CASA integrity?
 

Over 5 months ago I wrote to the CASA CEO, Bruce Byron, applying for a dispensation so I could do straight-in approaches (of less than 5 miles) and join on base at non-tower airports when it was safer to do so – as per the USA and other leading aviation countries. See here.

The following week I wrote to Malcolm Campbell, Team Leader of Flying Operations, mentioning the CEO’s directive as follows:

Once again I applied for a dispensation to conduct a straight in approach of less than five miles when it is safer to do so. Here is a copy of the letter.

Three months after the original letter to Bruce Byron, I wrote again on 15 April 2008 (see here). This letter contained a very apt question:

Six weeks after this letter, and some four months after my original letter, when it became apparent that I was going to get no answer from CASA, I arranged for my solicitor to write to CASA stating that we had briefed a QC, and if we didn’t get an answer within 7 days we would commence proceedings in the Federal Court. (See here).

At the stated 7 days, I instructed my solicitors to go ahead and prepare the documentation – as I never bluff, I always do what I say. The expensive documentation (see here) and affidavit (see here) were prepared and lodged on 11 June 2008. Remember, this is now some 22 weeks since the original letter to Bruce Byron, with no answer in any way.

Note particularly paragraph number 4 of the affidavit:

The following morning (that is, today) at about 10.00 am I received a letter from CASA from Mr Mick Quinn (Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Operations) answering the questions. Well, when I say answering the questions, not really answering them but at least replying. Note how no mention is made of Byron’s harmonisation directive.

This is of course after I have expended a considerable amount of money in the court action. The letter from CASA is here.

The question is whether this is ethical. I will be requesting that CASA pays my quite considerable legal costs, because if they had replied to me originally, or at least made a phone call to my solicitors and said a reply was being prepared, these high costs would not have been incurred.

I will keep you posted on what happens.

Erm, where does the integrity(?) come in? You requested a procedure change without using the documented process and they said no. It's like suing Vicroads because they won't register your Lamborghini (or whatever richboy toy you turned up in) because you'd rather write your application on a live aardvark than the required form.

On the other hand, if we are talking about joining on the base leg if it seems safe to do so - I'm all for it:D

CASA inefficiency? Well that'd run.

gee....errr... thanks?

Well I think its interesting - interesting in the sense that trying to get a reply, answer, information from either a government organisation or big business can be like pulling teeth. (Which is now the norm, rather than the exception)

Try getting an answer,reply, or some sense regarding breaking off from an instrument approach when visual........

I sympathise with the lack of response you have recieved to your request. The one question I have for you (and I freely admit at this point I have not read the documentation attached to your letter) is 'for what operational reason have you sought the dispensation that would allow you to be treated differently to all other users?'

Earth Shattering!!!
 

Geeez Dick.

This is really earth-shattering stuff.
Quick,,,,,go and get some airtime on some tv station. Let everyone know.
Sky is falling....sky is falling!!!!!!

Thanks So much Dick.

For bringing this unbelievable state of affairs to our attention.

What would we do without you Dick.
Thank God for Dick.

DickyPearse

This might answer your question.


Its interesting to note that CASA's response cites safety in helping to separate aircraft in the traffic area.

I have seen no such evidence both here and in the United States. Surely too then they would be open to increasing the safety levels by allowing a join on base leg inside 5nm on those occasions safety warrants it.

Dear Mr Smith

I think you will find little sympathy on this forum for a private pilot who wants to be treated differently to everyone else.

Because of people like you and AOPA constantly frightening the horses, efforts by industry to improve CASA's service delivery (or rather, have someone enforce an improvement) are simply lost in the noise.

I presume that it is requests like yours that have held up our AOC variation application (submitted Jan 08) for 5 months, before an FOI has been able to turn his attention to it?

I expect that it is time-wasting applications like yours that mean we paid $5000+ to CASA in February to review our submitted documentation, for a simple application adding CHTR and a couple of types?

