|
Policy is not law – AAT buckets CASA decision
Caper Pty Ltd T'a Direct Air Charter and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] AATA 181 (21 March 2011)
Folks, Worth a very careful read. This leaves CASA 2009 (amended 2010) policy on Charter v. RPT rather in tatters. "Policy" is not the law, as the old CAA found out the hard way, just ask Ron Cooper. But there is no corporate memory in CASA, hardly a revelation. Tootle pip!! |
And your Mama!.
Well as the man said, in the Senate. It's a good example of "a bad law", translated "as you like it". Unpopular decision to shut down 50 operators, now it seems "his" interpretation is also illegal.
Finally, balls in the AAT, what next, contrition from CASA. Baww, haaww haww!!. :ugh: Selah. |
Policy is not law – AAT buckets CASA decision
In the AviationAdvertiser Paul Phelan writes:
Policy is not law – AAT buckets CASA decision An Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision yesterday [March 21] declared a long-disputed CASA policy to be “unlawful,” raising questions over a host of past decisions and the CASA policies on which they were based. The applicant in the AAT was Caper Pty Ltd, trading as Direct Air Charter, represented by aviation law specialists Maitland lawyers, with AAT Senior Member Egon Fice presiding. In May 2010 CASA had served a “show cause notice” of its intent to suspend or cancel the company’s AOC saying it had reason to believe the operator was conducting regular public transport (RPT) operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island, which CASA said its AOC did not authorise. The legal definition of the differences between charter and RPT, and the confusion surrounding the issue, have been the greatest single source of disputation between regulator and industry for over 25 years, and various interpretations have triggered numerous regulatory forays that resulted in the closure of aviation businesses. Direct Air Charter is a general aviation operator headquartered in Melbourne, with bases and operations in Western Australia and the Northern Territory; and the dispute surrounded its air charter contract with tour operator Australian Adventure Tours (coincidentally AAT), which CASA considered constituted RPT flights. On 7 September 2010 the Company had applied to the AAT to reverse CASA’s decision and to determine that the conditions on Caper’s Air Operators Certificate, authorising the Bathurst Island flights, should remain unaltered. The automatic stay provisions set out in s 31A of the Act then automatically applied, and the decision was stayed for 90 days or for “such a period as the Tribunal might order.” A month later, the Tribunal ordered that the decision be stayed until the application was heard or determined, or until further order of the Tribunal. In a cogent, detailed and comprehensive analysis, Senior Member Fice’s decision examines the history and details of the contract between the parties, the concept of the “classification of operations,” witness statements, CASA policy documents, relevant legislation and case law reaching back to the 1920s, archived air accident enquiries, the legal language and even the grammar and dictionary definitions in the relevant Act and Regulations, Aussie Adventure Holidays’ publicity material, reports from a CASA investigator who flew on one of the tourist flights, and the Tribunal’s own interpretations of the spirit and intent of the law. The Tribunal noted: “CASA has published what is described as Regulatory Policy regarding the classification and regulation of closed charter operations under CAR 206(1)(b)(ii). That policy document is signed by Mr John F McCormick, who is the Director of Aviation Safety. It was issued in July 2009 and reviewed in July 2010. It is properly described as Departmental Policy as distinct from Ministerial Policy. In its reasons for making the policy, CASA has indicated that the current distinction between charter and RPT will soon disappear and be replaced by one category, Passenger Transport. However, this has not yet occurred. The policy document purports to provide clear guidance on the classification of operations as closed charter or RPT and the limitations and condition which may necessarily be imposed on certain kinds of closed charter operations.” On February 25, Mr McCormick told a Senate Committee that CASA was cracking down on the practice of ‘borrowing AOCs and using other people’s activities:’ “We ….. have CAR 206, which is about ‘interposed entities’ – borrowing AOCs and using other people’s activities. That has resulted in quite a few operators who no longer can offer flights on a charter basis when in reality they were offering them on a schedule at a fixed fee, sometimes through a travel agent, and when in reality they were avoiding the sort of oversight they would get if they were regular public transport. “We have gone out of our way to stamp that out. We have seen very good results on that. It has not been the world’s most popular program as you can imagine, but it is something we should have done, and [CAR 206] has been recognised as bad law for some 26 years.” The Tribunal’s comments effectively confirm Mr McCormick’s assessment of CAR 206 as “bad law,” but are unflattering about CASA’s interpretation of that law as expressed in the policy document: “What appears from CASA’s analysis of CAR 206(1)(b)(ii) is that unless the persons purportedly chartering an aircraft have some identifiable and close relationship, although that relationship may or may not be relevant for the purposes of characterising the charter, if the flight is conducted in accordance with fixed