What in God's name would lead you to believe that the poll is a scam? That's just tinfoil hat territory.

As I keep saying, I don't believe that a different, real pruner has been randomly stumbling across this thread and deciding to cast a vote, once every couple of hours in the last couple of weeks.

I could be wrong.

If you consider that to be a basis on which to attack my credibility, good for you, but I note that ad hominem attacks seem to be becoming a habit. :=

In any event, and again as I keep saying, the poll is pointless. Whatever the numbers and whoever the voters, it won't change thing one.

Arm out window, Leaddie could be correct - some random number generator is randomly generating votes randomly in random polls.
Now my head hurts, on with the hat.:confused::confused:

Time to close
 

This thread is now not serving any useful purpose.

Mods... Time To close.

CAsA read this forum avidly. This particular thread serves to remind them on a daily basis that their strategy is flawed when it comes to dealing with the industry it fails to support.

What, now that the predicted flood of anti-CASA votes hasn't turned out to be a tsunami after all? I think the original issue is still well alive, and a, let's say, spirited debate is maybe getting somewhere slowly too.

Anyone attend the AFAP annual Convention this weekend. Very enlightening WRT certain airline's approach to dealing with reports of Fatigue!

Skidmore, are you reading this?

Lead Ballon: Then there is 61.360 about false or misleading entries in a logbook with reference to subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code. It goes on to state that CASA may give written direction to some-one to correct a logbook - does that mean that if we find an entry that needs correction we must apply to CASA for a direction and written instructions on how to make the correction?

In the case of a logbook in which you've made the last entry, DJ, I think the answer is yes. You commit an offence if you alter it after you've made the last entry, so it seems your only alternative is to ask CASA to give you a direction under 61.360(3) if you find an error and want to correct it, and hope .....

Hope that you don't disappear into a bureaucratic and costly vortex.

I think there's an element of intention or knowledge in the phrase "false or misleading" in 61.360. In other words, I don't think there's an offence if the information in the logbook is incorrect through an innocent error. But who knows.

I might add that 61.360 is appallingly drafted: The heading says "false" entries, the text of the substantive regulation says "false or misleading" entries, and directions under the regulation may require the recipient to "correct" entries. So it might be that CASA doesn't have power to direct you to correct an entry that is neither false nor misleading, but merely incorrect as a consequence of an innocent error.

All of this is, of course, in the interests of the safety of air navigation.

(AOTW: You seem to be of the opinion that valid inferences can be drawn from the results of the poll. What are those inferences?)

Just that the expectation before it went up from the 'no' side of the debate was that a massive burst of negative opinion would ensue from the poll, when as it turns out so far it's 199 not confident in Mark Skidmore, and 197 either confident, not sure or too early to decide - hardly a resounding smack in the face for CASA, although certainly not a resounding endorsement either of course.

Skidmore - Does he equal mccomick??
 

Look at the data AOTW, only 18% give MS a big tick straight off.

Even Malcolm T had a better response in the last few weeks and the industry was known to be looking for a big change. 18% tells us that this is not the way to go.

In fact, there are serious concerns, as MS started on 1st December 2014 and now is over 10 months into the job.

The current mess with Jabiru, where the data used is not valid can be sheeted directly at MS.

Be interesting to see a report into how the meeting with RAus went last week, particularly the effects of Jonathon Aleck.

Combining the actually positive votes with votes that could go either way is not an objective interpretation.

But that's normal: The people with an interest in the subject matter of a vote will always be biased on the interpretation of the votes. That's why all political parties always argue that the outcomes of an election are positive for them.

What do you reckon the probabilities are of all the 'not sures' and 'too early to decides' eventually deciding that they do have confidence? I'm biased because I've seen this cycle 5 times over, but I'll bet a lot of money that a substantial proportion of them don't come to that conclusion.

Don't know, it depends how he goes!

The categories are a bit too fuzzy too I reckon, having both 'not sure' and 'too early' - a yes, no, don't know would probably be closer to the mark. Anyhow, I suppose we'll see what transpires in the next few months with the whole upheaval.

