I'm part way through writing my request to the CEO of the RTA asking if I can have special dispensation to drive anti-clockwise at roundabouts when it is clear there are no other drivers are in the vicinity. By driving Anti-clockwise when exiting right it will reduce the distance of my journey making my trip cheaper. I believe if all of Australia's drivers took such action, the reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions would be significant.

Ok, I joke, but is there really that much difference between this hypothetical scenario and what Mr Smith is proposing?

Flying Spike, your statements re my Citation operations are untrue and defamatory. I have never attempted to put in a flight plan for my Citation ops on a ground frequency, let alone a complex plan out of Darwin.

I have never wanted to do things at the "expense of everybody else" and there is therefore no evidence of this. I can fortunately afford the extra costs that our outdated regulations force on us- my aims on aviation reform are to have a viable industry that most Australians can afford to be part of.


I request that you correct your flawed statements.

Here we go again! :mad:

The offending post has been removed. The post was totally irrelevant to the thread topic, was a personal attack and contained no substantiating evidence.

Play the ball - not the man.

No personal attacks, no thread drift. That applies equally to every PPRuNe user, without fear or favour!

:=

Tail Wheel

Harrip, you ask if there is "really that much difference" between Australia harmonising with internationally proven safe, non prescriptive, circuit procedures that clearly save money and a ridiculous proposal that has never been tried or tested anywhere in the world.

Well , yes there is!

Do you work for CASA? I ask because it is most likely similar claims have been made within the regulator for the last 15 years to prevent any commonsense being used on this issue.

Bruce Byron announced a number of years ago that CASA would move,where possible to less prescriptive and more outcome based rules.

Obviously no one takes any notice of his directions!

I think the main point to note is that whilst such procedures may have been introduced elsewhere in the world, they obviously have not been adopted here.

Providing dispensation for one pilot could be seen as creating a precedent thereby opening the floodgates for similar requests. This happening prior to any formal implementation of revised procedures, communication and education programme within the piloting community is likely to lead to confusion at best and at worst, something far more serious.

I am unsure what route you have taken to get the changes implemented that your seeking other than a personal letter to the boss of CASA. If your serious in getting the procedures changed as you outline, perhaps seeking support and buy-in from the industry so it is more than a one voice request could help. In this scenario, communicating with the industry prior to CASA would be the way to go. I sense that AOPA is a bit of a lame duck in Australia, but if it were a tougher organisation, there assistance in such matters could be beneficial.

You should have received a reply from CASA, in my opinion it should have been in the negative and no, I'm not affiliated with CASA in any way.

Thanks Dick! That explains where I learnt what I have been doing for the last 20 years.

It IS legal afterall! Oz is the West Island of NZ, isn't it (at least in this context)?

Dr :}

On Ya, Dick.
 

Dick

Probably Bruce gave your request to someone else to manage. Fatal error and he would be regretting it now. The problem is that the CASA is still an incredibly non communicating dysfunctional organization. Mr. Byron is trying ? to change that but it is mind numbingly difficult. Remember what happened when you were there? You blew it.

I regularly get to read the correspondence that goes on in the FAA in the 'Proposal for Rule change' procedure that they have. Its a tremendous system which gets responses in a timely manner with genuinely considered input from all parties. Proposed rules and changes are often dropped or seriously amended in their system to the benefit of every body. Why can't we copy that?
I am with you in thinking that there is much benefit in looking at the procedures of the country that not only invented aviation, but that has the highest no of aircraft and pilots in the world doing their thing with the least amount of bureaucratic interference and expense.

I would also like to thank you for putting your money on the line for all of us who are unable to do so and hope you will continue such actions.

BP

Dick,

I know nothing about your approach/flying issue even after reading many posts but agree that it is a disgrace that you have had to go to such lengths to get a answer from CASA. As a leader of the LAMEs union I too have been dealing with the same CASA red tape to get answers to simple questions. It takes letter after letter and reminder emails until you even get your first response to matters that I and our members consider to be urgent such as aircraft flying aound with wires stapled together in emergency systems. I don't want to say too much here other than I hope the service levels improve.

cheers

Torres

You are spot on. Forget the technical legal issues raised by Creampuff. Dick, like anyone else, was entitled to a timely response. And whether you like him or not, Dick at least has been the only head of the Authority that had a real vision for where the organisation should be headed

Unfortunately, there is no accountability on the part of the current CASA CEO and his senior managers. And anyway, it is probably a bit hard to answer correspondence when you don't actually front up to work.