schedules and between fixed terminals, it is an RPT operation. That, in an unexplained way, is said to reduce the level of safety. Quite plainly, this makes no sense. Whether the passengers who fly on these aircraft have some pre-existing relationship makes no difference to the safety of that operation. If CASA’s concern is with the numbers of passengers carried or the frequency of flights, it can impose conditions on an AOC under s 28BB of the Act.” Elsewhere he states: “In my respectful opinion, CASA’s Regulatory Policy dealing with the classification and regulation of closed charter operations under CAR 206(1)(b)(ii) issued in July 2009 is simply incorrect and, accordingly, unlawful. It has relied on the wording used in Air Navigation Regulation 191(c) which uses words not found in CAR 206(1)(b)(ii). No reference is made in that policy document to the change in the wording or the reasons for that change. In fact, in support of the policy, CASA has quoted from cases that have dealt with Air Navigation Regulation 191. I decline to follow it.” The Tribunal concluded: “I find that the decision made by CASA on 7 September 2010 to cancel one of the authorisations contained in Caper’s AOC in respect of its operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island for the purpose of conducting the Tiwi Islands tours was incorrect. I set aside that decision and instead determine that the conditions on Caper’s AOC should remain unaltered. Caper should be permitted to continue with its charter operations between Darwin and Bathurst Island.” A number of aviation businesses whose operations have been “stamped out” by regulatory policy, say they are now reconsidering their positions. This is a landmark decision in clarifying the definition of Regular Public Transport in Australia and defining CASA's power to regulate by Policy rather than Regulation and brings into question CASA's repetitious use of precedents (e.g. Seaview and Coral Sea Air) and incorrect internal policy interpretations of it's own regulations. A significant number of Australian aviation operators have been forced out of business by CASA over the past 23 years, by "bad law", very badly interpreted and administered. I am sure this situation would not have occurred had CASA efficiently and promptly provided new, simple, concise Regulations as soon as possible after 1988, rather than procrastinating for the past 23 years! I suspect a number of operators forced out of business by CASA may now be considering their legal options. |
What price the win??
The Skull will not be happy with this decision. How dare some "Judge Judy" court, who are supposed to follow the CASA line, question his warped vision of how aviation is to work in Australia.
His inflated ego has taken a severe battering, the reprisals I fear will be severe. If, as reported else where on these forums our "National Carrier" has difficulty in complying with the Reg's, what hope a impoverished GA outfit? There will be something somewhere they can ping them for, and if not, there is always the "Lets make it up" scenario, after all they are in the end unaccountable. I suspect these poor individuals are in for a torrid time, "Let the audits begin". Strange that QF can get away with operating over weight, which would result in a "Show cause" to anyone else? Thread drift sorry folks. |
The interesting aspect is that the Qantas charters over Antarctica were not lawful under CASA's interpretation of CAR206 and Policy, but are now lawful in accordance with the AAT Decision.
What is the difference between the Qantas charters over Antarctica being sold on an individual seat basis via an interposed entity being a travel agency, and Direct Air's tourist flights between Darwin and Bathurst Island with seats sold on an individual basis via the tourist operator interposed entity? As far as I can see, the only difference is one of size, muscle and financial and legal resources? |
Originally Posted by thorn bird
Strange that QF can get away with operating over weight, which would result in a "Show cause" to anyone else? Thread drift sorry folks.
Originally Posted by Air Ace
As far as I can see, the only difference is one of size, muscle and financial and legal resources?
|
And the minor point that the QF AOC permits aerial work, charter, and RPT. QF also has their own travel agency. Read the AAT decision. |
This decision is probably the best news for the Industry in a number of years.
Companies such as Air Crusiing, Heron Airlines, Air Adventure, Dick Lang etc etc etc who have been operating for years can now get on with doing what the Australian Tourist Industry needs - providing bussiness for the thousands of small operators (motelliers, ground tour suppliers etc) that rely upon them to provide an income in what is a very sparse economic situation. For example take Innamincka - Dick Lang operates in there virtually every week providing much needed dollars to the town. Marree - both Heron Airlines and Air Adventure operate in there weekly and again provide regular income to the town. Then you go to someone like Captains Choice, who operate overseas, using Qantas for a number of years and now competing against Air Cruising with Dash 8's. I wonder whether CASA would proceed against them??? The twist here is that Captains Choice is a Qantas Company in disguise. Strange how CASA's mind goes after the weak, certainly not the strong. |
I do laugh at the fact that the usual suspects cite the AAT as an authoritative source when it makes a decision with which the usual suspects agree, and dismiss it as unauthoritative when it makes decisions with which they disagree.