Proof ? What proof, philosophies don't cut it.

Leadie - the drafters know, they deliberately made it a strict liability offence!

Intention doesn't come into it! :(

And when randomly checking the random votes, I noticed that not one random IP address occurred more than once.

Folks,
Don't blame the drafters, CASA sets the intended policy outcomes, the proof of the offense and the level of the penalty ---- very often in total defiance of Government legislative guidelines ---- and I see no indications that, in real terms, Skidmore is doing anything about it.
Tootle pip!!

Some of us are well aware of your amateur sleuth activities. Some of us are also aware of how easy it is to disguise and change IP addresses.

In any event ...

What, exactly, does the poll prove?

When all the "not sure's" become sure, how will we know of what they've become sure?

When there's been sufficient time for all the "too early to decide's" to make a decision, how will we know what that decision is?

And if, in the longer term, all of the votes settled around 50/50 "Confident" and "Not Confident", what would that prove? I'd suggest the answer is: "Not Thing One".

And if, in the longer term all of the votes settled at 100% "Not Confident", what would change? I'd suggest the answer is: "Not Thing One".

Give a it go with a poll on Martin Dolan.

Skidmore has not a hope in hell of changing CASA, its policies or its culture.

The reason being that all it takes to stymie change is inertia and a little creative negative thinking to make up reasons why proposed changes, any proposed changes, are too hard. The reformers energy is quickly expended on fighting endless battles, its like trying to attack a tank with a pea shooter. The entire CASA general management level is against any form of change that does not increase their power and decrease their accountability. This is why internal reform is mostly impossible.

Internal reform only works where you, as chief executive, take a sword to senior management ranks and remove anyone who represents a threat to the change agenda. This is relatively easy in the private sector but difficult in the public sector. Unless you do this, then despite outward allegiance to the new way of doing things, old habits will reassert themselves in a short while.

This is why in both the Public and the Private sector we have seen so many new technology systems fail to achieve promised savings. The people who should be displaced by the new system make up new reasons to do more make work and embed themselves in the new system. It is not unusual to see staff numbers actually increase when "labour saving" systems are introduced. The only safe way to implement a system that is say, supposed to reduce staff by 25%, is to fire 25% on the day you switch the new system on.

The only safe way to reform CASA is to disband it and create say, Two new agencies to do the work - and then be very careful about which former CASA employees, only the low level ones, you let in, otherwise the new organisations will get "infected" by the old CASA culture. This is clearly beyond Skidmore and his Minister.

Sunny days ...
 

Oh so true. The Iron Ring of upper level management of long term professional spin doctors like Aleck et al put paid to any positive changes imho.

The ONLY way to save GA on Oz is for a Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry so that all the horror stories of bureaucratic buggery,cronyism, corruption and illegalities can be exposed. Once the REAL story is out about the rotten state of CAsA then maybe, just maybe the whole sh*t heap can be deconstructed, leaned out and rebuilt with new non CAsa pro aviation people and the FAA regs
:ok: And many things like investigations, FOI and MLO removed to independent bodies...so fair dealing and common decency might prevail:ok:

Otherwise it will just be the same old as for past decades... the circular saw of revolving ceos and crapulous "philosophies" and resulting regulations (sic) cutting GA to the death.

Aroa, you can't renovate CASA. It's easier to scrap it and start again with a clean slate and the nz regs as the template.

How do people feel about 141/142 being delayed now?

Delighted.
The only thing missing from their piddly little announcement was blaming industry for not being ready.

Apparently there's going to be a 'taskforce'. Yep, yet another one of those'll fix it. :rolleyes:

It must be fantastic to have a job where you get paid to make messes, and get paid to clean up those messes, indefinitely.

I believe that the aviation industry and the safety of air navigation would be better served if CASA stopped the regulatory reform process and confined itself to digging ditches and then filling them in. Although it would still cost a lot, at least they wouldn't be creating an even bigger regulatory bugger's muddle.

Proof that DAS Skidmore is a new broom??
 

