education?
 

Mate show me, on the facts presented in the decision, where the "victim" required educating.

He got smashed for trying to pull off a cover up when he already had his nuts in the CASA vice.

He was 100% clear that what he was doing was wrong, which is why he tried to cover it up! :urgh:

Dalby
 

I don't think anybody is suggesting the boy's were perfect or casa is to blame for there mistakes. The point is that the GA industry needs to protect it's resources especially engineers and maintenance organisations. Access to maintenance in regional areas is becoming scarce. Four different LAME's that were all trained under different chief engineers surely could have been schooled to become compliant. This also would of been a more cost effective use of CASA's resources rather than spending what must of been hundreds of thousands of dollars to get rid of them. Any one of the 4 LAME's could of become the chief to work with CASA. Dalby only worked on private and AG aircraft to the best of my knowledge and isn't it CASA's mandate to the fare paying public. That is to say CASA should employ the most cost effective solution if possible. You can't survive as long as they have in the industry if you are just no good. I have not heard the boy's discredit or blame CASA. They just wanted answers as to who's interpretation of the rules was correct as they would appear to have changed from how all 4 of them were trained.
DAM is Dalby Air Maintenance and 182 is my aircraft they have maintained since Dave was chief.

HOLD UP...and LEAFIE TOO.

I never said DAM were bleating or anything. I started this thread as I smell a rat. I could be wrong, they may be as shonky as they come. I have NO CONNECTION what soever but I do know as a result they employed people, unproductive people in the attempt at ticking boxes better to keep said AWI's happy. Show me a maintenance shop that has not bee bending the rules and I will show you Santa Clause doing the tooth Fairy with the Easter bunny.....never mind.

Why did Sandora close............THAT I know a bit about (smart move), why did Flinders Aviation have what was the best punch up in a long time? Why will CASA do all but formally apologise? I wish they would. I really do. :E If you knew the truth on these matters (and many here on pprune do) you would not be so quick to criticise my albeit assumption, that this is another sledge hammer on a thumb tack.

This is miles apart from a Hempel case.

I could be wrong, but I hear noises like a duck.....looks a bit like a duck.....seen a YRED & YCAB duck before........is the YDAY duck a duck?

If the AWI's over the last year or three were doing their job, could this have realistically happened knowing a few simple facts?

You make a brake assumption. I can present facts that show you eating Tomatoes are very bad, fatal in fact.

Statistics and lies...yeah i know, but interesting observation.

Look at the link below, but before you click on it, think about the pilot/lame population Vs. other groups of folk, and look at the significant representation on the list? Anything odd? :hmm:

hmmmmmm :hmm:

Jaba, Flinders Aviation at Redcliffe? What happened?

Not sure of late :hmm:

So, the charge against DAM is the principal performed maintenance at a location other than registered place and failed/refused to fill in the paperwork. There is no argument as to the standard of work performed? Correct?

OZ,
That's about it. A number of friends and acquaintances have had their aircraft looked after by Dalby Aircraft Maintenance over the years, and they have always been very happy with the result.

Time and again, we see organizations that have had years of audits with nothing but minor problems, but something happens ( remember Polar and and argument that a CASA FOI was demanding something on twin training other than according to the CAAP, or Barrier) and an "aggressive" audit finds "hundreds" of things wrong.

As the principal of Polar Air has apparently said: "It took me $1.0M to find out CASA can do anything they like".

Of the many problems of Brindabella, I am told that rather extreme interpretations of the manufacturer's maintenance manual by CASA re. the Jetstreams was a factor in aircraft groundings.

Cast your minds back to the series of aircraft grounded at YSBK, (big stickers and all) over disputes about the size and shape of registrations letters, or the aircraft that had C.of As. cancelled because the owners had taken the battery home to keep them on charge - and the AWI involved "determined" that these aircraft were, consequently, not airworthy, and the "work performed" was illegal maintenance, as it did not conform tp Schedule 8, or was not performed by a LAME under a CAR 30 approval.

Think of the AWI who refused to renew a number of LAME licenses, because the applicants did not have "6 months experience in the industry in the preceding 2 years" --- because said AWI "determined" that working on Experimental aircraft, including prototype development, or Experimental Amateur Built aircraft, were not "aircraft" for the purposes of the "regulations".

I have some experience on UK, US and NZ, over many years, and have friends who have run GA businesses in those countries and Canada over many years, there are always complaints about the local regulators, but never in the same terms and with the same vehement tone as is common, even normal, in Australia.

In none of those countries do I regularly hear of the kinds of aggressive audits that are increasingly common in Australia, or hear of feelings that the "regulator" is at war with the aviation community, that the only "safe skies are empty skies".

Tootle pip!!

When the AAT uses the term "Egregious"....I was expecting a grievous act of malpractice on the repair and/or maintenance on the part of the principle...but a piece of paper not handed in in a timely manner???? Timely? An hour, a day, a week, 28days?. Bizarre!

Bottom line. If CASA did their job right, none of this BS would happen.

End of argument.

no jaba it is far more than that.

when you read the canadian regs it is apparent that while Transport Canada might disagree with people they actually do respect them.

I've never seen anything in Australian regs that suggests that the core of CASA respect anyone.

aviation in australia should be an industry of independent businesses doing the right thing because that is profitable.
what we have is an industry forced into a pyramid with casa at the top.
all hinges on whether casa give approval for an activity.

why dont we have a system where a standard is set and people work independently to the standard without needing to be in the pocket of a casa.
auto mechanics dont work with the sort of regulatory crap that an aviation mechanic does. truck mechanics don't.

the entire casa system is an outgrowth of a 1920's approach to quality assurance. the entire legislative logic is well past its use by date.

My comment from a different thread.

Glen shaw-dalby air maintenance history
 

The problems CASA have with SHAW are huge and ongoing.

SHAW has a history which predicts his future. Be warned and informed.

damplanefacts.com

Interesting post Safety Matters

I notice your web site is hosted in the British Virgin Islands.

Is that so you can avoid a libel suite.

Just a word of advice, in the State of SA your publishing of this material is covered under their libel laws.

It isn't just the person you can libel, but companies can also be libelled and seek court redress.

I should know, I fought an action where I was like you the publisher. it cost me $500,000 right up to the high court.

I also suspect a hidden agenda in your actions here. Are you by any chance a CASA person????

Talking about the Enemy
 

My thought as well DHP - casa dude eh??

What exactly is libellous about the webpage?

The potential libel is the photograph.

It depicts a man drinking from a bottle. A reasonable person could think he is drinking beer. But any one who drinks Ginger Beer will know it is also bottled in the same container as imported beers

How bizarre ..... I just read the judgements (public record) and never gave a thought to the contents of the bottle :ugh:

yes, the bottle is possibly defamatory, the other content isn't.