CASA do something good
 

Maybe they're not massive steps in the eyes of some, and it will probably also be said they are just fixing up mistakes that shouldn't have been made, but CASA have shown a pretty positive attitude in addressing some vexing issues re Part 61 such as extending low level rating flight review timings and revamping various other things that were generating a lot of angst.

A bit of a deafening silence here on the subject, so I'm taking the opportunity to say good on them for this, and I hope the seemingly flexible and positive approach to issues like this continues and becomes the norm.

Going halfway is just that. There is no requirement in the USA to do low flying reviews every two years- so our costs are still higher.

Every extra cost from part 61 must be removed - not just some of the costs.

Many people in the industry don't appear to understand that viable business success depends on the lowest costs compared to competitors .

And not just local competitors in Aus. It's a global market place.

There was not one safety problem that required Part 61. Therefore every cost increase must be removed. Don't let CASA con you with a 50% of the way move - you will still go broke

Arm out the window;

I've seen some exemptions granted but the regulation stays the same. The exemptions add to the thousands of other exemptions and thousands of other pages containing a plethora of irrelevant verbiage but no real information that a normal educated person can understand.

The regulatory review process continues to meander gravitationally toward its climatic conclusion. The brass bands and floral tributes await,although wilted, wrinkled, and dampened with age.

Any half thought out compromise of 50% will still end up costing 150% in the long run. The record speaks for itself. Skidmore is just like those before him and just as big a disappointment. He's been captured by the iron ring.

Deafening silence you say? Everybody I've had contact with has been most vocal about Part 61 and none of it complimentary. Put your head out the window and listen.

EDIT for the hell of it;

All the burning bridges that have fallen after me
All the lonely feelings and the burning memories
Everyone I left behind each time I closed the door
Burning bridges lost forevermore

Spot on Dick!

I am not across Part 61 at all, so I guess I should start at the beginning:

Why did we need it? This is not a rhetorical question! Genuinely - CASA basing aside (as much as possible), what were the reasons?

All I've heard was it was to bring us into line with European standards, considering the state of GA in Europe I sincerely hope that it was a little more thought through than that.

From CASA's brochure for the FLOT (Flight Crew Licensing Operations and Training) Conference in 2003:

I should frame that!

Right up there with, "Deregulation of supply will lead to lower electricity charges"! :confused:

The usual flight review can contain a low flying element and so both boxes can be ticked at once.

An endorsement once counted as a BFR. It doesn't any more. There goes that 50%. Ask Dick about IFR renewals on helicopters. That probably counts for another 75%.

So what exactly is the purpose of aligning, or in CASA's case, copying ICAO regs? last i knew, ICAO was a guiding set of regs, allowing individual NAA's the ability to write their own regs to suit their environment? but still remain compliant in that their regs will be accepted by other ICAO signatories?

so if we were already ICAO compliant, in that regard, and have been for some decades, why are CASA constantly changing? much to the detriment, and pretty much total destruction of the industry? and why have we not seen 1 safety case justifying these changes other than "to make us more in line with ICAO requirements"?

Arm is right. Some will say they are fixing mistakes that should not have been made in the first place.

I am one of them.

Clean sheet new set of regs should be a chance to finally get it right.

Seems to be more directed at moving everything around to fit A4 paper better.

If the regs were adequate in the first place, there would be no need for dispensations/exemptions.

Even money says the list of dispensations will be bigger than the original rule book.

Folks,
Dick and Frank have got it right.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

If most other nations can survive with pilot license regulation of around 100 pages,+/-, plus advisory material, why do we need what is now over 2200 pages and growing, and the increased cost are not just "a bit more", they are becoming crippling.

As an example I have quoted before, it has proved cheaper to fly a private air ambulance aircraft from Singapore empty to the mid-Pacific, pick up a patient and fly them to Brisbane, then position the aircraft back to Singapore empty, than fly a similar aircraft from Brisbane and back to Brisbane.

That is what Dick means about Australia being uncompetitive on costs, costs Australian jobs.

And before you start screaming "cheap Asian labor", the Singapore based pilots are paid more than generally here, with a much lower tax rate.

The huge difference in costs are largely regulatory costs, although cheaper finance and insurance in Singapore helps --- the cheaper insurance largely comes about because of CAAS standing with ICAO -- no loading for regulatory risk.

Tootle pip!!

I thought the whole point of the new regs was to get rid of all those pesky exemptions .... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I have the same issues when dealing with CASA when going to recurrent training at an overseas simulator training school such as Flight Safety or CAE in the USA.

It is a nightmare straight from hell.

Greg Hood wrote/signed off CAAP 5-14 some years ago and it was a bright shining light but it doesnt work anymore.

5 days of recurrent training vs. 1.5 hours for in IR renewal in a Duchess with a local examiner. It seems that they have always preferred the latter because the paperwork is easier.