You have run a business Dick - fancy starting a business, renting premises, employing and training staff and entering into cross-hire arrangements (not to mention giving CASA $5000 to stick in the bank) and then waiting 7 months before you can turn a wheel? :mad:

Fortunately our primary task is AWK and it is ongoing - but as we try to build our business, Dick, I will not lose a minute's sleep for a self-promoting PPL who wants to cut corners nobody else can. :*

Time to get a grip, fellers. Five miles on a visual approach. How do YOU measure it, Dick? With a GPS, I s'pose.How do I measure it. By looking out the window and eyeballing it.
So my "5" is your GPS 3.5. And as for my eyeball "5" at my weekend toy bugsmasher's 85 knots compared with a jet's absolutely accurate 5 - by the time he's got the call out the jet is at 3.5 anyway, unless he starts the call at 6.5 (which I try to remember do in my company jet anyway), but as I said, about then I am looking out the window and not at the GPS, even though it's got two of the things. For those who don't like my cowboy approach to this rule, who ya gonna call?
How will CASA or the county cops or whoever enforces this rule measure it from the ground? (non-controlled, non radar). They can't. And if they can't, they can't enforce the rule, and would have no hope of a prosecution. If the terrain is hostile, or complying with a rule would place your aircraft at risk, you don't need a reason to 'bend' that rule. Airmanship.

DickyPearse, you ask:

Note that my request for a dispensation was actually for all aircraft. My solicitor’s letter to CASA dated 23 May 2008 (see here) states:

Isn’t it interesting that if you want to fly into Bankstown from 2RN, the air traffic controllers will readily give you a straight in approach from Warwick Farm? No, that is not 5 miles, it is a little over 2 miles, but the controllers have decided that is the safest thing to do. The same thing happens at all tower airports.

However if you or I fly to a private country strip out near Coonabarabran, we cannot make a decision to join directly on base or to do less than a 5 mile final for a straight-in approach. In effect, the rules state that air traffic controllers know more than the pilot in relation to the safety of the aircraft.

I fail to understand why this dispute escalated to the point of threatened legal action, or why CASA's integrity is in any way involved.

First of all, I am assuming we are talking about CTAF (R) airfields. If you aren't then as far as I know straight in approaches are illegal.

I also have personal experience (last week) of what it's like "arranging separation" with an oncoming aircraft on a straight in approach. Five miles is about 6 minutes at 80 knots.

In my case I was downwind for 35L at YMMB. Two Warriors called at Carrum inbound (5.4 miles) about a minute apart. I was ready to turn base at 3 miles (the Golf Course) when the always helpful Tower kindly queried if I thought I could fit between the two of them (they were by this time at 3 miles and a bit over four miles). I replied negative, widened out a bit and brought up the rear. Tower changed the landing order. No dramas.

This whole exercise, by my timing, took about four minutes from realising that there was someone doing a straight in approach, spotting the other aircraft, and analysing who was going to have to fit where to ensure separation. I fail to understand the point of reducing the time available to achieve this by reducing the five mile minima. I wonder how well the two of us would have done without a helpful tower?

It will be interesting reading the safety case since if you reduced it to three miles, which is round about the longitudinal distance from the threshold you are on base in a Piper or Cessna, you could conceivably announce your intentions just as an aircraft turning final arrived exactly where you are at 90 degrees to your course.

Anyway why bother? Just to save two minutes time?

Yes Dick

Directed traffic in a GAAP aerodrome with all players required to carry a radio vs a strip in the middle of nowhere and plenty of aircraft with NO radio.

This is why we have PROCEDURES - to give us half a chance of knowing what the other guy might be doing:ugh:

My ab-initio ultralight students can understand this but aparrently you can't.

Why do you forever invent reasons to create a rukus? :{

Sunfish don't tell me you fly base THREE MILES from the threshold? :eek:

I note your efforts were for the benefit of all of us.

However in relation to your comment highlighted below, I believe that the potential dangers involved as a result of such a dispensation significantly outweigh the broader benefits.

I am no lover of CASA, but I resent my taxes funding a legal defence over such a trivial matter. Dick, if I could have my way, you would have blown your legal costs and still would not get a reply from CASA, because the guy MY taxes are helping to fund is too busy doing important stuff, like raising standards in G.A. to include the subject of common-sense. (I wish)

When it comes to keeping the aircraft "safe" from other aircraft, THEY DO. Hence why YSBK twr can clear you straight in from Warrick Farm - safely. YCBB on the other hand, is a different question.