The word 'hypocrisy' springs to mind, for some reason. It's academic, of course. Any decade now, CASA will action the 15 year old 'urgent' recommendation, in respect of CAR 206, made by Commissioer Staunton in the Seaview Inquiry. |
Creamie. I don't recall an AAT decision in an aviation matter with which I disagree? Some decisions may be a tad subjective, but what would you expect with the self professed "bad law" that is our current CAR's?
The word 'hypocrisy' springs to mind, for some reason. |
I must have misinterpreted your comments on this one: Coral Sea Airlines Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [1999] AATA 329 (17 March 1999))
|
Next punch....
As someone who has been done over by Reg 206 (iv)..photography and 27(d)
..allowing an aeroplane to be used for a commercial purpose(photog), maybe now is the time to go for an AAT decision on the legality or otherwise of these issues, that are not "unsafe" but 'commercial' The CAA Act 1988 says that CASA is not commercial regulator.. it is only a safety regulator. That has been stated on numerous occassions by various Ministers. So, that is Government Policy. A meaning of the Act, no less. The regs, upchucked by the wunderkind of OLC/ LSD and other parties, are the controlling policies that CASA wants. I believe they are illegal, unconstitutional? and they certainly breach the common civil rights of photography, and deny me the right to earn a living in my chosen profession. Time to rattle some chains... |
The Screaming Skull........:D
One hopes that he is subject to the same type of 'justice' that was dished out all those years ago :ok: |
I must have misinterpreted your comments on this one: Coral Sea Airlines Pty Ltd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [1999] AATA 329 (17 March 1999)) There were a number of issues considered by Deputy President Dr. Gerber in that matter, including the crash of Shrike VH-YJT; alleged Failure to Record Defects on Maintenance Releases; Overloading of Aircraft; Pilot Experience and Competence; and Personnel and Management Structure; most of which are more than adequate justification in CASA's original decision to suspend the operator's AOC. The alleged RPT operations is not in my opinion, necessary to consider in justifying the decision by CASA and supported by the AAT, in revoking the operator's AOC. That Staunton supported your view on CAR206 and Fice supports my view of CAR206 is merely indicitive of an appallingly drafted Regulation that lacks the definitions necessary to be intelligently and lawfully interpreted - as Staunton confirmed in his urgent recommendation 15 years ago to review and revise the classification of operations. I don't disagree that RPT operations should be safely regulated but the mumbo jumbo of CAR206 fails to achieve that objective, to which by your comments you obviously agree. |
Originally Posted by Air Ace
Your thinking is along similar lines as CASA. Whether QF holds an AOC authorising RPT services is irrelevant.
I think CASA was on the right track with the publication of policy CEO-PN007-2009, however I think a number of the paragraphs fail to deliver (e.g. para 12 in my view is bad policy). The AAT decision I think is a very sensible outcome. Many mining charters do not fit the test used in para 12, as often the mine operator will charter an aircraft, however the passenger list may not only include workers from the mine, independent contractors, and other service providers (i.e. a train driver working for another company), and even government employees. However generally a lot of these charter operators also have a RPT AOC. I think CASA were trying to clarify the standard of AOC (i.e. does the operator have a RPT AOC) that needs to be in place where regular charters (even if they are not an RPT service) are in place that the public can buy individual seats on. The RPT AOC is the highest standard AOC an operator can gain in Australia. Also we also need to keep in mind that in cases such as these, the initial complaint may have come from industry. This would not be the first time in history where a competing operator may have made a complaint to CASA alleging that another operator is conducting operations not permitted by their AOC, knowing full well they stand to gain financially if they are shutdown by CASA. CASA is then in a position where they are dammed if they do investigate, and dammed if they do not, this abuse by industry to use the regulator for business gain I think should be legislated against. I am not in favour of the "sting" performed, it does nothing but to promote distrust between the operator and the regulator. A more sensible way to promote safety is for the operator to work with the operator to develop the points outlined in paragraph 20 of policy CEO-PN007-2009. Like check and training should have a small emphasis on the checking, and a larger emphasis on training, as a regulator they should have a small emphasis on enforcement (checking) and a large emphasis on safety promotion (training). |
CAR206 is not about passenger safety and never was. That is the error CASA have been making for many years.