Like my rooster, who is now a feather duster, Skidmore has proven nothing, especially anything to do with sweeping. He has learnt nothing from his predecessors except how to maintain the steady impetus of destroying an industry that was once vibrant and growing. An industry now dead like my rooster, but without any tangible piece of usable wreckage suitable for cloning. The position was made available to him under the "Peter principle" and it's now about time to employ someone else that can manipulate the throttle, (as in choke) of regulatory common sense. He has nothing more to offer.
Without wanting to be too harsh, but cognizant of the current situation, I believe his appointment was possibly part of a Laboratory experiment that went horribly wrong. He can't possibly be to blame, but he is the conduit that has delivered us to this point in time.
I'm too old to care any more and to be truthful I can't think of anything that would motivate readers here to continue to fight this regulatory abomination.
If you're not in the fight then you become part of the problem.


While we await the tragedy, we may as well enjoy the farce.


And Jesus wept,
Adieu.

Thanks..
 

Thanks Frank. You made me cry too.

Trouble with the human animal it always has hope / lives in hope/ is hopeful that common sense will prevail and change will happen. :ok: Positivity gene?

Alas with CAsA, power and arrogance diseases the positivity gene and causes an extreme negativity tumour .:mad::mad:

And its fatal. For GA. :{:{

Who can think of some good graveside jokes? We all need a laugh

Good to see you back on the boards Frank, hope the sailing has been fun. I completely agree that if Part 61 was done properly in the first place then a taskforce to fix it would not be required. What it does indicate though, which is just a glimmer of hope, is that public comment from organisations such as RAAA and AHIA is starting to have an effect.

BTW you seem to have a fan club at the Professional Agronomists as they cut and pasted your comment and that of LB.

I have the smallest shred of regret at starting this thread. Of particular regret is the choice of title.

Would "DAS IV: A new hope" have been more apt?


...but as others have said, hope springs eternal.

Let's all make sure we make a measured but consistent response to the survey they have asked us to complete. I wait for the results with interest :rolleyes:

Yes it should be measured and consistent with the Forsyth Review.
I'm still waiting for the results to be implemented from that survey. Can't see what re-submitting anything will do except annoy them further.

The new fatigue rules have been delayed a year too. That's good news because seemingly they are listening to industry rather than dumping the new rules on everyone. That and they probably also realise nobody in casa know the new rules either!

It's why I answered their survey and gave some very honest reviews. Worth doing. There's some good questions in there such as "how easy are the new rules to understand" and "how well do you think casa staff understand the new rules". Yes, I scored them poorly there before you ask, because it's the truth.

Fatigue rules delayed?


Assuming these rules relate to engineering/ metallurgical matters, any delay would increase fatigue factors and risk wouldn't it?


Is there a problem or not that need addressing?


Maybe it's industry fatigue? I know I'm getting tired.

You mean the companies...

Any change will be purely cosmetic.

After attending the Flight Plan 2030 CASA Forum in Brisbane today, I would have to say I have every confidence in Mark Skidmore providing the leadership that the organisation needs. It will no doubt take some time, but he seems to be progressing. A big meeting of managers in Bris am today bringing some changes to the structure, and it seems more to follow - full details not yet available. He is consulting like we have never seen before from a DAS which is a good thing and I believe he is listening.:ok:
It will never change fast enough for some, but I believe there is progress and we shall see what comes for Christmas!:ok:

PS - after the last bloke, he certainly is a new broom!

Triadic:

"We trained hard ... but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralisation." - Allegedly Petronius.

I am sure the good AVM. Skidmore is consulting his backside off and means well.

However, it's not what they say, it's what they do that must be watched.

As far as I can see nothing has changed:

1) Attempted to change details at CASA web portal - not registered, but of course that response doesn't come up on the web, you have to email CASA to find out why it isn't working. When I attempted to register, I get the "how do we know its you?" response. And no, you don't get a faxed passport and ASIC image either. My details are incorrect and can stay that way.

2) Yet after that, like everyone else, I still get a CASA text ordering me to do something online. WTF???????