Interesting that at the last Senate Estimates Mr Byron excused himself and left early because he was taking a holiday - which was more important than sticking around to answer questions from those pesky Senators (even though he knew well in advance, as do all public servants, when Estimates occur. Funny, he did the same thing when the Lockhart river accident occurred). That same day the Senate announced an inquiry into CASA focusing on the Byron years. A coincidence? Or do you think they have finally had enough of this unaccountable CEO?

Dear Dick,

while you're at it, perhaps we should put a list together for you which you could put through your QC to CASA:

For example, I don't understand why the documentation such as AIP, ERSA, etc which is required by regulation isn't provided by CASA free of charge to all CPL holders? And then perhaps you can hassle the tax department to get a special ruling on all training and endorsements expenses for all of us?

Just off the top of my head and I would like to invite everyone else to contribute to the list. It seems very selfish to be burning money with a QC for such a petty little convenience...

Do something useful.

Jeez clapton, way to bear a grudge!

But let me say how warm and fuzzy I feel at seeing you and Torres getting along so well. I thought I’d seen everything, but you and him as new best buddies - waaay out of left field.

However, I’m not betting on the relationship lasting.

I see nothing patronising in Clapton's responses to my posts? He/she obviously has credentials and expertise in aviation legislation and appears frank and honest in the comments he/she made?? :confused:

Unlike some on PPRuNe who tend to allow their egos and prejudices to take precedence over honest, rational and logical responses?

Ah the blush of first love. They’re both so infatuated!

I hope you’re not just leading clapton on, Torres.

And clapton, I hope you’re not going to turn on Torres, as soon as he disagrees with your opinion.

This brings up the question of the quality of the assessment used to determine the competency of the pilot to be flying solo in a busy circuit. Unless the pilot has been certified competent to operate in the circuit and not be "very pre-occupied with power/flap/ configuration changes, not to mention pitch/roll changes that cause momentary blind-spots" his instructor is reckless to authorise the pilot concerned for the solo flight.

That opening paragraph is actually part of the format in all CASA responses. Saves them typing it for each letter...

If I am wrong Dick, I apologise and withdraw the post unreservedly. It must have been somebody else

I have the solution.Simply abolish CASA and outsource all aviation regulation to the FAA. They seem to know a thing or two about aviation.

????
 

The less time you are in the dangerous circuit area, the less the chance of a collision.
And we share the sky with amatuers, professionals, PPL and ATPL holders. They ALL have the right to voice their opinion on safety or other matters.
Let us all be very humble, and factual.

I have skimmed this thread, so maybe I missed something. However, all Dick is asking for is an exemption, which he is entitled to do. The regs state that one can request the exemption - and Dick has done just that.

I don't agree with all of what he has to say and NAS was a total cluster, but he is perfectly entitled to pursue an exemption under the rules. If CASA does not believe that this consideration is valid then it should be cancelled.

However, as long as it's on the books, Dick is entitled to an appropriate level of consideration, which he doesn't appear to be getting at the moment.

And, dammit, I agree with Bushy again. It's a far safer system if you can get it on the ground as early as. Of course, with all due consideration of others operating in the vicinity.

"Flying Spike, your statements re my Citation operations are untrue and defamatory. I have never attempted to put in a flight plan for my Citation ops on a ground frequency, let alone a complex plan out of Darwin.

I have never wanted to do things at the "expense of everybody else

Then just sue him Dick, just like you love taking legal action against the Regulators for not responding to your uninformed LETTERS, sue the pants off SPIKE.

You are correct in that you have never put in a plan for your Citation. You have never been the PIC for any IFR flight since your eyes have failed you, so therefore you are not entitled to a flight plan in, under your name.

For Christ's sake Dick, give up, enjoy your retirement.