Horatio,
That means you are very fortunate, that you do not deal with different offices of CASA.

Just two examples might get the flavour:

(1) The Jeppesen service not acceptable as a source of information for en-route and terminal area operations.
(2) A maintenance controller in one region not acceptable in another.

And another one I have just remembered, a copy of ICAO Annex 11 not acceptable to meet the requirement to carry a copy of Annex11 on international operations.

Engineering-wise, I could go on for pages.

Tootle pip!!

Leafie,

I would 100% agree with you. It would seem ludicrous and outright impossible to have that happen………………….. except it does.

I can give you an an example of the countries leading engine shop, who when implementing their DAMP policy used the template provided by CASA, which was ideally suited to the task, and have a series of NCR's issued over it. It took much dummy spitting and calling in the previous DAS and cornering him before anything was done.

I could tell you about one lonely old not used paint tin at the back of a cupboard being used as the reason for shutting them down for a few weeks conveniently prior to testifying at a coronial too. But that backfired on them because the "fill in" blew them out of the water :E

They have form. You are lucky to have some sensible folk. No matter how well MS works, and he seems far better from my experience, there will be some out there who do not play the same ball game.

You also have another advantage in your skill set that wise men at CASA would admire and respect and the fools fear. ;)

A MOTION: Confidence or incompetence?
 

Skidmore had time before taking up his position to be fully briefed on the situation at CAsA. This included a plethora of Senate inquiries, the ASRR, Pel-Air, Part 61, the Regulatory Reform Program, the entire Industry in a state of lacking any confidence in The Regulator and the incumbent's arrogance at Fort Fumble.

The Forsyth Review has NOT been addressed and this should have been the simplest and quickest item on his agenda to garner some Industry support. Marc D Stoop, (AOPA President) also notes this in his latest report.

It is rapidly becoming apparent that he has no intention of doing anything except mouth platitudes and call for further input. Either this, or he is being instructed to do nothing and is therefor not in control of his or our destiny.

The Regulatory Review process is evidence of either a planned obstruction of a once vibrant industry, or those in charge of the revision are incompetent.

It appears to be an exercise in wasting taxpayers time and money. The costs with time eclipsing the money if an audit of failed industry economic input is taken into account.

I am now of the opinion it is incompetence and our problem resolution is simply to advise the fare paying passengers their air travel safety is being compromised by incompetence.

There are hundreds of examples and all one needs to do is find a common thread without recourse to individual claims.

I believe that common theme, be it in the courts, the AAT or by individual FOI or engineering oversight, vexatious intervention or other is...
INCOMPETENCE.

Skidmore will perish unless he addresses this claim in it's infancy and good luck to him with that. I can only support a vote of no confidence in him if he doesn't immediately address the existing vote of no confidence by the industry in The Regulator of which he is head.

The CASA Board need to know where industry stands on this matter.

Supporting a vote of no confidence is probably the most desirable way to take this out of the hands of Minister Truss who appears to have gone missing in action. My suggestion to The Moderators is to Poll this motion. The results either way will put to bed industry opinion.

I'll second that.

CC

Folks,
Duckie has put the link up for you, get in there and have your say, don't whinge and bitch after the Part 91 goes into place with all the nasties that are in there.
After all, sod all was said about Part 61 until it was too late!!
Tootle pip!!

Yep, an internet forum no-confidence vote ought to do it, all right.

I defy the possibility that anyone can fly an aircraft without transgressing at least one strict liability offence in the proposed part 91.

Lets start with fuelling alone as an example. Can't you just see inspectors running out to check your fuel gauges as you arrive somewhere?:

CASA can stick part 91 up its backside, period.

To put that a more polite way; the only response possible to the proposed part 91 is a complete No, Nyet, Nada, Nein - complete and total rejection of the entire draft. To attempt to cheese pare - nibbling round the edges of this turd in an attempt to make it palatable is doomed to failure as well as demonstrating, as Doubleyeweight points out, that we must collectively be suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome if we even try to reason with these bastards.

Start by removing all the "strict liability" clauses. After that it may be possible to have a discussion.

As for you AVM. Skidmore, If you think that there is anything in part 91 that does anything to enhance flight safety at all, then you are as bad as the rest of them.