Ahhhh, you mean you're not supposed to do that?

I always fly at least three legs of a circuit - its just that sometimes one or more legs follow on from one another in a straight line!

GG :}

Sorry, didn't even get past the thread title.

What integrity?:ugh:

Fellow ppruners, you need to understand something about administrative law which may make Dick's actions somewhat clearer. It has nothing to do with the matter contained in his application and everything to do with what CASA is supposed to do.

An administrative body, such as CASA, has certain powers given to it under the legislation and some of those powers include the authority to make a decision on certain matters. Note, the power is to make a decision, yes or no. It is not a power to sit on it's fat nether regions and not make a decision at all.

There is bags of case authority on the matter all of which points to the decision maker having to make a decision. I would think that Dick is probably on an odds on favourite to win here should it go that far.

While it's good to see Dick take the fight to CASA to make some decisions, is this really the right topic to argue?

My research may be lacking, but after reading the threads within pprune and Dick's website I cannot see whether he consulted with anyone else within the industry.

I have witnessed a number of base joins at non-towered aerodromes I can only say they caused confusion and increased the risk for collision. My base join in a C172 will be in a different position to a Tecnam, Baron, Tigermoth or C208. However, if they all join a long final there will be more consistency. If they join crosswind they will all join in a similar position. Same with the 45 deg downwind.

As a flying instructor, my second issue with base joins is they occur at a time when the pilot (or low-hour, possibly solo student) is very pre-occupied with power/flap/configuration settings, not to mention the pitch/roll changes that cause momentary blind-spots.

GAAP base joins are different because ATC provide me and others with traffic advice.

Maybe I'm a little thick, but why can't you manoeuvre to join the downwind leg?

They are my reasons for opposing the base join. However, I have an open mind and am open to suggestions. Just because they do it in the US isn't the reason I'm looking for.

Thanks Plovett. I was about to point out that most of the responses here are actually "thread drift" - unrelated to the thread topic.

Whether Mr Smith's request related to a straight in approach at an airport or a barrel roll under the Harbour Bridge, he was entitled to a decision and rational response in a timely manner.

Bendo. You too were entitled to a decision and rational response in a timely manner in respect to your AOC amendment. May be worth you reading the ADJR - it is a very useful lever when it comes to encouraging public servants to carry out the function for which they are paid. :ok:

You are right Dick, CASA and ANSA still live under a HOWARD and ANDERSON regime where they can get away with whatever they try their hand at.

It won't last much longer though. The Labor Party is soon to destroy the LIB/NATs disastrous rain on aviation in this country.

However, given your eyesight problems that keep you flying with a 2nd dicky IFR, how can you see the traffic that you hope to "SEE and AVOID" on your SIA when you are VFR and solo?

Your National Party self interest is so obvious in this thread, Dick.

Dick (and bush lawyers also note)

To be entitled to a decision on an application you submit, you have to apply for something you're entitled to apply for and get.

The current regulations make provision for approval of circuit joins on base at a non-controlled aerodrome. Although the 'new' regulation 166(4) is not clear as to whether the approval is granted to pilots individually, or in respect of a particular aerodrome, or both (such imprecision being disappointing, given the amount of resources poured into the change) common sense would suggest that each approval would have to be granted in respect of particular aerodromes. The approval could then be published as part of the ERSA entry for those aerodromes, so that all pilots using those aerodromes would know that base joins are approved there, and could therefore operate in the vicinity accordingly.

You appear to have applied for an approval for yourself to join the circuit on base at any non-controlled aerodrome. How's that going to work? Would the ERSA entry for every aerodrome say that 'Dick Smith is approved to join the circuit here on base, when the aerodrome is non-controlled', or would there just be a general note at the start of ERSA?

If you're 'applying' for every pilot to be approved to join circuit on base at every non-controlled aerodrome, you're effectively asking that regulation 166 be amended. You don't have the right to apply for approvals on behalf of anyone but you, and regulations are not changed by 'application' from punters.