It is about the authorisation, classification and regulation of commercial flying operations. Indeed, that section of the ANRs from which CAR206 originated (ANR190 to 203 from memory?), deals entirely with classification of operations, particularly in reference to the previous two airline agreement. CAR206(1)(c): ....the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals. I wonder how many scheduled air freight operators, from Bank Runners to major trunk route cargo operators, hold an AOC authorising cargo only RPT services - and if not, why has CASA not pursued those operators for conducting scheduled cargo services which are not authorised by their AOC? :E |
I am not in favour of the "sting" performed, it does nothing but to promote distrust between the operator and the regulator.
Distrust!!!..good grief where are you from??. Anyone who talks to CASA without their lawyer present is a fool. CASA is now so endemically corrupt that any trust has long gone. Until CASA's charter is changed to reflect, as the FAA's does, that its decisions MUST consider the economic impact and well being of the industry it supposedly regulates then there will continue to be a total disconnect between the industry and the regulator. These are not people with "Probity" we are dealing with, they are misfits and incompetents. |
Mr Egon Fice is a former RAAF Mirage pilot. Smart cookie....
|
Originally Posted by Torres
CAR206 is not about passenger safety and never was.
CASA do not like the situation as much as the industry does, they "do not", and "cannot" regulate "commercial activities", that is not their role, hence the push for part 135 and 121. Under the new classifications, part 135 will be for small aircraft, and 121 for large aircraft. Under parts 121 and 135 and passenger transport be it schedule or non-schedule should have the same level of safety if it has be publically advertised or arranged by, or at the request of, others. That should terminate the open/closed charter and RPT commercial/non-commercial debate for good. The sooner the new parts come into play the better, and the sooner all reference to "commercial" is removed from legalisation CASA administers the better. I would even like to see the SPL, PPL, CPL, and ATPL to be renamed to get industry stop thinking along “private”, “commercial”, or “non-commercial” lines.
Originally Posted by thorn bird
Distrust!!!..good grief where are you from??. Anyone who talks to CASA without their lawyer present is a fool. CASA is now so endemically corrupt that any trust has long gone.
On two occasions I have been invited in for a cuppa tea and bikkies, both times the format of the formal meeting was providing information and education, we went back and amended the paperwork and/or procedures, they were happy. Both times we were obviously “dobbed in” by our competitors. No further action taken. I am obviously from the other end of industry that does not get any press, where we far exceeded the minimum standards in the legislation, and CASA was not seen as the “enemy”. CASA were complete gentlemen compared with ruthless independent industry auditors employed by our clients. |
What appears to be totally missing in relationships between CASA and operators, by all accounts, is one essential ingredient that I have been trying to remember, but has just only sunk in.
That is the concept of Good Faith: Good faith, or in Latin bona fides (bona fide means "in good faith"), is sincere, honest intention (even if producing unfortunate results) or belief. In law, it is the mental and moral state of honesty, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition or body of opinion, or as to the rectitude or depravity of a line of conduct. This concept is important in law, especially equitable matters.[1][2] In contemporary English, "bona fides" is sometimes used as a synonym for credentials, background, or documentation of a person's identity. "Show me your bona fides" can mean: Why should I trust you (your good faith in this matter)? Tell me who you are. In this sense, the phrase is sometimes used in job advertisements, and should not be confused with the bona fide occupational qualifications or the employer's good faith effort, as described below.[3] For example, if the allegations made by Butson in the matter of Polar Aviation are true, then the actions taken against Butson do not seem to me to have been taken in good faith. Similarly the actions in support of safety, of the operator whose AOC was cancelled in Sydney after a crash, as revealed by the AAT, do not seem to have been in good faith attempts to comply with regulation either. If "Good Faith" is missing in relationships between regulated and regulators then God help all of us, because at some stage this lack of good faith is going to become known to the general public and then all of us, including CASA will suffer accordingly. It was Thorn birds post that finally made me remember this little concept: Distrust!!!..good grief where are you from??. Anyone who talks to CASA without their lawyer present is a fool. CASA is now so endemically corrupt that any trust has long gone. Until CASA's charter is changed to reflect, as the FAA's does, that its decisions MUST consider the economic impact and well being of the industry it supposedly regulates then there will continue to be a total disconnect between the industry and the regulator. These are not people with "Probity" we are dealing with, they are misfits and incompetents. While my own very limited dealings with CASA have always been satisfactory, I have yet to meet anyone in Aviation who has ever referred me to CASA as a source of advice, nor who have had a good word to say about them. While that is "negative evidence" it leaves open the possibility that CASA has a problem. Furthermore, you don't get to jettison "Good Faith" on the grounds of "Safety" and protecting the general public. Anyone who thinks about the matter will quickly realise that a lack of good faith is counter-productive to safety, as I am sadly concerned that the public is going to learn the hard way. |
Torres
You made my point for me (again) when you said this: The alleged RPT operations is not in my opinion, necessary to consider in justifying the decision by CASA and supported by the AAT, in revoking the operator's AOC. Those facts may be inconvenient to some. But facts they remain. It’s hypocrisy to shout from the rooftops when the AAT decides that CASA was incorrect in finding that an operation was RPT, on the one hand, then ignore or downplay an AAT decision that CASA was correct in finding that an operation was RPT, on the other |
Torres
If CAR206 was solely about passenger safety, why then does is specifically include "....transporting cargo for persons generally"?