I could go on about the excuses CASA may make for this "consultation" draft - that it is a lawyers "ambit claim" document and we didn't really mean it, but that is not the way to begin a cooperative discussion in a spirit of openness and good faith. You cannot get to a good result by starting from a draft like this!

Stick it up your arse CASA! That is my comment.

What!?

All that fuel stuff says, in essence, is that you have to have sufficient fuel on board to safely conduct your flight, and if you don't, you're doing the wrong thing.

Don't say that they don't need to legislate for common sense things - of course they do, just like there have to be laws for road speed limits and the like.

In an age of litigation, they don't really have too much choice to not close up loopholes.

"Sure I ran out of fuel, your honour, but I honestly didn't mean to."
"OK, fair enough - case dismissed."

AOTW: crap!

The regulation requires you not to use your fixed reserve on pain of criminal conviction!


I will not accept your invitation to debate this matter. CASA can stick it up its arse!

So, despite careful planning, etc. if I use just one litre of my fixed reserve (as determined by the CAsA inspector) then I am a criminal! Wow, I need to learn to wing walk so I can dip my tanks in flight!

(AOTW) Timbo,

I'm with Sunfish on this one.

For AVM Skidmore….from a voice form the past…Skates: Fix the bloody shambles Australian Aviation has now become. It is now an international disgrace.

cheers

That's right: If you land at your intended destination with 29 minutes' reserve, when you could have gone to a suitable alternate and landed with 30 minutes' reserve, you are a criminal (times 2).

Fortunately, no one's ever going to be able to prove it.

Ironically, the number of aircraft that suffer fuel exhaustion hasn't changed that much, despite what the rules used to say and now say. This will be just another change without a difference. Will the aviation community and the public be safer as a consequence of this 'reform'? The answer is a categoric 'no'!

That's the key point, AOTW: The silliness (and wastefulness) of a system which produces more and more rules and offences, with no change to the practical outcome.

Whilst I want to give AVM Skidmore the benefit of trust and judging by performance, he must realise CASA is the Telstra of the present day (ie reactionary, inwardly focussed, anti customer/client, the aviation community are the enemy, feeling CASA are there to service it's employees first and number one, etc). A 19th century bureaucracy at it's most reactionary.
He must not join them but needs to look at them from an outside perspective and a new broom must be weilded.
As said, CASA is an international and local disgrace. And as said above, look to NZ for an example of how to do it and how not to overcomplicate it/re-invent the wheel.

Here is what the current rule says:What is the safety risk created by this provision, the mitigation of which is the provisions of Part 91, and how, precisely, is that mitigation going to be achieved as a matter of practicality?

If there are no coherent answers to those questions, it's a completely pointless (and wasteful) exercise.

Exactly :ok:
As usual, a prudent pilot will do prudent things regardless of the rules. But If CASA find they want to nail some poor sod, they now have the tools to turn you into a criminal.

Just like the firearms game, a criminal breaks in to your house, steals all your guns, yet you get nailed for not securing them properly :ugh: Even though you complied with the regs to begin with. Of course the fact the crime knew who you were, where you lived and what you had because they had a copy of the registry, is no defence to you! :=

This country is slowly getting screwed up so bad by "legal departments" I think most people are headed towards adopting civil disobedience because no matter how good you are you are never going to win, so why bother.

Part 91 is going to be the same.

I know of two examples of vexatious prosecutions that began as a result of the accused doing nothing except refer to an FOI a "********". Both have suffered immense losses. I can't find anything in the regulations preventing one expressing such a wide held opinion.


It appears CAsA don't take criticism well either.

Folks,
Re. the 30m Fixed Final Reserve, that has a very interesting history --- but the ICAO intent is that the engine (s) will, at least, be running at touchdown. It's all about order of accuracy and normal tolerances for gauges, flowmeters etc, and actual fuel SG.

In fact, based on the record over many years, I actually strongly support the concept of FFR. It has been Qantas (and Boeing and IATA etc) SOPs for over 30 years, so CASA can't be accused of rushing it.

It is quite correct, and intended, that all operational reserves are on top of the FFR.

However, from a strict liability criminal offense point of view, how is 30 minutes calculated???

What the hell does "normal cruise speed" mean??

At the present time, the FFR and most other holding reserves are calculated at the holding fuel flow,(for FFR, at 1500') which you can "legally" calculate for a particular weight and flight conditions.

There is no shortage of similar nonsense throughout Part 91.