And they cant understand the concept that a 5 day recurrent is both an aircraft proficiency and instrument proficiency chack, not just one or the other.

Someone recommended "More Human" by Steve Hilton on another thread....I also find it coincidental that I get a lot of spam email concerning "Restore Lost Hair" these days.....I wonder if someone has linked that to "CASA" online.

Good to see some mention of the 2003 FLOT conference. It was without a doubt the best forum that has involved the regulator for many years, both prior and since. The fact that few if any of the recommendations ever came to pass is a reflection on the beaurcratic system the Government places on the rule makers including CASA.

Part 61 needs to be frozen until all the issues are sorted out, a risk/safety case conducted together with a cost/benefit analysis.

One can easily get the impression that someone in CASA have it as their aim to kill GA. mags, props, engines TBO, multiple AFRs, what next.

One can only hope that the DAS can see the mess he has inherited and has the strength to clean it up at no cost to industry.

Ultralight,

Let us be very clear, what CASA have produced in Part 61 (or anywhere except Parts 21-35, and they are now screwing that) is nothing like ICAO SARPs, and entirely reflects the ideas and attitudes of CASA in the last 6/7 years.

And do not blame the A-Gs or the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, or alleged Government legislative policy, what we have got is exactly what CASA intended, with the full support of the previous Minister Albo.

What is entirely inexplicable is Minister Truss continuing with Albo's policies, even when they are 180 degrees removed from the policies pursued by Truss when he was last the Minister, including, but not limited to airspace and airports policy, and regulatory development policy as reflected in Policy Doc. 1/2007

Tootle pip!!

CASA had it right in the drivers licence medical, DLMA, so with one little paragraph in the new RAMPC, in spite of their protestations that nothing has changed, they have removed from the skies forever, with one stroke of the regulatory pen, probably over half of the current DLMA holders. And to the aging class 2 medical holders out there, they have removed any chance of you flying on after CASA has you in their sights.


CASA Medical Audit conditionsWhere an applicant is currently subject to a CASA medical audit they will be unable to hold a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate.
Under a Class 2 Medical Certificate which is endorsed with "CASA audit required" applicants have the ability to hold a certificate which can then be revalidated by a DAME but CASA will audit the certificate before it is issued. The nature of a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificatedoes not allow an applicant who is subject to CASA medical audit conditions to hold a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificatedue to the requirement the certificate be unconditional.

This makes the RAMPC exactly the same as the class 2 medical. The lower standards of the DLMA was risk mitigated by limitations imposed on the user such as only aircraft less than 1500kg all up weight, ie a light two to four seat Cessna type that everyone was familiar with, day time flight only, visual conditions, singe engine, no turbines or jets, one passenger only who must be informed of the pilots lower standard of medical. This was a great step forward as it enabled older, experienced pilots to continue flying a familiar type aircraft in undemanding conditions.

Even stranger, in the CASA RAMPC FAQs, they state:
Q. I failed my Class 2 medical. Can I still apply for a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate ? A. Yes, you are still eligible to fly under a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate as long as you meet that medical standard and you follow the instructions on the CASA website.
So if you don't meet the class 2 standards, you can get a RAMPC, but if you do conditionally meet the class 2 standards, you can't get a RAMPC. That makes no sense.

The "CASA audit required" statement has made the whole RAMPC exercise completely useless and will only make many older, experienced pilots with a manageable and risk mitigated ailment unable to ever fly again. Every pilot in the world medically self certifys before flying every day of the year except the day they do their medical when they are certified by their medical practitioner.

Surely CASA trusts their own DAMEs, designated aviation medical examiners to confirm whether applicants are fit to fly, the "CASA audit required" statement needs to be removed completely and this responsibility passed to the examining doctor, if he is not happy with the applicant he certainly would not certify him.

NO Triadic
 

Part 61 needs to be repealed in favour of the old regs, until the studies you mentioned are conducted, and a sensible set of regs is written.

If you freeze it, we are stuck with the CF that is already in existance, and take away chances for temporary solutions to at least keep people moving.

Welllllllllllllllllllllllllllll, it could be said you do not get as rich as Dick by being stupid :p

I don't think that anyone has said this directly. From what I understand of what is written and has been said, is that the framework for the issuance of an ATPL is borderline unachievable, and excessivelly costly.


This runs with ATPL issuance. The guidelines and framework make it basically unachievable. Sure there are providers around the world that CAN provide the required training, but 1, its expensive and 2 THEY need to do a lot of work to comply with CASA...i.e they are not recognised.

Haven't read any arguments here against the RPL. but read plenty in P61 that makes it as hard to achieve/maintain as an ATPL.

Had to have one when I was a student, albeit it was issue on the spot by my CFI upon presentation of my class 2 medical. Back then, I didn't need the CAA copy, only the doctors reccomendation.

Now they need an ASIC and all that bearaucratic garbage.