The current regulation 166 does not make provision for approval of a straight in approach with a final of less than 5 miles (except for instrument approaches in certain circumstances). You would therefore need to get the regulation changed or apply for a CAR 308 exemption (presumably you got a 308 exemption in respect of Gundaroo).

But again, if you're effectively asking that every pilot be exempted from the minimum 5 mile requirement for straight in approaches at all non-controlled aerodromes, you're effectively asking for regulation 166 to be changed. Again, you don't have the right to apply for exemptions on behalf of anyone but you, and regulations are not changed by 'application' from punters.

I'd suggest you invest in some legal assistance before you submit any more 'applications'. That is, of course, unless you submitted the 'applications' for the purposes of making some other point …..

creampuff
 

Thank you, well said.

Like his push for (effectively) the removal of circuit rules in Nov 2004 this has nothing to do with the safety of anybody (least of all on the ground) and everything to do with convenience for RHS.

Beware also his strategy (also employed by one of his cronies) of flying a kite here, noting the industry's objections, and ensuring his subsequent media circus avoids or neutralises the experts (yeah... that's us) opinions.

tail wheel

Thank you for the advice, which I appreciate, but I have no intention of becoming the next Ord Air Charter, UZU or Yanda :ugh:

I find it amazing that Dick still doesn't know how things work in Australian Aviation even after several years as the Head of CASA himself.

Dick, just READ YOUR AIP and bloody follow it. Aviation safety will be the winner and everyone else here can relax a bit more when you are in their airspace.

As for your LIARS, I am sure they are very happy to take your money, regardless of the possibility of legal success.

Good luck mate! (No sorry, I really don't mean that)

We are able to join cts at 3 positions; downwind, mid xwind and 5nm final. Approaching base from the base quadrant gives us 2 quickish options, manoeuvring to join mid downwind or 5nm final. Making a decision from 10nm taking either option may add one or two minutes. Not much! Commercial and higher performance aircraft aren't going to worry too much but slower aircraft may find it is the difference of 0.1 on their aircraft hire bill.

Things to consider:

1. CTAF - No radio required
2. CTAF - GA, Ultralites, powered plastic seats, gyrothingies all with different radio procedures and radio qualities.
3. CTAF - No Tower looking out for other aircraft and giving you update surface wind conditions. Two very good eyes not looking out.
4. CTAF - Pilot on downwind approaching base turn has time to maintain a good lookout but is at a point in flight where there is high workload with time devoted to looking at runway (spacing), scanning instruments (height & IAS) and completing checks.
5. A 5 to 30 hour a year pilot I believe would benefit from taking time to construct their approach carefully from downwind, remembering that a good landing usually is achieved with a good approach.
6. CTAF - Not always runway wind info to the inbound pilot.
7. CTAF - Straight in approach OK I guess for the casual pilot. Time to configure, scan for traffic, speed control and assess windsock etc. No chance of over shooting finals and less chance of getting high and fast.
8. CTAF - Calm winds; 2, 4, up to 6 landing options.
9. Non radio equiped aircraft joining by flying over the top can expect 3 positions for other aircraft to join, that's enough.
10. CTAF - Not many transponders or TCASs. No help from ATC radar usually.
11. CTAF - Low time pilots

Dick you mention the good old USA, not all good things come from the US which includes aircraft safety and company takeovers.

Think we leave it as it is.

I operate into CTAFs entering at speeds between 150 - 200kts. Standards of CPL, PPL and all the rest has got worse over the last 5 years and I just wish to keep the whole process simple and as safe possible.

Cheers

There was once a colourful character in charge at Camden, a Czech by birth, I think, who spoke with the heightened emphasis common to his countrymen. He was asked by a pilot one day for a dispensation to get around some small inconvenience. "You want dispensation? You don't need dispensation! Only Dick Smith needs dispensation. He needs dispensation to breathe!"

Sunfish....

surely you jest!
5 miles is 5 minutes at 60 knots...

do you want me to explain further ?

CASA = Were not happy. Till your not happy.....:}:ok:

I think we've managed to cloud the issue by talking about GAAP ops too much. It just doens't apply to what Dick is trying to achieve. That includes your reference to BK too, Dick.

