|
In my lifetime some churches still conducted services in Latin. "Populus sunt omes obstupescas. Ecclesia rapio vestri pecunia et vendere haedos tuos" chants the priest. "Amen" chants the pious congregation.
Today in aviation it's exactly the same. The rules are written in what for all intents and purposes is a foreign language. Whilst ever the rules are written in the convoluted language of lawyers and NOT the language of the users, confusion will reign. We have to ask ourselves if this is deliberate. If it is, who benefits and who loses? While Creamy and Trent are busy chanting "Lex est Lex" some of you may have translated the Latin above, including the literal meaning of 'Amen'. I'm sure you'll all agree that it's a lot of stuffing about for a very simple message. Similarly with CASA, it's bloody near impossible to translate their rules but you're in deep doggy-do if you transgress. Amen. RA. :ugh: |
Regulations = 50 shades of grey.
|
Biscuit, Don't forget that ONLY the high priests of CASA can decide which shade of grey applies to you for verily they say unto you "Only we can interpret the long dead language called Legalize". I think we're whipped to 50 shades of black and blue. :{
Cheers RA Frank, were you shafted by 50 shades of Cathay? |
Creamie,
I will continue to express myself as I have done, and leave it up to individual readers to read, and if they wish, consider and accept or reject what I have to say. There is, apparently, no shortage of readers, who understand my point. For those who will always disagree with me, no amount of detail will convince them otherwise. Rutan around, We have to ask ourselves if this is deliberate. "Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers". The retort, from the then President of AIPA, is well known. Another statement from a CASA person rather illustrates a certain bias by SOME in CASA: "Pilots are just criminals who haven't been caught yet" And another, from a current CASA quite senior employee: "There should only be two kinds of aviation in Australia, airlines and military" And finally from a quite senior airworthiness person in CASA: "My job is to ground aircraft" And before you ask Creamie, no, I am not going to give names, dates and places. Tootle pip!! |
The guide was produced, rewritten and re-Authored and published. It was a rewrite of the then schedule 4. I guess it was the genesis of schedule 5, but I won't hold my hand up for that one. Schedule 5 has been the CASA Maintenance Schedule in almost exactly the same terms since it was added to the regs in 1991. The only changes since 1991 relate to things like the change in name from “CAA” to “CASA”. A copy of the 1991 legislation including the original Schedule 5 is here: Civil Aviation Regulations (Amendment) Compare it with today’s version: Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 No substantial differences. When it existed, Schedule 4 dealt with dangerous goods training. (Slight thread drift: A copy of the original 1988 CARs is here: Civil Aviation Regulations 155 pages! Count them: 155. And what has the ‘simplification’ process produced?) You need an office, car and travel expenses to produce a guide to purchasing a light aircraft? I’ll whip one up for you, free, in 10 minutes! 1. Find a LAME who represents him/herself as having expertise in the maintenance of the type of aircraft you are considering purchasing. 2. Confirm the bona fides of that LAME – contact owners of the same/similar aircraft maintained by the LAME; contact type-specific clubs or representative organisations and speak to technical experts known to the club/entity. 3. If satisfied with the bona fides of the LAME, pay him/her to: a. Review the aircraft/engine/propeller logbooks, including an audit of the aircraft’s compliance with applicable ADs b. Conduct an inspection of the aircraft in accordance with Schedule 5 c. Provide a report of: i. The findings of the logbook review and AD audit ii. The findings of the inspection against Schedule 5 iii. The scheduled maintenance that will arise in the next two years, and approximate cost iv. The components that may need to be replaced after two years (e.g. seatbelts…) and approximate cost v. Any type-specific airworthiness and maintenance issues, and how those issues have affected and are likely to affect the aircraft inspected. 4. Rely on that report in deciding whether or not to purchase the aircraft. 5. In the event that you purchase and the report failed to mention something it should have mentioned, and you incur costs to deal with the issue, pursue a claim against the person who provided the report. Notes: [As BH has previously noted:] A Schedule 5 inspection is not a ‘guarantee of pristine condition’. A proper inspection against Schedule 5 may not cover some components, and is conducted only for the purpose of determining whether the things inspected will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection. Matters outside the scope of the required inspection are your risk. Some future expenses, like complying with new ADs arising from e.g. fuel contamination, can never be foreseen and are your risk. Disputes about the condition of the aircraft with the aircraft seller and person who gives you a report are your problem. CASA is not the Fair Trading Department or ACCC. If the person who provides you a report is worth $1 and has no insurance to respond to liability to you, the report isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. If an aircraft deal appears too good to be true, it almost certainly isn’t true. The Civil Aviation rules do not determine or affect legal title to an aircraft. Appearing as ‘owner’ on the register does not make it so. You need to check that the person selling the aircraft actually owns it. If you purchase a stolen aircraft or otherwise hand over money to someone who doesn’t own the aircraft, you are likely to lose the aircraft and your money. |
.....and don't forget that wonderful throw away line: "the law, rules and regulations mean what they say".