Torres the thing here is "persons generally". No bank runner / freight operator is carrying freight for "persons generally", they are chartered by say Freds Freight to shift the parcels dropped off to them. Even if this is to a fixed schedule it is not RPT. Nobody can walk up to the aircraft at port A and hand over a parcel and some money wanting said parcel taken to port B. If they could that is "persons generally" and now becomes RPT. This is the CASA interpretation of the rules the several times I have had the discussion. What they think now who knows - :confused: did I imply CASA thinks!?! |
I beg to differ.
CAR206 does not diferentiate between "....transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally..." Freight companies, agencies and Australia Post are offering to transport freight by air for persons generally. The freight company or agency does not hold an AOC authorising air service operations; is their advertising of an air freight service in breach of CAR210? A person must not give a public notice, by newspaper advertisement, broadcast statement or any other means of public announcement, to the effect that a person is willing to undertake by use of an Australian aircraft any commercial operations if the last‑mentioned person has not obtained an Air Operator's Certificate authorising the conduct of those operations. If the freight company or agency offering to transport freight for persons generally - an "interposed entity" - does not hold an AOC, it is then incumbent on the aircraft operator they engage ("the last-mentioned person") to hold an AOC authorising the air service being operated. On interposed entities CASA Policy states: In such cases, especially where the entity is a travel or booking agency that advertises and sells seats on the aircraft it has chartered to anyone who is prepared to pay the cost for a seat, it is CASA’s view that the operator and interposed entity are part of a single enterprise, effectively offering accommodation on the aircraft for use by persons generally. Indeed, it is not unusual to find purportedly ‘closed’ groups that have been created solely for the purpose of providing a conduit through which members of the public (i.e., persons generally) might be funnelled onto an aircraft. I watch a light twin engine aircraft pass through the town where I live, on schedule, five days per week. I am able, as are persons generally able to deliver freight to the local agent of a national freight company or the local post office, pay the prescribed air freight fee and know my freight will travel on that aircraft. I am not advocating that bank runners etc should hold an AOC authorising RPT operations, rather highlighting the "bad law" and absurdity of the current CARs and in particular CAR206. It becomes even more absurd when CASA incorrectly and repetitiously consider CAR206 is a safety regulation when in fact, it is simply intended to classify the categories of operations. But then, Senior Member Mr Egon Fice, has correctly shot CASA's policies full of buck shot and in my opinion, provided the correct interpretation of the meaning and intent of CAR206. The next move is up to CASA. Watch this space! :E |
Reg 206... and decades have passed...
SWH... states re Reg 206.' poorly drafted from day one'. And they know so.
McK recently says its been "bad law" for 26 years !!. The Aya -Toller said it was a "bugger's muddle" a decade ago BUT NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT. So the poor operators/victims of any sort, have to ask the question..Why TF has NOTHING been seriously done about fixing it over all these years, of great trauma and distress for so many.. because of it. NO LEADERSHIP??? THEY SEE NO MORAL NECCESSITY?. SOME people go under because of it.. DO WE CARE...DWF! There has been some'change' crap and fluff show up on the Web site and paperwork over the years, but it comes and goes like autumn leaves. NEVER anything gets finalised. And to say"..that CASA doesnt like the situation. ".. and cannot and do not regulate commerce" Bullsh*t. They've loved it and have used it to great effect on many. And at the behest of competitor companies too.. corruption and cronyism, its called. And how's this for a comment to a photography client, as they collect invoices and payment slips.."this is about commerce, nothing to do with safety... but dont say that in court" But of course when it gets to court its all they say.. 'safety, safety, safety'.. the bs mantra of the illegitimate. And after I'm severely busted by it, the mongrels send an email around the traps to each other about the penalties...."For your amusement" Gives you an insight into the mindset of those in the "Conduct & Ethics Committee"..! CASA has a 'code of conduct' that is meaningless to some of its employees. They get away with bureaucratic buggery, because they can /allowed to/protected. It will NEVER, EVER be an organistaion that you can deal with "in good faith" because the lack of moral fortitude,honesty and integrity goes right to the top echelons, and that rot seeps right on down to the lower floors. THAT is why CASA is ( in my humble opinion) the diabolical, dysfunctional, distrusted organisation it is today. Its not about "SAFETY", its about POWER and PUNISHMENT Mix CRAP regulation("bad law") with the BULLIES, and that's what we get And that is why there never will be a vibrant GA sector, where the business individual can use his aircraft as an efficiency tool, and others can go about their flying jobs in peace. Dream on.... |
It's interesting that mass murders and psychopaths share many of the same genetic traits as corporate criminals and corporate thugs. Starts with animal cruelty I understand.