The bloke who is now the Project Manager is not responsible for creating the present Part 91, he is one of the "good guys" in CASA, but please read the whole thing, including MOS, and comment --- bury him in comments.

Tootle pip!!

I found one single solitary thing in the part 91 draft that was good.

for bloody years now I have had problems logging in to naips to get a weather forecast.
evidently I use naips so infrequently that my password times out.
so every time I try to use it I have to reset the password.
but...
according to the guy in airservices I got to assist me one time my licence number is so old it is outside the range of licence numbers that the software deems to be valid.
so on every attempt to reset the password it refuses me as an invalid user.

throughout the part 91 draft there is a BOM website address that I was never aware of. it allows access to aviation weather forecasts bypassing the schemozzle that is naips logins.
(Australia's official weather forecasts & weather radar - Bureau of Meteorology).

finally!!!!

I'm not inviting you to debate, Sunfish. However, you're reading it wrong I think, and going off half-cocked on your rant.


It says in essence, you must:

1. Not take off unless you've planned to have your fixed reserve remaining at the destination

2. If in flight you won't have your fixed reserve remaining when you get to the destination and an alternate is available, you must not keep going to the destination

3. If you are going to land with less than your fixed reserve and you have a radio, you must declare an emergency.

So what is it about landing with 29 instead of 30 that turns the circumstances into a crime and an emergency?

The people who run out of fuel under the current rules are going to run out of fuel under the new rules. There are plenty of ways to ping the pilot now (setting aside all of the real hurt they're gonna get when the insurance doesn't respond ...)

What practical outcome does the proposed new rule achieve that isn't already achieved by the current rule?

And I note the irony of 20+ years of work on outcomes-based rules that produces a prescriptive rule to replace an outcomes-based rule. :ugh:

It's not the actual landing with 29 rather than 30, it's either planning to do it in the first place, finding it's going to happen in flight and continuing anyway when an alternate's available, or finding it's going to happen and not declaring it (which I'm sure in the past has led to accidents due to aircraft not getting priority until it was too late). There's nothing there which is victimising pilots who do the right thing.

Whether anything better than the old rules has been achieved is a different story - certainly it's not clear that much benefit if any has been gained when weighed up against the cost of the whole revamp.

Modernising and rationalising a bunch of disparate rule books sounds like a good idea, which is why I suppose they embarked on this whole thing in the first place, but as we all know it's been a 20 year schemozzle in many ways. Once the project was started, though, CASA's choice has been to either chuck it out and call it a waste, or keep ploughing through under various leaders and regimes, and I'm sure most of us in the same position would probably choose to keep going to see it through. Just my 2 bob's worth.

Gosh - CASA seems to have struck it rich on this thread. Someone who thinks "it is expected that" means something, and someone else who thinks the regulatory reform program is going to end. I really didn't think that there was anyone that naive left.

I'm afraid I have some bad news for you, AOTW. There are only a couple of people in CASA with the expertise to bring the regulatory reform program to a conclusion (Mr Skidmore isn't one of them), and they have zero incentive to do so. In fact, they have a very substantial and positive incentive for it to drag on forever. That's one of the reasons for there now being reform projects to fix messes created by previous reform projects, and ever-increasing exemptions.

It's a never-ending self-licking ice cream, for numerous people on 6 figure salaries.

"Beyond a certain point, complexity is fraud."

I merely pointed out that their option is to either throw the lot in the bin and say "we wasted all this time and money for nothing," or keep going.

What would you do? And why would you say Mark Skidmore doesn't have the 'expertise' to bring it to a conclusion? What sort of expertise would be needed? These are not facetious questions, I just don't understand the absolutely entrenched view espoused by some that CASA couldn't possibly do anything good, ever. Reading back over this and other threads on the subject, that's a common theme, but it's just too easy to throw out a 'they're a bunch of dickheads' comment, which doesn't achieve much.

I agree (as I already alluded to above) that this reform process has been a big expensive shambles, no argument there.

It is not a "view". It is the data collected over the last couple of decades.

Continuing with this process, run in this way by this regulator, is only going to produce more complexity and burn more money.

Yep: Throw it all in the bin and, more importantly, get rid of the very substantial and positive incentive some have to drag the process on forever.

I'll try to explain the problem by analogy.

Imagine a hypothetical RAAF Squadron that's running like a well-oiled machine.

Then take everyone away, from the CO down, and replace them with .... hmmmm ... let's pick .... university professors.

The professors are, demonstrably, really smart - smarter than most of the Squadron personnel - and can read and understand all the manuals and tech data and SOPs. They understand, completely, what needs to be done to get the Squadron running like a well-oiled machine. And various of their colleagues will tell you that they're "really good blokes".

What could possibly go wrong?

As the debacle stumbles from crisis to crisis, year after year and triple digit millions after triple digit millions, everyone keeps saying: "We have to see this through with the professors. This Squadron is essential to the defence of the nation."

Of course, as you well understand, the debacle will never end because university professors will never be capable of competently and expertly doing all of the jobs that need to be done to get the Squadron running like a well-oiled machine.

Hold that thought.

A regulator can only run like a well-oiled machine if it is comprised of competent experts in regulation. Pilots and engineers, even really smart ones that are good blokes and can lead a squadron of fighter jets or strike bombers and are sure they know what they are doing, are not competent experts in regulation. It's particularly problematic when the person in charge is not a competent expert in regulation.

That's one of the reasons for the regulatory reform debacle. Certainly not the only reason, but one of the reasons.

Which experts in regulation would you like to nominate as alternatives, LB? I'd be keen to hear who you'd put in Skidmore's place.

As an aside, he's done quite a bit more than simply lead squadrons - he was up in some of the highest defence positions, which may not be necessarily the only breeding ground for people who know how to run big organisations but it's not a bad start.

He is a good bloke, knows a lot about aviation, owns his own aeroplane, and based on what I've seen so far, is making a fair fist of dealing with what he's taken on with CASA. He's been out talking directly with various sectors of the industry, and some of these exemptions being issued lately, as I understand it, are the result of that. Exemptions aren't what we would be having in an ideal world, but as I think we all know, they're needed at the moment for whoever is sorting out the mess that is the reform program, which at the moment is the bloke in question.

The 'university professors running the RAAF' analogy, whilst amusing, isn't a good one, unless they were also clued up on aviation matters as well as being good leaders of complex organisations.

At this stage I'd expect a chorus of 'What would Skidmore know about GA?', to which I've previously replied along the lines of 'How does running a GA organisation prepare you any better for the position we're discussing?'

Name a few names from this pool of expert regulators who could do better, or even suggest where they might come from, and let's go from there.

You make some common (and reasonable) assumptions, but which I consider erroneous: that people with experience in the subject matter being regulated are therefore necessarily qualified to be competent and expert regulators; that people who have managed any big organisation are therefore necessarily qualified to be competent and expert managers in regulators.

I thought my analogy was a valid one. The professors assume they know what they are doing, because they assume they have the necessary smarts and the skills to find out everything that needs to be done. The aviators assume they know what the regulator is supposed to do, because they understand the subject matter being regulated. Both assumptions are invalid.

(I recall one Professor who wrote a breathless article on the dangers of SIMOPS. He opined that "scarcely a more dangerous system could be devised". When I walked him through what SODROPS stood for, he nearly had a coronary. The point is he knew he was right, but he was wrong. Many in the aviation industry know what the regulator should do, but they, too, are wrong.

It seems to me that one of the essential skills of the head of a regulatory authority is to manage the substantial risks that arise from employing people with experience in the subject matter being regulated. Experts almost invariably labour under the misconception that their job, having joined a regulator, is to implement their pet projects and impose, on the world at large, their opinions about the subject matter being regulated. (Sound vaguely familiar?)

The government keeps appointing CASA CEOs who are experts in the subject matter CASA regulates, not expert regulators. How, then, does Mr Skidmore know that his job is not to implement his pet projects or impose, on the aviation community, his opinions about aviation regulation?

A real expert in regulation would recognise, immediately, the fundamental flaw in the regulatory reform program: the regulator is running it. This suits the people who actually understand what's going on and want to avoid responsibility for setting the standards that the regulator should just implement. Much better, for them, to instead leave the regulator to make sh*t up as it goes along and cop the flak for it.

But the roost is now creaking under the weight of the ever-increasing number of chickens coming home, in the form of a regulatory regime that is, by any objective measure, a sick, expensive joke and a hoax on the industry.