For example, ask CASA what the word"generally" means. |
Apologies Creampuff and others. Time has taken it's toll and you are correct about schedule 5.
The guide was a re write of schedule 5 and as I said was re Authored, severely edited and published in "the CAsA "blurb. You need an office, car and travel expenses to produce a guide to purchasing a light aircraft? The one cryptic hint I had about the seriousness of the offer came from DA in The Directors office. |
Creamie
You just listed numerous traps for young players when considering the purchase of an aircraft. I'm sure Frank knew about and accepted the risk that some of the problems you listed might be discovered as time went on. What he didn't know was that a stupid LAME with an over optimistic trust in the decency of his murderous friends, would give them a blank Maintenance Release. He didn't know that those two would-be murderers would sign out as airworthy a death trap. He didn't know that the upper echelons of CASA would protect their little mate. He didn't know that Casa would be so careless with vital physical evidence that they "lost" it thus preventing the matter being pursued through other courts. Perhaps this evidence is still at Fort Fumble under a big box of tyre photos showing missing dust caps. You said in an earlier post that it wouldn't have helped Frank if the LAME had been convicted. I beg to differ. Armed with a CASA conviction it would have been a piece of piss to pursue for civil damages, and the two criminals would have had to face court. Without it much more difficult and $$$$$$$$. If all your finger waving advice about not relying on a current maintenance release for airworthiness is true, does that mean that every time I hire an aircraft for a half hour blatt I must first get my own LAME to inspect it? :ugh: RA |
Rutan: If you or anyone else reckons there are people in CASA who protected an incompetent or criminal LAME, name them.
Name them. If you haven’t got the guts to put up and prove it, learn to live with wallowing in this pointless quagmire until you go to your grave. Frank: understood. :ok: Leaddie said: And before you ask Creamie, no, I am not going to give names, dates and places. If what you say is true, what’s the risk to you? If someone made those statements, they are responsible for having made them. If someone in CASA said “My job is to ground aircraft”, how on earth can they legitimately complain if they are identified and quoted? (And BTW, anyone who is a delegate of the power to suspend CsofA has a legal duty to ground aircraft when the criteria for the exercise of that power exist. It is, indeed, their ‘job’.) Let me demonstrate why this is important, with a hypothetical. At an Australia AOPA meeting at which I was present I overhead a very senior AOPA Director, who still has a high profile in GA, say: Don’t worry, most of the members are complete fools and will do whatever I scare them into doing. Did I hear that correctly? Maybe not. Perhaps it was said in jest. Perhaps I just made it up. But it’s not a very nice thing to say, if it was said. On the other hand, it’s not appropriate that a small number of identifiable individuals have this unanswerable rumour circulating, if it’s inaccurate. Let’s alter the hypothetical circumstances: At an Australia AOPA meeting at which I was present at Merimbula NSW on 15 October 1998, I overhead an AOPA Director named Bill Hamilpike say: Don’t worry, most of the members are complete fools and will do whatever I scare them into doing. Having provided the details, people are now in a position to, for example: - Work out that there was no AOPA Director named “Bill Hamilpike” - Work out that there was no AOPA meeting at