:rolleyes:

Who said that?

I note the lights are off on your other sandpit. Why don't you run along there and stir up some debate with the converted few?

But what does your post, that leaves my questions unanswered, have to do with the issue?

Owen, I was referring to scheduled services. The answer is lots and lots- far more than we have and they all use the one simplified entry call fo VFR!

None. The techs won't let us near the spares :}

What a sad commentary on the level of aviation intelligence in Australia this thread is!

So true, a shop steward will always be a shop steward no matter what mountain range they name them selves after.

Uhhhhw push me, shove you!.....oh yeh, says who?

Having more fun watching the footy than watching this poor excuse for an argument:=

Ahhh bugga, we're out .....so back to the prune:}

fence sitter getting off the rails here

So that makes you a Joke?:hmm:

SQ

.....r10 out of 10 SQ6969:}:}:}:ok:

Howabout,

I agree entirely with your view, but, as the saying goes, "It is what it is".

If you think Australian bureaucracies are illogically opaque --- try dealing with any UN agency, not just ICAO.

I always quote Australia's "differences" to Annex I, for the logging of pilot flight hours, as an example. The relevant Australian regulations are a nonsense, compared to Annex I, and the practices of most countries ---- and Australia, until several FOIs got a bee in their collective bonnets about 20 years ago----BUT ---- Australia is "compliant", because we have filed a difference.

The only net result of this Australian "Compliant difference" is that young Australia pilots get screwed in the international job market, when in competition with their peers from NZ/US/CA/UK/most of Europe etc.

As to who has what authority beyond the 12 (in some cases 3) mile limit, there is no point in getting into a debate, the effects of various international treaties (and not just the Chicago Convention) are really quite clear, to those who have made a study of the matter. Australia continues to (in my opinion quite arrogantly) publish so called prohibited and restricted areas where we have no legal jurisdiction. As a matter of interest, there is a proportion of aviation regulation enacted by the Australian Government that is probably unconstitutional, including some amendments in recent day, but who has the funds to challenge the Government in the High Court.

I have always been impressed with the fact that the US complies strictly with the spirit and the letter of the various treaties in play here, as can be seen by an examination of US Jeppesen high and low level (or even the KLAX or KSFO area) airways charts.

Back to GAAPs ---- Call them "ICAO D", the current clearance practices and procedures are effectively ICAO compliant, file a difference to maintain our present VMC criteria, and Hey!! Presto !!, ICAO compliant D ---- just like the FAA ---- and that settles one of the outstanding findings in the last ICAO audit.

And make all the D towers this ICAO compliant common standard.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I am no double act with Dick, but in these areas I have always agreed with him, and agree with the fact that he continues to try and do something to improve the lot of the aviation sector in Australia, and goodness knows, it needs help.

When Hansard becomes available for last week, have a look at the Minister's rant, because the combined opposition parties disallowed (congratulations to AIPA) a particularly nasty piece of security regulation ---- a strict liability offence for the PIC, for something he can have no control over ---- this is back to the nonsense that was dropped in 2003. This sort of regulation is just not tolerated in regulation generally --- aviation should not be singled out this way.

Single it out Leadie...Senate or Reps...Minister Albanese or his mouthpiece in the other house....Hansard is a big document...a week in politics you know:ugh:

OZ,
It was reported (by Steve Creedy, I think) about Wednesday this week, so it was early in the week, Reps, they are taking anything up to 10 days before it appears on the web site.
I will also be interested in reading the Senate Hansard of the debate on the dis-allowance motion. Previous Ministers (both Labor and Coalition) have usually withdrawn legislation if they know it is going to be tossed out.
Tootle pip!!

Found it-

Motion to Disallow Page 8 Senator Xenaphon


Bit of a thread drift...but rather topical this week

Pilots take controls of cockpit issue: access | The Australian
Folks,
This is the story in the Australian by Steve Creedy.
Tootle pip!!