CASA is under the gun awfully at the moment with the senate inquiry underway. We should be very worried that the mob charged with ensuring our safety in the air has operated so badly that the senate feels the need to intervene. And you can guarantee there will be intervention.

Dick might be awfully rich, but he still operates within his own rights. One of his (and our) rights is to get a timely response from a government body. I too would not like my taxes spent on CASA defending themselves from a legal challenge, but they wouldn't have to if they'd done the right thing in the first place.

That's what we need to fix ... the "holier than thou" attitude that exists at CASA that is actually operating to decrease safety in this industry.

Walrus

If there is no added safety risk, I'm all for it and so should you all be.

Instead of looking out for an aircraft on base, you'll now look for an aircraft on downwind instead (big deal). It's a great idea. It also helps with aligning yourself, getting your altitude correct and procedures in order. Think back to your training and you'll probably remember that your instructor told you to always try and fly a base leg in a forced landing to help with judging distances and altitude, versus a straight-in approach.

I regularly fly over an airfield that would benefit from this requirement being changed as 5 miles puts me out over the ocean.

I might even apply myself without the legal threats because I can't afford it.

The fact is that if it's in the charter of CASA and we follow the lead of other countries and if it's proven to be safe, then we shall follow like sheep.

I can't think of any reason why ANY of you would complain about this.

So XXX if the rules get changed..... you might actually follow some of them:}:E

You have raised a good point, some approaches like the one you have is not always friendly country underneath!:uhoh:

J:ok:

Wow! What amazing posts! Because someone in the old Department of Civil Aviation many years ago made the mistake of making recommended circuit procedures mandatory, we now have “fundamentalists” maintaining that this error should never be corrected.

Fortunately a number of private messages that have been sent to me have differing views.

There appears to be little understanding from the posters on this thread for the necessity for removing unnecessary cost and waste. My estimate would be that if you include the airlines that operate to non-tower airports, there would be something like $500,000 to $1 million PA of waste involved in these unique procedures.

I have mentioned (and no one has queried this) that I know of no other country in the world with prescriptive requirements meaning that a pilot cannot make a judgment at a non-tower airport in relation to joining on base, or joining on a shorter final than 5 miles. We would have less than 2% of the world’s aircraft movements, yet people maintain that we must keep this unique and wasteful requirement.

Sunfish, you state:

This is not correct. You are mixed up with the old days, when there were incredible restrictions on straight-in approaches – things like it must be a two pilot crew, and can only be done at MBZs.

I have been working on this issue for about 15 years. Originally straight-in approaches were banned at all airports because of the prescriptive requirement which said you must fly three legs of a circuit. Gradually I have been able to make changes which undoubtedly improve safety and reduce waste.

Bendo, I’m not a pilot “who wants to be treated differently to everyone else”. I simply want us to follow the safest and most efficient proven safe rules that are accepted in modern aviation countries. Bruce Byron’s CEO Directive 001/2007 clearly states that we should do this.

It is perplexing that posters on this thread don’t seem to believe it is a good idea to follow proven safe procedures from other modern aviation countries.

Ando1Bar, I’ve had over 15 years of consultation with people in the industry. Those who have a lateral thinking ability and understand that safety resources should be efficiently allocated all support following the most efficient, proven safe procedures at non-tower airports.

You state:

What happens if it is what they do in every country in the world other than Australia? Wouldn’t that make you think that possibly the original prescriptive decision was not based on any real safety issue?

In the meantime, my solicitor has sent a letter to Bruce Byron regarding costs (see here). Remember, it would have been quite simple and ethical for CASA to have simply phoned my solicitor stating that they were preparing an answer. Then we would not have gone to the needless expense of preparing an affidavit and filing it in the Federal Court.

I will keep you posted on the answer from CASA.

Legal Expenses
 

Dick, the result of your claim for legal expenses will be zip.!!!
CASA and Bruce Byron should have responded to your original letter with whatever the answer was to be.
When it takes 22 weeks to get an answer, that's plainly ridiculous. I'm on your side, but although the response that finally came was not "really" answering the questions, it is still an answer.
To embark on a process to retrieve costs for a "no response" will be a wasted exercise. If you do, then good luck.
I believe that the regulator or any other organisation has responsibility to at least acknowledge receipt of your letter and respond in a timely fashion.....