Names? Off the top of my head: Graham Peachey. Ron Catchpole. I could name a few more, but they'd all be perceived by large chunks of the aviation community to be unqualified because none of them is a skygod. And the people who actually understand what's going on in aviation regulation are very happy to keep appointing skygods and watch them draw the flak.

I don't know the people you named there, LB, but I imagine they're competent and decent blokes.

I do think that a sound basis in aviation is required for the position of DAS, though, otherwise the tail wags the dog, and I have a bit of trouble accepting your idea that there are . The 'skygod' description implies an egotist who won't listen to anyone, and no, I wouldn't want someone like that in charge either, but I wouldn't say that's the case with Mark Skidmore; far from it.

It's fair what you say about people wanting to implement their pet projects, but I don't see that that's what Skidmore is trying to do; rather, I think he's genuinely trying to work through and fix some significant problems in the organisation he's been appointed to lead.

I'd also be very surprised to see anyone from whatever background who took over the role throwing out the whole reform program, which is what you have called for: What would you do, burn the CASR and reprint all the regs from 1995?

AOTW, sunk costs are irrelevant in accounting terms. There is no logical or economic argument for "finishing the project", as others have pointed out this has been going on for Twenty years at great expense and much pain and suffering.

What to do? Throw it out. Throw out the management that attempted the project in the first place and throw out the lawyers because the people who got us into this mess by definition are not the people to get us out of it since they will automatically pervert any new project.

Buy a copy of the New Zealand Regulations and start from there as a "greenfield" project.

P.S. Please stop with the "sweet reason" arguments implying that CASA people are honest and good with our best intentions in mind.

The reality, judging by the experiences catalogued in the Forsyth review and ad nauseam in Pprune as that they are lowlife, vindictive, scum. Don't you remember the conclusion of the Forsyth report? That CASA has lost the trust of the industry?

If draconian penalties are available to CASA then the current mob will use them to the hilt to cause as much pain and suffering as possible.


To put that another way: There is a long catalogue of deliberate dishonesty, vendettas, persecution, deception, capriciousness, inequity, inefficiency, unfairness and injustice by CASA….and you want to give them more power and reduce what little defences we have against these bastards even further???????????

Sunfish,
Well said!!
Tootle pip!!

PS: Any of you around Melbourne remember Bill Waterton and his T-6, a classic example.

Sunk costs may be irrelevant in accounting terms, but the costs of replacing and rebuilding from the ashes are not. Buy the Kiwi rules? Maybe. However, our legal system and theirs are a lot different as I understand it, so you might have to throw out a lot more than just the aviation regs.

I'm not implying that at all, just saying they're not all evil arseholes either, and seeing as we're saying please, please don't tell me what I should and shouldn't say. I will use what I believe to be sound and reasoned arguments and not take the easy option of venting, a la Sunfish's 'get f%%&ed CASA' masterpiece on the Part 91 thread! Good reading, but just over the top.

Yep. Sounds like an excellent start!

Yep: Burn it all and get rid of all the people who have a positive incentive to keep producing new rules. Get some real experts to quickly build a very basic regulatory framework to give ICAO some comfort that there is a framework in place.

It's a choice between throwing more money at making an ever-increasing mess, and cutting losses by tidying up the mess as big as it currently is. That's the stark choice.

I think I read somewhere on pprune an analogy with the Spruce Goose and a Dreamliner and the point that there was no way the Spruce Goose could have been constantly improved into a Dreamliner. Someone finally had to make the stark choice of whether to persist or cut losses.

If the people working on the Spruce Goose had access to an endless source of other people's money, they'd still be working on it today.

There is no way that the current regulatory bugger's muddle is ever going to be constantly improved, by this process and by these people, into what was promised over 2 decades ago. But while ever they have access to an endless source of other people's money, they'll keep working on the regulatory equivalent of the Spruce Goose.

The reason that burning the lot would not create substantial safety risks is, ironically, the same reason as to why the current bugger's muddle dragging on forever does not create substantial safety risks: The vast majority of the aviation community would continue to choose to make prudent decisions and the incompetent and deliberate risk takers would continue to be incompetent and deliberately take risks. But at least further waste would be reduced and the running sore of confusion, frustration, business destruction, change fatigue and distrust of the regulator might start to dry up and heal.

Seriously: Australian civil aviation would be better off if the government:

- burnt all of the rules and replaced them with a one sentence law prohibiting everyone from doing everything, and

- gave the regulator a very thick pad of exemption forms.

At least that way:

- everyone would have a consistent understanding of what the law is

- the waste of decades of regulatory reform would end

- thousands of pages of rules that almost nobody reads or cares about would be repealed, and

- the regulator could continue to impose its pet projects and strong opinions on a captive and hapless industry, but in a more efficient way.

Seriously: Australain civil aviation would be better off.

Arm,
With the very greatest of respect, you couldn't be more wrong, but you have swallowed the CASA propaganda.

Overall, the NZ legislative system is the same as Australia, and aviation wise, the framework is simply an Act (quite superior to our Act, and includes a requirement for the Minister to promote aviation) Regulations and Advisory Circulars (acceptable means of compliance). No nonsense of MOS. No thousands of Legislative Instruments.

About the only real black spot is medical standards, and that is because, in my opinion, the people are wrong. Sadly, CASA seem to have "harmonised" with NZ CAA in this area, because it/as result of which it (take your pick) disadvantages long standing Australian standards.

The Commonwealth of Australia has a long and respectable history of importing legislation by reference, we have been doing it since 1901.

Is he really??

One of his first "decisions" seems to be to reaffirm the Navathe approach to colour vision, taking us back almost 30 years, and the absolute antithesis of facts based or performance/outcome based regulation -- and contrary to Government policy on red tape reduction. Mr. Skidmore has been quite blunt about colour vision standards, he prefers the RAAF "black and white" (interesting choice of words) approach of one simple standard (unrelated to whether you can fly safely), you are in or you are out ---- based on arbitrary tests that neither conform with our present regulations, or ICAO.

Tootle pip!!

Re the legal stuff, I was thinking of the risk acceptance etc associated with Kiwi 'extreme tourism' type activities, which (I believe) reduces the issues their operators have with being sued as long as they take reasonable safety related steps. Dunno a lot about it, it's just what I've heard, so as always I'm happy to be corrected where I'm wrong.

I would like to see the colour vision issue resolved fairly; I haven't seen what input Mark Skidmore has had into that so I won't comment.

On the plus side, there have been clear examples of detrimental consequences of poorly thought out or written sections of the new rules being fixed by exemptions (which are not desirable but are a quick and practical Band-Aid rather than letting things drag on unresolved), e.g. removal of the silly idea that the R22 and R44 should be separately type rated helicopters needing their own flight reviews every 2 years.

Once these things have been promulgated as law, which is what Skidmore has inherited, you can't just unmake them with a stroke of the pen, hence the exemptions, but as I've said I believe he's out there listening and fixing, or at least trying to, and doing as much as anyone could in the situation.

Arm,
Actually, the legal framework here is, if anything, better than NZ, but the difference is marginal. Needless to say, I am not referring to aviation legislation.

We have quite a long list of court cases that have supported not paying damages when the person injured was one who voluntarily assumed a risk in a clearly risky enterprise.

Indeed, consumer law here fundamentally allows a business operator in a field of extreme sports or similar activities to contract out of what would otherwise been the normal responsibilities to the consumer.

In 1996, aviation wise, we tool a different tack to the NZers and their Swedavia-McGregor report:<http://www.caa.govt.nz/pubdocs/Swedavia-McGregor_Report.htm> and, as a result, the legal framework for the CASA Experimental and Limited Categories rejected an "equivalent safety" approach, in favor of the then Australian Government policy that people should be free to indulge in risky pursuits, but were personally responsible for the outcomes, not CASA.

This is reflected in the current legislation, but needless to say, CASA can't leave well enough alone, and the outcomes if Part 132 is enacted do not bode well for "Adventure Flying" in Australia, likewise recent CASA intrusion in to other air sports areas that have been successful for many years.

There is quite a regulatory empire being created in the CASA Sports Aviation office, all to address nil real problems, just imagined. Unfortunately, the resultant intrusions and $$$ costs are anything but imaginary.

In the case of Part 132, CASA has turned two (2) simple regulation, that have worked well since 1998 into several hundred pages of regulations and MOS (by the time they are finished) and needless to say, this all addresses no problems, but does it in a manner that provides for the usual costly micro-management and a considerable array of new offenses.

Again, needless to say, without the slightest attempt at justification, let alone cost/benefit justification, and in complete defiance of the present Government red tape cost reduction policy.

Tootle pip!!

AOTW:

"Sound and reasoned arguments" don't work when you are dealing with arseholes. I have been through about $60 million worth of "sound and reasoned arguments" with venture capitalists who still want your children's shoes and a pint of your blood no matter how "sound and reasoned" you care to be - and they talk real nice too. They are basically no different from biker gangs, just with suits and manners. CASA has proved no different judging by the Forsyth review.

"Sound and reasoned" only works when both sides are looking for a win/win outcome and CASA has demonstrated over Two decades at least that they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in "win/win" outcomes which is why it is necessary to rewrite The Aviation Act to make it a requirement that CASA foster the industry.

AS for "good people" being in CASA, so what? The good people aren't making the decisions. I had a lawyer working for me who was a classic "good people" I eventually had to put him on a tight leash because when he was let loose he turned into an attack dog from hell.

Don't you understand the concept of "Litigation privilege"? Once CASA is in court or the AAT they can and will do anything and everything to win their case, no matter how underhanded and dishonest it is. "Model litigant" you say? Just ask the victims.

To put that another way, there is nothing "sound and reasoned" about CASAs approach to enforcement or conduct at all.

"Sound and reasoned" has got us precisely no where for Twenty plus years! Skidmore is as I correctly suspected a "nodding donkey" (to use the description of some Lloyds insurance brokers prior to the Piper Alpha disaster) because the senior management of CASA will do everything in their power to resist change and there is an endless supply of ex RAAF officers standing in a queue ready to replace them and continue the embuggerance.

Oh wait! Aren't we supposed to be improving air safety?

Let me put it this way. My CASA approved training to fly an aircraft left me simply astonished at the gaps. Once I realised that, I started on a quest to find out what else I didn't know and there was plenty that I had to remedy, starting with some basic acrobatics training for "recovery from unusual situations". However is CASA a resource for any of this? A freindly old Uncle who can point you in the right direction? Even a stern but fair trainer? Not a hope in hell! I discovered it would be better to kiss a crocodile than have anything to do with CASA beyond the bare minimum required by law because they have produced nothing beyond the VFR Guide that helps me be safer and a whole lot of regulation that does the reverse, and that regulation is backed up by capricious and unfair prosecution. I would assume, judging by what happened to Dominic James, that the situation for commercial pilots is no different.

Sorry for the rant "Sound and reasoned" argument has proved pointless in dealing with CASA. A New political party or, sadly, a major accident is the only hope of change.

Sunny,

I'll buy you a beer at Ausfly for that! Post Of The Year award nomination material here;

Perhaps you should print this and bring it with you…..you never know who will be there ;)

I thought that's what Skidmore said he was wanting to do in an interview in The Australian a few weeks back. Also mentioned FAA.

Cooda,

sorry mate but it matters naught what Skidmore says.

The "Iron ring" will never allow it.

Skidmore is just a glove puppet, warming the seat for another four years topping up his retirement funds.
I mean really what incentive does he have to do anything?

By doing nothing he has plausible denial.

Think of all the Nuremburg excuses we have heard over time. "that occurred before my appointment", "I was in Montreal at the time", "not my department", "I just did as I was ordered" etc. etc.
Sad to say but the Murky Macavellian is a brilliant Puppeteer. Just like a game of thrones, he's outmaneuvered us all.

GA airports will go to the Development sharks.

Major airports will continue creating new members of the Millionaires club and contributions to the Bermudan economy with their tax free status.

Momentum will ensure CAsA will continue churning out regulations long after there is any industry left to regulate, and the "Iron Ring" members have sufficient retirement funds stashed away.

If you believe in Karma you could pray Pumpkin head has a heart attack before he gets to spend any of the ill gotten gains coming his way.

There is no hope for aviation in Australia, without an Erebus event nothing will change, there's just too much short term money to be made by destroying us and not enough money within the industry to fight against it, too many of us prepared to prostitute ourselves to those who would destroy us

Public Interest?? Pffft!! since when has a politician ever considered that.

I used to be so naïve as to imagine that a public servants job was to serve the public, not their own self interest.

Not anymore!

Sounds like you're there in the office with him, Thorn Bird, seeing as you appear to know what he's up to and what motivates him.

If you don't personally believe that a desire to do your job to the best of your ability and achieve some positive results isn't enough for someone to get off their arse each day, then that's your choice, but it's a pretty sad and cynical one in my book.