Corporate psychopath's perhaps? It would seem human resources are hiring people either based on their own standards or in dire need of a qualified independent psychologist to pass prospective employees as suitable for the job. |
CASA qualifications
CASA QUALIFICATIONS:
Maybe that is why the pHd title is as it is!! For the record: Author Aleck, Jonathan Title Law and sorcery in Papua New Guinea : a reconsideration of the relationship between law and custom / Jonathan Aleck Published 1996 Position: Associate Director of Aviation Safety |
Folks,
An extract from the the AAT case N0.2010/3851. I have changed the colour of some sections to red to highlight some points made by the AAT Senior Member. Tootle pip!! PS: Dr. Jonathan Alex has first class graduate and post graduate law degrees from leading US universities, as well as later qualifications. The conflicts between tribal (or religious) law and the British system of common and statute law is a quite legitimate field for a PhD thesis. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Folks, I could not get the paragraph numbers to come up correctly, so I have deleted same.Please read para 36 through 42 very carefully, it is quite enlightening. Tootle pip!! |
Erudite Posts
By our esteemed and respected colleague - Sunfish.
I have read many of your posts with delight and amusement, but, I always thought there was an element missing. No disrespect intended but, over the last few years dealing with the CASA has become a mind numbing, destructive exercise in bull dust, that beggars the imagination. The Sydney company you allude to had, for 18 months been operated to a fairly inflexible standard, way above previous times, way. Had the new 'authority' discussed it's issues with senior staff, changes would have been made; forthwith - no discussion - therefore no safety alert. It is quite correct to say that it's sister company deserved and needed "regulatory management', probably shutting down. No great argument there it was crook; but had CASA asked and had CASA not gainsaid or ignored documented evidence, then perhaps, just perhaps, young Andy Wilson would be alive today. I thought you perhaps failed to grasp that the CASA is not capable of acting in good faith, not for one minute. In days of yore, yes absolutely, but since 'the man' and 'MY policy over law" - etc. Not even close. The best claim the current mob have is the rag they call the ASD has won a prize. Bugger ICAO, bugger` IOSA, bugger the FAA. The next audit will be interesting. Thou shalt have one God and I am a jealous God. Well we shall see about that. Words fail. Welcome to the club Sunfish, finally you understand why there are people who risk their livelihood to get this information out there. It would surprise you to know just how little is said against how much anger there is, no one deliberately sets out to be in breech. Selah |
aroa asks:
Why TF has NOTHING been seriously done about fixing [CAR 206] over all these years… There is a ‘no-brainer’ solution to fixing CAR 206, but it’s politically unacceptable. Fare paying passengers stepping on to any aircraft make the reasonable assumption that the standards applicable to the operation are the same, whatever they are stepping on to and wherever they are going. Most fare paying passengers wouldn’t have a clue about whether they are stepping on to a charter aircraft or an RPT aircraft, and most passengers wouldn’t know that different standards could apply, depending on the classification of the operation and the size of the aircraft. Most fare paying passengers would be surprised, if not alarmed, if they knew about the distinction and its implications. The distinction was essential in the past, for technological, geographic and economic reasons. The distinction is no longer essential, especially in a country that feigns first-world aviation status. The ‘no-brainer’ solution is to remove the distinction between charter and RPT, at least in respect of operations involving fare paying pax. Dick Smith attempted, while Chairman of CASA, to make the distinction and its implications clear to fare paying pax. Dick had his head kicked in by, guess who? Those obstructionist bureaucrats in CASA? No. It wasn’t CASA. Ask Dick who kicked his head in on this issue. If just one tenth of the amount of money wasted by incompetent government bureaucracies in Australia in the last 20 years had instead been invested in regional aviation infrastructure and flying machines, maybe Australia would now have lots more GA aircraft that were designed in the 1980s rather than the 1940s, more regional and rural airports that don’t look like moldering sets from movies about WWII, and fewer regulatory Frankensteins like CAR 206. Unfortunately, not even one hundredth of that wasted money is going to be diverted to aviation. Why not? Politics. Only the ‘J curve’ counts in Australia. Outside the ‘J curve’, Australia just ‘protects’ the ‘industry’ by maintaining the different standards. Operations relating to activities like coal mining outside the ‘J curve’ are very important, but they generally happen in real time, in the real world, against standards set by insurers and other people with real money at risk. Cost savings in the aviation sector haven’t gone back to investment in aviation. They’ve gone to important stuff – you know, the stuff that governments think is important. Unfortunately, lots of people in GA will continue to divert their energies to blaming CASA, arguing with CASA, and fighting amongst the various ‘representative’ organisations. Why? Because those people either don’t understand that metaphor about monkeys and organ-grinders, or don’t know who the organ-grinders are. As to the people who presume to implicitly criticise someone in CASA who’s attained a PhD, I’d observe that although it’s demonstrably possible for an ignorant illiterate to operate an aircraft as safely as it can be, the effective performance of lots of other jobs depends on, or is at least enhanced by, higher standards of education. |
The right stuff...