Clarrie and Apache, correct, must have been a bad hair day yesterday.

5 miles at 80 knots = 3 min 45 sec.

Turn final almost exactly 1 mile longitudinally from threshold for 35L at YMMB. I got me pointer on the wrong golf club on Google earth.

So a warrior at Carrum (5 miles) calling inbound will probably average 80 knots (slowing from 100).

That means it will arrive at the one mile point on final, where anyone on base will have turned final, at around 500 ft about three minutes after making their inbound call.

That means you have three minutes from the inbound call at five miles to see the other aircraft and arrange separation.

In my opinion the aircraft in the circuit is the one who is going to have to do most of the seeing and avoiding, at least that's the way I play it, and if someone (like a SAAB or whatever going into YBHI) announces they are at X miles for a straight in approach to 05 in five minutes, then I'll almost always extend downwind until I can see them pass me.

Creampuff. Please pay attention! :=

That is not what Mr Smith asked, nor was it the cause of his action. "Entitlement to a decision" is not relevent in respect to whether Mr Smith was entitled to a timely response to his letter.

• On 10th January 2008 Mr Smith wrote to the CASA CEO requesting a dispensation and received no response.
  
• On 23 January 2008 he wrote to CASA Team Leader – Flying Operations requesting an approval and again received no response.
  
• On 23 May 2008 Mr Smith's lawyer wrote to CASA CEO requesting a response to Mr Smith's original application letter.

The nature of Mr Smith's request is irrelevent.

Could you please explain why Mr Smith was not entitled to a "timely, accurate and useful responses" to his original (and subsequent) letter(s) "within 14 days of receipt", whether that response was either acknowledge of correspondence or denial of the request?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Extracts from CASA Service Charter:

CASA = user pays now. User = customer.

If a customer of CASA must pay, then customer must be provided with service. (Remember the CUSTOMER is always right! :} )

CASA can't keep the same mentality of a government bureaucracy which takes months to provide an answer / action / service whilst it continues to charge people.

Being a customer and paying for a service, means that CASA can and should be held accountable.

In New Zealand I understand they have recommended circuit procedures (as all countries have), however a New Zealand aviator has given me the following advice:

This is exactly what I want in Australia. In effect, it is exactly what happens in the USA and Canada – even though it is not spelled out so clearly.

Can someone tell me why a Qantas 737 arriving at a CTAF(R) with a UNICOM, when there is no other traffic there, cannot safely join directly on base to land at a non-tower airport? This is obviously safe as it is what happens in all other countries. If the Qantas 737 was coming from the south and the runway was east/west, it would either have to join on some type of downwind leg, or head 5 miles to the east or west to join on a five mile final. What a complete waste of fuel and time when safety is not improved in any way, and possibly it is decreased.

All the examples that are given here of other aircraft in the circuit pattern are simply solved by the fact that good airmanship would dictate that if there was another aircraft there, you would either follow that aircraft, or communicate with it and decide which was the best way to come in.

Personally, if I’m flying at an aerodrome and the RPT aircraft arrives (as happened recently when I was flying at Port Macquarie in my Caravan) I either extend my downwind or do something else to let it land first. This is because I generally fly for enjoyment and I don’t mind having a bit of a delay to save a lot of fare paying passengers from getting in quickly. Most other private aviators I know do this.

Torres

The remedy for failure to comply with the CASA Charter does not lie in ADJR action or the courts. All you can do is whinge to the CEO and Minister, and anyone else who is prepared to pretend to care.

An entitlement to a response to correspondence in accordance with the CASA Charter does not turn that correspondence into something it's not.

Stop your rubbish and go away.
 

(my bolding)

...how's that?

As usual you're cherry picking for your responses.

I dunno if you have ever flown Jets, Dick, (no I haven't) - perhaps someone other than me could compare and contrast joining the circuit in a 737 and joining in a Caravan at, say, Port or Ballina. :ugh:

...hey the jets have TCAS, right? :ugh: