AOTW: I think the issue here is one of expectations. The OP had reasonable expectations, got his exemptions, and went away happy. Others will only be happy if the new DAS tears up the entire regulatory framework, renounces any past connection with the RAAF, and then does whatever Dick and his fan club demand (i.e. a glove puppet of a different sort). I'd suggest that this isn't a reasonable expectation, and isn't likely to be fulfilled. At least it'll allow some to continue with their chosen hobby of venting furiously on Internet forums. :ok:

What, then, is Mr Skidmore's job?

I will guarantee that whatever you and AOTW pluck out of the air will be as wrong as what "Dick and his fan club", and Mr Skidmore, pluck out of the air.

Therein lies another fundamental problem.

Anybody that adds to the "dog's breakfast" called Regulatory Review is not capable of carrying out the duties that the office holds. Exemptions add to the nightmare. Isn't 20+ years and $millions wasted enough to call a halt and have a hard look at "that problem" which, by all accounts he believes does not exist?


Until Skidmore admits there is a problem he can't address it.


An apologist for the DAS is worse than any perceived "fan club" of realists is I would suggest. His listening days are over, the Forsyth Review said it all and he's done nothing. One can only imagine he is part of the fantastic new world order without aircraft except for the "enlightened ones".

Frank,

Given the dog's breakfast that has the hide to call itself the Australian Government, how do you propose swift and effective changes, fixes and allowances be made to Federal legislation?

How long do you suggest it will take to wait for a legislative amendment to fix a problem that is damaging aviation businesses TODAY? How long is acceptable?

Six weeks?

Six months?

How does the DAS change the direction of CASA's legislative re-drafting debacle without MINISTERIAL DIRECTION to do so?

While we all agree Mr Skidmore is a public servant, is it his job to read PPRuNe and direct CASA accordingly?

...or is it his job to steer the ship in accordance with the policy and directives of the government of the day?

All the screaming in the world, all the invective you smash into your keyboard, all the spittle you have to wipe off your screen as you vent your spleen through these pages is totally wasted if directed (vicariously) at the DAS.

The Regs as they stand are a product of Australian politics. Use your vote wisely at the next election :=

The regulations are not a product of politics in the sense of competing world views. They are a product of BOTH SIDES of politics wishing to ignore/be insulated from aviation accident political costs.

THAT is the product CASA sells. THAT is why all pilots are "criminals who haven't been caught yet". There are precisely no votes in Aviation. Its rather like prison reform or regulation of feral animals.

The politicians pay CASA an insurance fee so that they don't have to pay attention to aviation. CASAs customer is the Government not us. We don't matter.

That is why I say that absent a political party or strike action, or a major accident the politicians are right in believing that noises from us can be safely ignored.


Skidmore? Nodding donkey, "safe pair of hands", "won't rock the boat", "One of us", "trusted", "steady".

Skidmore will labor mightily in the garden of the Lord and will, predictably, produce nothing of any import, because his Minister and Department Head chose him to do nothing more than keep aviation out of the headlines. I'm sure he is a nice guy and will try hard an d be granted a small change in the regulations to put his name to (perhaps tyre valve caps will no longer need to be yellow).

Real reform? No hope! As i have said before that would need a reformer backed by a minion or Two from Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as "advisors" (read bureaucratic assassins) to rip CASA apart and restructure it.

The sort of guys needed are, to paraphrase a description of Ohio Political operatives; "guys so smart and clever that you don't even realise they have cut your throat until half an hour after they have taken their leave".

Indeed.

Mr Skidmore's actual job is to draw flak away from the people actually responsible for aviation safety regulation.

HL;


I'm of the opinion the CAsA orchestra is being directed by one senior public servant that's gone rogue and will one day join previous people in the position at the millionaires factory that own things like airports. It's out of the hands of the politicians who see their positions enhanced by the buffer offered by staying at arms length. No party will commit to effective reform let alone allow such a program come to an end. I concur with sunfish. Skidmore is a disappointment that only serves to prolong the misery of an enduring industry extinction. (save for the illuminati).

Right, that's it for me.

They are how any government deals with its responsibilities. What else do you want?

If you are a criminal, expect to be treated like one. If you do the right thing, then you won't have a problem.

Boo f*&king hoo, I may burst into tears if you hit me with any more whingeing.

See above.

Well mate, any time you're ready, step up and fix the situation - I'm waiting with bated breath to see your solutions to all these terrible problems.

Why don't you jump straight in and do a better job, that should fix everything.

What are you on, you goose?

