not have a medical before each flight, that would be safe now, wouldn't it!!!
(but not affordable )Perhaps, as some in CASA have suggested, I should write on my MR every time I have a bugsmash on my windscreen and then fill the MR up explaining how I rectified it and in accordance with what stupid CAR.
May the Gods save us from rampant lawyers and their idiot regulations!!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Subject out of hand.
The original focus of this thread has been lost to series of sometimes convoluted and sometimes emotional and sometimes sensible red herrings.
Nobody has yet answered the simple question,
"IS THIS GUY ENTITLED TO A TRIAL OR NOT" ?
Some see his hung already, some are awaiting an answer from the system.
To make things easier for those who want to debate the merit of the rules, I have started a new thread with a poem rewritten from an old DCA "crash comic" circa seventies.
Go for it people, in the interim, lets see where the original focus of this thread leads.
26th February wasn't it ?
Mr or Mrs or Ms ulm, I think we have some common ground here.
BTW "Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt.
Robert Lindner.
Nobody has yet answered the simple question,
"IS THIS GUY ENTITLED TO A TRIAL OR NOT" ?
Some see his hung already, some are awaiting an answer from the system.
To make things easier for those who want to debate the merit of the rules, I have started a new thread with a poem rewritten from an old DCA "crash comic" circa seventies.
Go for it people, in the interim, lets see where the original focus of this thread leads.
26th February wasn't it ?
Mr or Mrs or Ms ulm, I think we have some common ground here.
BTW "Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt.
Robert Lindner.
Fun job
Sounds like a fun job to apply for...
Job Description:
Lawyer required for regulator
Detail:
How would you like to interpret and draft legislation for what is the flying equivalent of the Building Industry.
Experience:
All the public think that train drivers run the rail system - so you must be an aviator.
Gotta be a bloke
Can do that law stuff
Rewards:
1. Public Service Pay - woo hoo
2. No Recognition of a Job Well Done - Because the constituents you are protecting don't understand the issues at hand
3. If you don't read the fickle and ever changing political environment well enough you could become an intellectually challenged yet politically savvy person's fall guy
4. You'll have to move from Utah or wherever you reside to Canberra
Man, sign me up!
Job Description:
Lawyer required for regulator
Detail:
How would you like to interpret and draft legislation for what is the flying equivalent of the Building Industry.
Experience:
All the public think that train drivers run the rail system - so you must be an aviator.
Gotta be a bloke
Can do that law stuff
Rewards:
1. Public Service Pay - woo hoo
2. No Recognition of a Job Well Done - Because the constituents you are protecting don't understand the issues at hand
3. If you don't read the fickle and ever changing political environment well enough you could become an intellectually challenged yet politically savvy person's fall guy
4. You'll have to move from Utah or wherever you reside to Canberra
Man, sign me up!