Jandakot Revolt
 

Here is the letter to McCormick from Michael G. Braybrook
President, Jandakot Airport Chamber of Commerce

Aircraft for Sale, Plane Sales, Planes for Sale – Aviation Advertiser ? – Online Magazine Jandakot backlash at CASA directive

Will be interesting to see what, if any, response comes from Mr McCormick.
Or will he just go on basing his decisions on the flawed information provided by the Ambidji Report?

The directive is doomed anyway, because AsA won't have the ATC's - and CASA still won't tell them what flavour of Class D they want to mandate (ICAO/FAA/hybrid).

And CASA should get some professional statistical advice before they respond in knee-jerk fashion to random events.

How embarrassing for CASA - good point about legal requirement for an impact statement, guess they forgot that in their haste.

Quite apart from all the other problems with this, what worries me is that one person, whose aviation experience is not relevant to GAAPs, can have the absolute power to enact all these changes with the stroke of a pen and seem not to be answerable to anyone.

I don't know why myself and so many others had to attend meetings where we were told we were not to ask questions on Class D or Ambidji. Why, I wondered, were we there to discuss GAAPs which will seemingly be obsolete in April. All that was discussed there seems to have been ignored by McC and his crew as nothing has changed and no information has been forthcoming. How we are supposed to educate our studes, and pilots doing AFRs, and pilots not due for AFRs for ages in time for the changes is beyond me. Some CASA guys have given thier time to discuss this with me, but they don't seem to be able to shed any light on this.

CASA's best safety resource is those who have many years and thousands of hours in this airspace but we are being completely left out of the decision making process and our concerns ignored and dismissed. I have had a message passed on to me from a CASA rep via a third party that I had better stop discussing this with my peers or else, as apparently I haven't gone to any of the meetings. :confused: I only missed one, and gave my apologies as it was held at YPPH and was short notice, and I had a previous engagement as a CASA delegate to do a flight test on their behalf..

So not only are we being left out of the decision making process, CASA seem to actually want the CFIs and CPs and other experienced GAAP operators to shut up. *Digs out old CRM books and scratches head*

Merry Christmas to the operators at GAAPs from CASA:

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...09/casa597.pdf

Unbelievable - some sanity - but why three and half weeks before the increased caps and atc discretion for arrivals and departures can be used?

And why when the consensus at HAZID workshops was for the numer of aircraft in the circuit to be at ATC discretion has he come up with 8?

Looks very much like some back pedaling to me.

Maybe a "little" bit of back pedalling but still making sure we all know who's in charge.

The Director is ruling by decree in a pond where he has zero experience but wants to be seen to be doing something. The shenanigans will continue ...

Interesting
 

Unhinged, interesting quote
Now perhaps The Screaming Skull has more experience within the big end of the skies rather than with the smaller birds and airports,but what experience do people like Politicians,even Alabanese have ??
In general, Politicians suck, kiss and lick their way into that field of employment,with no skill other than having been born with a silver spoon in their mouths and the even better skill of being able to lie and spread BS without flinching,then they score a portfolio which revolves around a particular arena that they normally have never even stepped in.
I would imagine that The Skull would not be acting on his own,rather he would be listening to his senior managers of which some do have a background which included GA etc.True,that doesnt neccesarily mean the correct processes have been adopted, but I have of late become physically ill at the sight and sound of Politicians speaking about things such as aviation, economy, employemnt, environment to name a few, when their overarching knowledge of the subject matter is zero..
(My apologies for the 'thread drift' and slight deflection, I have been watching too many political spin doctors on the news lately ).

Albanese's lack of experience in the things that his portfolio controls doesn't excuse the Director's behaviour. Oh to have a Minister who had ever set foot in a charter operation or flying school, quietly as a student or ordinary customer, rather than as a publicity opportunity. But, because the politicians usually know little useful about the operational side of their responsibilities, they employ people who can relate to pollies on one side, and the real world on the other. To interpret, advocate, guide, and direct. And so, the Director is sandwiched in that confined space between operational issues and political masters. It is the same for all organisations, especially large ones.