How's your crystal ball there, Nostradamus?

Did they now? You're mates with them, I suppose? Know how they work?

Any time you're ready to contribute a bit more, go for it!

On ya, champion - whenever you're ready, step up!


Yep, that'll work - get them on the payroll, can't wait for the improvements to flow on from your outstanding input.

my don't the ex-raaf hate it when someone criticises one of their number.
I mean, hell we flew jets, how could we be wrong?
you bug smashers know so little.

....problem is that you are regulating bug smashers not jets and your prior experience is actually the problem.
W8

AOTW:

Not true, and therein lies the problem on Two counts: There is ample evidence of vendettas and capricious, malicious persecution.

But more importantly for those like me and the majority who try and obey the law, CASA has made the regulations so voluminous, difficult and complex that it is almost impossible to "do the right thing" all the time.

AOTW, you have heard of the Forsyth review I trust? Is that all just "whinging"? I'd love to hear your comments.

To put that another way; what part of "CASA has lost the trust of the industry" don't you understand?

That's the well-worn chorus, but it's far off the mark - I've worked for over a decade in GA too and the difference in experience that forms the basis of much of the anti-RAAF sentiment here just isn't real, though it's a convenient fallback option when trotting out the insults.

People doing the right thing? A lot of the time, but you don't need to turn over too many rocks to find aircraft being flown unserviceable, hours falsified, parts kept in service too long, maintenance not being written up in the MR, rules of the air being methodically busted etc etc ... then when the authorities come after the perpetrators it's a big surprise? Come on. At least some (I'm not saying all) of these so-called vendettas are just the dodgy operator that everyone knows is doing the wrong thing finally getting caught up with. Don't tell me you don't know of stuff like this going on.

I understand it all right, but stubbornly refusing to budge one little bit to re-engage with them and slagging them off at every opportunity is hardly going to change anything, is it?

I would normally agree with you. And I do in a general sense, but when it comes to some at CASA it would not be polite to slag them off personally without just cause, but as a whole, they take on the person of the lowest common denominator and that unfortunately has caused most to view the organisation with the contempt is not only deserves but asks for.

If they want better engagement having had industry try for so long, it is time they actually did some and listened and responded. The DAS is trying. I have an acid test for him shortly, but I fear he and JB are two guys trying hard against a bureaucratic monster that can't be tamed with anything less than a 338 Lapua.

And it is not just people in aviation who find them difficult, or impossible to deal with, I was at a shooting industry function last week, during the Q&A session I made reference to aviation and afterwards I got swamped with folks wanting to know how to work with or around the problems at CASA. The news I gave them was not good. And I knew exactly who they were talking about.

Its not just us folks.

If Skidmore is a "new broom", and this thread is to support the notion that he is actively achieving anything because of one exemption, I would suggest to his ex Batman and cheers squad that he may like to give the industry some sort of statement to the effect he recognizes a problem exists and he is the man to fix it. I can't over emphasize the need for him to read and act on the Forsyth Review, if only to say he accepts the industry input which highlights a problem. Asking for more input and consulting with industry is akin to "fiddling while Rome burns". Soon there will be no industry. Doesn't he get that? Or doesn't he care?

Perhaps a statement like this would be suitable - if only he'd put one out, the recalcitrant bastard!

Sunfish,
And can legally replace said valve cap, after checking the pressure (Schedule 8), without having to have a torque wrench with a current calibration certificate to tighten the valve cap to the prescribed torque in accord with manufacturer's specification.

Yes!! it is a strict liability offense, not so to do. I bet most of you didn't know how hard it is to check your tyre pressures "legally".

Seriously, spend the time watching the replays of Dick in the Senate last night, and you will get to understand how any aviation reform is sidetracked and stymied by the do nothings of the "public" service, aided and abetted by a group of unions who will fight tooth and nail to make certain their rice bowl is not upset.

And what makes it easy, quite often, is committed union members in CASA riding shotgun on any changes ---- the whole edifice stinks.

Tootle pip!!

Despite having your arm out the window being a strict liability offence it's hard to take offence when one is reminded how studious one must be to remain current and interpret messages no matter how cryptic in nature and no matter the subject matter can't be brought to mention the review by name. A bit like the regulations that are in their third decade of review.


I rest my case.

And this is why most of us just don't care anymore.

Simply, change the rules, scrap the rules, piss about with them as much as you like. The smart folk will just keep doing one thing…..be sensible, safe and not kill themselves because at the end of the day that is what actually matters. Calibration certificates for my index finger and thumb……..bend over mr FOI/AWI and lets check the calibration with the master tool :}

Seriously, that is where everyone is headed.

Arm,
Just to remind you, it was a former CASA head of Office of Legal Counsel who stated that, as far as he was concerned, pilots and engineers were ALL just "criminals who had not been caught yet".

The same person also said:" Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".

More than one CASA (or its predecessors) inquiry has commented on the creation of "inadvertent criminals" because of aviation law that is complex, contradictory and generally impossible to wholly comply with.

After all, from the CASA point of view, of great utility is the fact that, for a strict liability offense, CASA (the DPP) does not have to prove the traditional criminal intent (the guilty mind) that used to be fundamental to convicting anybody of a criminal offense.

In other words, despite the best efforts of a law abiding citizen in the aviation world, it is all to easy to wind up with a criminal record (with all the serious consequences that entails) without the slightest criminal intent, other than "committing aviation".

Arm, do you actually understand the travel restrictions that can follow from even a criminal charge, even without a conviction. Just a criminal charge under any aviation statute is enough to bar you from entry to a number of countries, including USA.

Tootle pip!!

Three subjects:

To be fair, for once, to Mr. Arm Out The Window he does have a point; constructive engagement with the regulator is the usual way of achieving progress in its widest sense, but what he is missing is that constructive engagement - sweet reason, has been tried by an alphabet soup of organisations for a very long time with no results.

The culmination of the failure of the engagement process was the Forsyth review - and its conclusion was that CASA had lost the trust of the industry. Since the publication of the findings of the review nothing has happened. One is therefore left to conclude that those in charge do not accept that change is either necessary or desirable.

Given that there appears no willingness to change, and the fact that industry has already engaged with CASA for Ten plus years in dialogue, could we be forgiven for believing that there is no point in wasting our time with any more consultation?

Furthermore, all that anyone is doing in bringing anything to CASAs attention, is to risk the possibility of victimisation and persecution in future - as evidenced by the number of confidential submissions to the Forsyth Review and the committees warnings to CASA regarding this subject.

With knowledge of that past history, why would anyone want to give AVM. Skidmore "full and frank" feedback? Especially with his senior management in attendance and taking notes???? At the risks of invoking Godwins law, its a little like Himmler asking inmates at Dachau for "feedback". The ball is in the Governments court. Feedback has been given. Mountains of it. Some at great cost. No upside and plenty of downside by feeding back.

The second matter I want to raise is "The Vision Thing". I was transfixed by what I saw on the South Island of New Zealand in the way of aviation in GA. The place was buzzing. Virtually every town had a strip with (turbine!) helicopters operating scenic or hunting and fishing operations. I stopped at Milford Sound on a sunny day(!) and the airstrip was literally buzzing with operations, fixed wing and helicopters. If you go to YouTube you can see some of the back country STOL stuff New Zealanders engage in -- landing on river banks to fish, flying to remote beaches, even landing on mountain tops. Can anyone not imagine the jobs, investment and economic growth this aviation regulatory environment provides????

Can anyone not understand the economic opportunity costs of an Australian regulatory environment that virtually prohibits us from having an aviation sector as vibrant as New Zealand??? Then of course there is the USA…

To put that another way; aviation camping tours? Landing aircraft in national parks, let alone river banks and beaches? Back country grass airstrips and camping? Forget it in Australia except by stealth. In my own region and for example; where is the floatplane service on Lake Eildon? Where are the helicopter scenic tours and transfers to the snow country? Where are the high country airstrips for summer camping? Why are our airstrips always under threat of closure and housing development? Why can't we have a vibrant, growing, employing, GA sector? Because the dead hand of CASA imposes almost impossible regulatory costs and burdens on the industry and furthermore CASA has no duty towards that sector at all.

To put that another way; we fly "in spite of CASA", not with CASAs blessing.

The final matter is the RAAF mindset and how it interacts with "The Vision Thing". I would have thought that "vision" is not encouraged in the services, nor is independent action well regarded in relation to operating or maintaining Government aircraft. I suspect , but cannot confirm, that a career spent in a rigid hierarchy does not make for free thinking and a light approach to regulation, but I'd love to be proved wrong.

Points taken - it's galling to be threatened with strict liability and penalty units whenever you read the regs, and if they can take the threatening tone and intent down a bit well and good. I don't know about the legal side of it - objectively speaking they need to be able to deter people from doing the wrong thing and have a means of punishing those who do, but I don't want draconian and anti-common sense rules either.