Merimbula on 15 October 1998. - Work out that at the actual meeting at Merimbula on [specify correct date] a person named Bill Johnson actually said: “Don’t worry, most of our members can use basic tools and do basic repairs and record what they are doing.” This was in the context of a discussion with a CASA Safety Adviser about pilot approved maintenance. There is a video recording of the event. People with names close to ‘Bill Hamilpike’ who were AOPA directors around that time could demand an apology for my suggestion that one of them had said something not very nice. I would (and do immediately and hypothetically) give a groveling apology to them, because I evidently misheard what was said and by whom. That’s an important outcome, because a whole bunch of people could (hypothetically) have been labouring under misconceptions caused by inaccurate and misleading rumours. |
rutan around;
Clever chap. Not being a student of Latin it has taken some time to understand the gist of your post. I hope I'm right. Populus sunt omnes obstupescas. Ecclesia rapio vestri pecunia et vendere haedos tuos Means You people are all stupid . The church will steal your money and sell your kids Amen is ( I think) Hebrew and means “so be it “ May I also add for brevity of purpose to describe the current thoughts at fort fumble; Taurus excreta conundrum cerebellum. Everyone should be able to work that one out. |
Creampuff;
Name them Perhaps you can publish a link? This will put a stop to the constant Lawyer taunts to self imolate in a Court. Of course this will "out me" on this forum, so you will have to live with that if somebody with a grudge on this Planet doesn't know who I am already. An alternative is referenced in "The Phelan Papers Vol 1" which I understand is there for downloading. You understand but many don't, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has no powers to investigate non government entities, so his terms of reference stop "in shop" so to speak. However he has the right to and has made reference to all parties involved. To maintain the thread topic, I say. A MAINTENANCE RELEASE IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON, unless we have a REGULATOR PREPARED TO UNAMBIGUOUSLY prosecute those who do not follow the inspection regime to the letter of the law. |
casa must go
Hear Hear Hear FA
Got an answer Creamie |
Frank, Classic Reply well done
|
There you go Creamie. All the names you want. Publish away. You should be pretty safe over there in Salt Lake City you big brave boy .
This quagmire you refer to was created by certain crooks in CASA (You know who they are but you chose to do nothing) Until a government of one stripe or another gets off it's bloated arse and has a top to bottom inquiry into CASA this toxic authority will blunder on ruining people's lives and businesses. It's no different to the inexcusable delay that occurred before finally holding the current inquiry into institution sexual abuse of children. How many children's lives were ruined while governments studiously ignored ruined adults "wallowing in their useless quagmire" What will it take to bring on an inquiry? A totally disgruntled victim who right now can't decide whether to take out Fort Fumble or a bunch of politicians? There has to be a better way before someone snaps. Come on Creamie you were in there. You could be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. Or are quite happy to leave casa crooks go unpunished no matter how much they harm they caused casa and aviation? RA |
casa and Honesty!!
Well Creamie
You have been taunting others to name names. This is your big chance. Name them now. |
Gosh, I’m really on the spot now. Caps and bold and large font.