The line which all people in the Director's position walk is complex, but many carry such a position with aplomb. He does not. Feeling the need to do something, he does it. CASA Instrument 597/09 plainly acknowleges that he has acted without sufficient input from appropriate sources.

Referring to the previous Instrument setting out GAAP changes (6 aircraft circuit limit, Class D, etc), it says "This instrument is a remake of a previous instrument. When that instrument was done, the Office of Best Practice Regulation did not require a Regulation Impact Statement because a preliminarly assessment of the Business Compliance Costs indicated that the instrument would have only a low impact on business"

"Low impact on business" ? The restriction to 6 circuit aircraft had a large, measurable, and entirely predictable impact on business. Staffing Camden Tower 7 days a week will have a large, measurable and entirely predictable impact on business. Either the advice was wrong, or the people it came from were the wrong people to ask. Or both. In either case, he should have applied more wisdom in acting on it, and he is responsible for that.

No-one expects The Director to know everything about aviation, and he is naturally obliged to get assistance in areas where he has limited expertise. He needs to get the right advice from the appropriate people and implement it in an effective way. Shotgun out, management in.

Unhinged - well said mate.

I wonder if humble pie was on the menu for xmas lunch at the director's place?

SayAgainSlowly,
The Humble Pie was for desert, the main course was a s*#t sandwich !!

too late in the evening to go searching the thread to see if this has been posted previously- but a little bird whispered that the GAAP CAP could well have been as a result of an unsettling experience for the CEO during a weekend expedition at Archerfield early in 2009. apparently not amoured of the traffic behaviour (or numbers), the 'lack' of radio discipline etc:hmm:
guess it was just not the same as operating into an international location in a CX bird:{

What concerns me is that the original instruction did not appear to be based on much more than a wild @ssed guess.

Clearly, going from Six to Eight aircraft is a 33% workload increase.....or is it?

What appears to me to be missing from consideration is the "meta message" (the message being sent when you don't think you are sending a message) that is constantly being transmitted by ATC, taxiing aircraft, Circuit aircraft and arriving and departing aircraft.

The "meta message" is contained in voice procedure, standard of English, circuit behaviour and taxiing behaviour. As a YMMB flier who does the odd circuit to keep their hand in, it's pretty bloody obvious when things are getting too busy.

That is when I land and go home, not wishing to contribute any further to the confusion of kids who don't understand taxiing instructions, joining instructions, and whose wide circuits take them into the next state, and yes, we all started like that, but was the circuit always full of complete beginners?

To put it another way, if one of those sausage machine training courses is just starting, even Six in the circuit is going to be a handful, but come back Three weeks later and Eight or more plus arrivals and departures may well be doable for all I know.

You're right Sunfish.

YMMB is nowhere near its 1989 peak.

The other sign is the traffic on final.

Regardless, making regulation decisions from the hip is dangerous, just look at the increase in density at the entry points, and there's no tower control out there to assist with separation.

Safe Skulls For All
 

tubby one -
I know there are 'for and against' in regard to the GAAP shennanigans, but perhaps tubby one has unveiled a nugget here? Perhaps when decisions or changes are being considered in regards to aviation,regulations and procedures - the Regulator must personally experience the current rule set within a flying environment before the changes are implemented ? It certainly is a different environment out there amongst the action compared to signing papers in an airconditioned office.
Just a thought.

...or going through airline pilots' files to select those to be terminated 'for no particular reason'.

ATC training? ATC recruitment? Pilot education?

Not going well methinks, CASA is still thinking about the fine details - so as widely predicted delays will occur.

Best guess from CASA right now? JMcC reckons "It is anticipated Class D airspace will take effect from 3 June 2010." Notice the "anticipated" - there's another get out clause if it all proves too hard!!!

Knee-jerk reaction? Yep, followed by a right royal stuff-up.