A fascinating read.
Those that live by the word, die by the word. Amen. |
Originally Posted by aroa
And how's this for a comment to a photography client, as they collect invoices and payment slips.."this is about commerce, nothing to do with safety... but dont say that in court"
Is that an accurate 2 line summary of the issue ? |
I've noticed (even over the last 5 years), that many clients are jack of the ancient CASA regs and tend to self regulate through their contracts with operators (I'm from a helicopter world).. They are increasingly demanding higher standards and pilot requirements (and rightly so), and they're prepared to pay for it.. Audit companies are also employed to police compliance with their contract..
|
Creampuff:
Fare paying passengers stepping on to any aircraft make the reasonable assumption that the standards applicable to the operation are the same, whatever they are stepping on to and wherever they are going. Most fare paying passengers wouldn’t have a clue about whether they are stepping on to a charter aircraft or an RPT aircraft, and most passengers wouldn’t know that different standards could apply, depending on the classification of the operation and the size of the aircraft. Most fare paying passengers would be surprised, if not alarmed, if they knew about the distinction and its implications. It appears, unless I'm mistaken, that CASA has decided on a "one size fits all" approach to the regulation of commercial passenger carrying activities. In other words, small operators are expected to replicate in miniature, all the systems and procedures applicable to a Qantas, Rex, etc. If that is the intent, it is lunacy. Thank God I'm not involved commercially in the aviation industry. If this is true, then it appears that CASA has caught the same creeping occupational health and safety cancer that is slowly crippling our economy. That is a confusion between the existence of formal bureaucratic safety systems and actual safety. Numerous examples can be provided on request. What is lacking is any consideration of economic effect - a subject that is normally part of a risk management approach. |
You are implying that they operate to lower safety standards that RPT operators. |
Is CAR 206 invalid?
This is a great decision but it doesn't go far enough..... In the "Changes to the ACT 1998" Anderson made no mistake when, in his second reading speech, (which sets the intent of any Bill in the lower house) removed the word COMMERCIAL from the Act and explained it with these words...Quote "IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE SEFETY REGULATION OF AVIATION ACTIVITIES SHOULD NOT BE BASED FUNDAMENTALLY ON THE COMMERCIAL NATURE OF AN ACTIVITY, IT IS PROPOSED THAT THE TERM COMMERCIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACT BY REPLACING 'DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL FLIGHT' WITH 'REGULATED DOMESTIC FLIGHT."
I was a around when Leroy Keith, as the director, made this happen and have tried( along with several others) unsuccessfully to influence CASA to obey the parliamentary directions in this Bill and stop using commercial as a direct lever to regulate safety. Bruce Byron( give him his due) attempted to do this and consulting with many people from all avenues of aviation brought in a policy document called "CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES" which, if followed, would have done just that....... Unfortunately, we lost him and now have the ceo from hell who has decided he knows best and the past isn't relevant and all of the work done in the Byron years has seemed to have disappeared...... CASA has, not only disobeyed(and is still disobeying) the government's directive to stop using hire and reward or payment of any kind to regulate aviation safety but has cleverly changed CAR 206 to remove mention of commercial in the body of the rule although it's still in the heading but has inserted "functions" in their place. Somewhere between there and the coalface dollars rear their ugly head....... My whole point is this...... For 13 years there has been no "Head of Power" in the Act to allow CASA to use commercial means to regulate safety...... Yet they have continued, by fair means or foul, to do so at your's and my expense....... NOT ONLY IS CAR 206 INVALID FOR HAVING THE WORDS "COMMERCIAL PURPOSES" in it's heading but every other regulation which refers to commercial can also be said to be invalid.. How much longer do we have to wait for CASA to get a little honesty into it's operation and rewrite the regulations using a risk-based platform to regulate safety instead of commercial? |
Changes to the ACT 1998
Now doesn't that make some sense for where we need to go - Good post Geo171. And maybe that is the pressure that needs to be placed on the Senator to get Parliament to ensure CASA undertakes what it was directed to do. Problem we have is that CASA will say that there is "a review" being undertaken. If that is the case, maybe the question is when is Parliament going to force CASA to do it's bidding. It is the Parliament that ultimately makes the law - maybe the next one should be to just introduce the FAR's - be blowed to what CASA says and get on with safety management. :ok: |
And maybe that is the pressure that needs to be placed on the Senator to get Parliament to ensure CASA undertakes what it was directed to do. Problem we have is that CASA will say that there is "a review" being undertaken. Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister? Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister. Don't rush things, that was only six years ago. := |
R 206.. invalid.. ie illegal
smh.. You are right, No AOC and No CPL either at the time.... and so what?