I do not have a copy of the Ombudsman’s Report to which Frank refers, and I’ve never read it. Nor do I intend wasting my time reading it. Apparently, from the information posted by Frank and available on the ABC website, the Ombudsman did an investigation and issued a report critical of CASA’s investigation. Frank subsequently got a cheque from the taxpayer. Apparently, from the allegations made by Frank et al in this thread, the Ombudsman’s investigation did not identify the ‘crooks’ in CASA who are, apparently, still there. And that’s my problem? No. If the allegations you’ve made are true, and this has been going on for around a decade and a half, you evidently don’t have the critical mass of brains, guts and resources necessary to fix the problem. Welcome to the real world and enjoy wallowing in self-pity. A MAINTENANCE RELEASE IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON, unless we have a REGULATOR PREPARED TO UNAMBIGUOUSLY prosecute those who do not follow the inspection regime to the letter of the law. I realise I speak in impenetrably complex language, so I’ll try to make my point clear, in pprune speak and font. I AGREE. YOU ARE CORRECT. THAT’S WHAT THE REGULATOR’S JOB IS. THAT’S WHAT THE REGULATOR IS PAID TO DO. Anyone who worked for the regulator and agreed with this view would probably become very frustrated, and leave the regulator very quickly, as soon as it became apparent that the regulator did not have the corporate competence and integrity to regulate properly. Such a person would also probably be surprised – and eventually bemused – by suggestions that s/he was not only responsible for decisions and activities over which s/he had no direct or indirect control, but also responsible for the composition of the regulator, a decade and a half or so after leaving. Finally – and this only a guess – such a person would probably eventually grow very tired of being abused for trying to help by providing a perspective that, though not necessarily popular, may actually assist those who pay attention. But I’m just a wheelchair-bound acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA, so it makes no difference to me. |
But I’m just a wheelchair-bound acne-stippled geek from Hicksville USA, so it makes no difference to me. |
I am almost sure that Creamie and I share a common belief....CASA could be closed up and the job subbed out to the FAA....or NZCAA. Probably save a heap of $$ too.
I do not understand why Creamie is the focus of your venom. He just points out the reality....it is up to you (us all) to work the rest out. I think 99% of the folk on here have not realised he is on our side....just not as misguided as we all get. Myself included. Ulike some he is not on my ignore list. I learn heaps from him.:ok: |
Creampuff:
Rutan: If you or anyone else reckons there are people in CASA who protected an incompetent or criminal LAME, name them. Name them. If you haven’t got the guts to put up and prove it, learn to live with wallowing in this pointless quagmire until you go to your grave. Frank: understood. Leaddie said: Quote: And before you ask Creamie, no, I am not going to give names, dates and places. Errrrrm, why on earth wouldn’t you give those details? If what you say is true, what’s the risk to you? If someone made those statements, they are responsible for having made them. In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction. While my own very limited relationship with CASA has been satisfactory, if even one Tenth of the allegations made both here and at the AAT have any truth in them then it would be a very brave man to stand up to CASA who have both the tools and the financial resources to be very, very vindictive towards an individual if they so choose. At best, one might hasten the retirement of a civil servant or perhaps alter his promotion path. At worst you could expect to lose both livlihood, all your financial resources and be saddled with an aviation related criminal record as a vindicitve regulator pursues you for ever looking to punish you as severely as possible for the slightest infraction it thinks it can allege, without even having to provide substantive proof. This is the problem with CASA: it is judge, jury and executioner. Furthermore, and in my own opinion, CASA's hiring practices should set off big red flashing alarms all over the public service in that CASA have allegedly employed people who appear to me to have conflicts of interest so massive that I cannot see how they could be resolved without the CASA charter being amended to provide for fostering the aviation industry. ...and no Creampuff, you won't get those names or associations from me either because I don't want to get sued by the individuals concerned or hounded by CASA. and be aware that once ADS-B out is mandated for GA your every movement can be examined in detail by CASA at the push of a button. You think they won't use that information? You don't think CASA has a "**** list" which is similar in concept to Barrier airlines alleged "snag sheet"? |
Bugger.
Well, there goes my new years resolution: not to become embroiled in the sillier threads on Pprune. Barrier was a good example achieved nothing except the obvious.
I find the 'Creampuff posts' invaluable; if you want to understand the opposition. Always and faithfully CP posts the 'other sides' response to your argument. Many times the defence strategy is mapped out for you, it's just a matter of 'reading' between the lines. To have access to someone who consistently shows you the way the opposition will attack is of great worth. Then instead of being 'defensive' against the 'great threat', perhaps an 'attack' strategy can be worked out. You need to learn how CASA play their game if you are ever to beat them at it. A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. Mark Twain. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.