Likewise, I would like to see GA thriving without undue restriction, but I don't see it being achieved with an adversarial 'get f@&#ed CASA' stance and prejudice against individuals because of perceptions of how their backgrounds mould them.

I would honestly say most military people I know are as free-thinking as anyone else, and one of my main bugbears is the use of these silly comments about what happened in the mess, or similar - they're just irrelevant and simply cloud the real issues at hand.

We are stuck with these guys, at least in the short term, and constructive engagement with honest feedback is the only way to go in my view - by all means, stage a revolution if you can muster up the support, but I don't see it getting far ...

AOTW, thank you for your comments.

I don't believe there will be a revolution and GA, and later Experimental and Recreational, will just fade away under an ever increasing mountain of regulation. The sad part is that investment, jobs and economic growth will go with them or never happen.

I know a little more about the recreational marine environment where the same thing is happening. I proofread a Victorian Government study, commissioned around 1995, that discovered that rec. boating was worth about $350 million a year and God knows how many thousands of jobs. The report found that a modest investment in facilities and a slight change to regulations would result in double digit growth and a sector Three times larger - approaching $1.5 billion - the study was never released - to many NIMBY and regulator groups opposed.

Fast forward to today and it costs upwards of $20,000 minimum plus at least Six months work to comply with "safety standards" for a Sydney - Hobart race, we are going to get a graded national licensing scheme for yachtsmen and vessels which will severely limit what you are allowed to do, where you go and when you go.The police regulations are tightening every year to the point where Two glasses of wine, even at anchor, can get you prosecuted. Marina facilities are poor, expensive and badly designed and anything new faces a barrage of NIMBYs. I guess there are positives for me - most of the year I don't have to share the water with anyone.

Contrast that with NZ where boating is over 3% of GDP and their technological capabilities far surpass Australia in the yachting field. I gather they are doing the same with Antique aircraft, GA and RA niche markets as well - and all we can do is regulate ourselves to death???

Sunny

How about repackaging that for a letter to the Australian on Friday?

No point and I'm already worried about coming on CASAs radar when I try for my C of A.

Sunnie,
For your home built, you don't need to go anywhere near CASA (or SAAA, for that matter) for your Experimental certificate. pm me.
Tootle pip!!

Someone suggested a Poll?

Horatio

Is the second pilot acting only as a safety pilot (which usually satisfies the resource sector requirements) or as a co-pilot in a two crew environment? And how do you establish a two crew operation and environment in a single pilot certified aircraft?

Is there not a risk a safety pilot may log a heap of multi turbine hours, having done nothing more than wearing out the seat covers?

I don't actually believe that there is any prejudice.

what you see is a reaction to the enduring behaviour of CAsA.

If anyone thinks that strict liability and the move away from the assumption of innocence as underlying principles in our legal system is conducive to safety then they have rocks in their heads.
"Ramp Checks" under a system of draconian law is quite likely to get CAsA staff killed. That I think is an inevitable outcome.

The reality is that if you are 'one of us' then CAsA will deliver amazing rights.
If you have never been CAsA staff or in the RAAF then you are assumed to be a criminal deserving of punitive attention and endless threats. History shows this.

I know of a former CAsA staffer who owned a rutan homebuilt. without any training behind him, totally on the basis that he was 'once one of us' CAsA issued him with a LAME's licence limited to his homebuilt.
He could service and operate that aircraft as, in effect, a canadian owner maintainer.
Applications by other owners for a similar licence were met with a letter stating that they had no qualifications and CAsA could not possibly entertain the request until LAME theory and Schedule of experience requirements were met.

CAsA is rotten to the core. Rotten in thinking, Rotten in behaviour.
If you don't believe this then you were either "one of us" or you are ex-raaf.

If Skidmore wants to have the world behind him and CAsA then both of them need to start respecting the world outside their direct experience.

Unwind all the strict liability bull**** and introduce canadian owner maintenance would be two good starts to the changes.

The alternative is that we continue to pressure for the entire show to be lined up in the unemployment ranks behind the EASA clowns that they so admired.

Folks,
Look up Richard Green V. CASA in the AAT for a most interesting tail of CASA bias. Richard Green beat everything CASA threw at him.
During the short enlightened period of Bruce Byron as DAS, and Greg Vaughan as GM GA, maintenance approvals were granted to Mr. Green, based on compliance with the regulations, and demonstrated training and competence, for the maintenance of one private helicopter.
As soon as Byron and Vaughan left, the MAs evaporated, see the AAT history.
Tootle pip!!

Tailwheel,

Gees it was easier when you were on holidays.