The AOC is an economic mechanism to "allow" you to work..and as a PPL I wouldnt get one. But I am a PPL /Photographer.. that is my profession. So as the bum stated it was a commercial action that I did .. selling photos.. from a "safety" point of view, WTF has that got to do with CASA. When this same ****** was asked What about Dick Smith PPL/photographer? Ahh, but thats different.!!? ( They just dont have the testicular fortitude, do they?) So much for LAW and "bad law" At the time on the CASA web site were all these new and exciting changes about to happen, to allow me get on with life... and a job. But as CASA usual, they never did eventuate, some dragging on until 2003. As a PPL I can fly my aeroplane and take photos to my hearts content and that is not deemed to be an UNSAFE activity, but I can only give my pictures away for free. How then to make a living? Become a bank robber? Join CASA (upchuck!):eek: Then there was 27(d) ? allowing an aircraft to be used for a commercial purpose....? Not an unsafe purpose So my acts of commerce, as far as CASA is concerned is the deciding "unsafe" factor...one which doesn't exist. And thus is a breach of a "safety" regulation. Just like the Caper decision wth the Charter and /or RPT.. there IS NO safety implication being either one or the other. For the GA industry its been schemoozle with CASA getting into the commerce of tools of trade, trying to mind other peoples' businesses and with SFA to do with safety. Ever heard of CASA busting a PPL Barrister flying to a job with his para -legals, a trolley load of brief and law books (tools of trade), an the invoice to the client bills a/c time and etc.? Holy crap...a "commercial" flight No... they wouldnt have the balls. What about a CASA Canberra winter escape trips, travelling around the north, with a box of CARS ANRs and all the other "tools of trade" to refer to,..got an AOC, CP and a CPL? I dont think so. They do it with a PPL LAME and his tool box flying into a job at some remote strip. WHAT ON EARTH HAS IT GOT TO DO WITH CASA THAT THE LAME IS GOING TO PUT A SPANNER ON ANOTHER AEROPLANE AFTER HIS FLIGHT.?? Quite frankly...its none of their fn business.! What CASA ONLY needs know is that: the pilot has a valid licence and medical, the the aircraft has a current MR, and the flight was conducted ok under the VFR/IFR rules. Nobody has a problem with that. I certainly dont. And if you think CASA, when doing a job for a competitor co./"mate" leave no stone unturned, you're right. Before court first time around I carried on to complete my work schedule. I was advised that by doing so, I was in contemp of court !! Hullo... I havent even been to court yet, but of course, these are the people that like to be judge, jury and executioner! Their will be done. They also looked at getting the AFP to seize the aircraft and do an arrest.! Which would have meant the contract or balance of, probably would have gone the the competitor co. No wonder "Starsky and Hutch" tailed me from PJKT to CityBeach. Taking photographs for money must mean y're a very naughty boy. During all this,it did make me begin to wonder what country I was living in..!! At NO time over this period did CASA approach me about ANY SAFETY issue whatsoever. Which kinda makes my case about "commerce" being the kill factor. So thank you very much GEO 171 for yr post. Excellent. It confirms, yet again, to me that which I believed all along... that "commercial" regs are illegal. |
Can anybody tell me with certainty that CASA have an AOC for photographic missions in hired or rented aircraft?
This is not a frivolous question, I do have a motive for asking. |
CASA holds no AOC
CASA has no AOC
They have no Chief Pilot They have no Safety Management System They do not have sufficient knowledge of aviation law to hold an AOC As recent events prove. And YES their staff conduct Aerial Work on a regular basis. BUT they are above the law; just ask them |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:44. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.