Two things:

1/. safety pilots and co-pilots are two different things. The corporate standards I see refer to pilot and co-pilot with defined two-crew procedures. Safety pilot? Very 1980s.

2/. The B1900 and Metro are both single- pilot certified, but are required to have a co-pilot in some ops by dint of an arbitrary weight cut-off in a legislative requirement.

I have seen some B1900 procedures that are very single-pilot two-crew procedures; and some that more fully utilise both crew. You can write good procedures and you can write crap procedures. Why is a "Safety Pilot" a more valid enhancement to safety than a trained and checked co-pilot, regardless of aircraft type? :confused:

One word HL-Perception. To the insurance company requiring it and to the company using the service. I remember way back when, IBM required two pilots in a Seminole! Without the appropriate training the other pilot can be a liability.

Lookleft
 

Looky,

I completely agree when you say:
My question, however, was:

.

Having a properly trained Co-pilot (not a seat-warmer merely "satisfying a requirement") has possibly saved my arse at least once.

Dubbleyew Eight, is this really your serious and true opinion? That if you or someone with a similar viewpoint get ramp checked, you would top them? If that's fair dinkum, grow up mate. 'Inevitable outcome' - what a joke.

If you want to talk honestly about things, go for it, but forget about ridiculous veiled threats and similar. I do get on here quite a bit taking the devil's advocate stance, if that's how you want to view opposing rabid anti-CASA stuff, but this kind of talk is just hot air.

the mindset of the ex-raaf is incredible.

obey. accept the total perversion of the legal system.
don't think for yourself, follow procedures.
it is all in your own interests donchaknow.

rotten to the core.

Yes. They are called First Officers in the airlines

AOTW, while I don't necessarily agree with Dubblew Eight, he has a point - that people can be pushed too far. Hopefully without tragic outcomes but in my opinion the stress of a "confrontation" with an FOI is reason not to fly for at least 24 hours.

To put that another way, I, and the general community, find dealing with Police stressful even when we have done nothing wrong. Now add aggression, stupidity, complex regulations with strict liability criminal penalties and you have a recipe for an extremely nasty outcome.

Regarding ramp checks, I have a friend who was ramped while in charge of a C 172. He asked the FOI why there was not a simple checklist of things he was required to attend to to ensure he always passed a ramp check, but was told by the FOi that it was "too hard"to produce such a document.

Given the current state of regulations, I am quite sure that if an FOI decides he wants to prosecute someone, he can always find something that is illegal in his opinion and prosecute you for it.

Readers might like to contribute their stories of asinine FOI behaviour.

BTW, it is a common Police boast that if they wish to declare a car unroadworthy, they can always find a defect in any car. Furthermore, I am aware that traffic Police do have quotas and I'm speaking as someone with Two relatives in the Police and Judiciary. It is therefore not hard to imagine FOI's having quotas as well.

They do have such a document! It's here:

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...d-safely-and-0

Anyway, people will think whatever they want to think, so I'll butt out now before my ex-RAAF mindset becomes too much of a liability. Have a nice day one and all.

Interesting ramp check guide.

How many operators of private GA aircraft have a flight check system that has been approved by CASA (and revised as required by CASA), and have checklists of procedures from the approved system carried on the aircraft, per CAR 232?

When I learnt to fly, my instructor was critical of pilots who needed checklists to refer to, rather than memorising all of the normal and emergency actions. Has memorising actions been approved by CASA as a system for the purposes of CAR 232?

A system is a system and multiple CASA blokes have told me that memory is a system... as long as it's a system, and not just trying to remember everything before something goes wrong.

But the ramp check 'guidance' says that the CASA chappie will ask to see checklists.

What happens when I say: "It's all in my head"?

CAR 232 says the system has to be approved by CASA. Has the system of rote learning and recalling normal and emergency actions been approved? Where is that approval?

And therein lies the problem. As Sunfish said, just like the cops pulling you over, if they really want to get you, they'll find something. Depends on the individual doing the check, and what side of the bed he got out of that day. And possibly what directive he has received from up the line as to how 'hard' they are going to go that day. Also just like the cops, it depends a bit on your attitude towards them. That ramp check guide is better than nothing, but its still just a guide. Its not all encompassing. Despite peoples best efforts to do the right thing, if you get an a**hole with the CASA vest on who enjoys wielding the big stick, then you're stuffed.:{

LB,
If we have to submit out heads to CASA for approval, how long to you reckon before said approved bonce is returned. And if it is not approved, and deemed non-compliant??
Tootle pip!!