3) Then I try and snare a registration mark for the new aircraft. Which I cannot do online, but have to print, manually fill in, scan and email a form plus $65. Result? A letter (snail mail) received written in the most autistic, stilted impenetrable style saying words to the effect that "my request is non conforming to legislation because the requested mark is no longer available", and thats $65 smackers for just saying "NO". …and another $65 to try again. Folks, this is a symptom of total administrative incompetence and make work.

NO CASA is not changing. Not at all. Not ever.

It is an Australian cultural thing, not confined exclusively to CASA. The Poms taught us bureaucracy and we perfected it. Example, the ATO offered me the possibility of registering for a magic key so that I can do all my tax business electronically. But I can't get the key because it requires a password, which of course I don't have until I complete the key application. After three shots at it, it cancels and you have to start the process again. The chick on the phone had no idea how to sort it, either. So...back to paper for all my tax matters. They write to me to tell me my tax is overdue and threaten recovery action, I drag it out to the penultimate day and then mail them a cheque. This ties the buggers up chasing a few dollars which wouldn't cover the hours that they put into the recovery action.

Back to CASA bashing: adding a simple 'Class Endorsement' with IPC to a new Part 61 licence (already issued) required me to make the licence entries on the candidate's licence plus completion of FOUR forms, seven pages in all, and I am still half expecting some CASA wonk in a back office to find something missing. Surely some master mind could reduce it to one form, or even - shock horror - organise an electronic form that would not submit until the right boxes were checked, thereby totally removing the need for any paperwork.
As for my own Part 61 licence - six months now and no sign of it. When I converted to a Kiwi licence, it took five days from when I arrived in NZ to having the single plastic card with all my ratings on it, in my hand.

Folks,
Nothing of real significance CAN change until serious surgery on the Act, as explained, so many times, by Creampuff and others.

That as well as a complete new approach to regulations, getting rid of the bastard child of the Albanese/McCormick era, Part 61, and all its siblings about to hit you like an out of control train. As AMROBA continues to point out (and CASA does nothing) the regulatory regimen in significant principle, is far removed even from the Act. And --- ICAO.

As for the paperwork, again give thanks to the Labor era. I have just been to Medicare for some refunds. Under the "new" system, two pieces of paper about the size of a small supermarket docket, printed on the desk of each clerk, have been replaced by TEN (10, 9+1) A4 pages on a remote printer -- must all be a health measure, to make sure clerks don't sit for too long.

Perhaps the rational is that we use 100% recycled paper, so the more paper we used, the better for the environment we are doubtless being. Given the CASA examples, this must be a "whole of Government" policy??

The whole "new" CASA web site, again thanks to the Albanese era, is a disgrace, "slow" doesn't cover it, and access to vast amounts of archival material is now denied -- we would not want easy access to any evidence, would we.

Tootle pip!!

triadic wrote:
That is reassuring. All power to AVM Skidmore.
I am willing him to succeed, and we should all give credit to him if he can achieve meaningful reform of this organisation that has gone so far off track.

I'm sorry, I thought the parrot was dead. Only sleeping you reckon?

How serious is Mr. Skidmore?
 

Reading his latest missive, November issue, a couple of points:-

“Pilots with a current licence only need to undertake an aviation English language proficiency assessment if they want to use their Australian licence overseas. However, a current aviation assessment is needed before applying for any flight test for a private, commercial, air transport or multi-crew pilot licence. People needing to find a language assessor should talk to their local flight training school.”

I would have thought that one’s language ability would be quite adequately dealt with during training and licence testing.

Wonder what extra costs are involved and how does CASA approve language assessors?

What is the practice in the US and NZ?

Is this another example of unnecessary and costly micro management ?

In regard to the last part of Mr Skidmore’s report, entitled
"Fatigue forum praised for practical answers”, reading this is most confusing.

Quote:-
"Fatigue forum praised for practical answers"
More than 80 people from 22 aviation organisations and CASA came together in Melbourne at a special forum in November 2015 to achieve a mutual understanding of fatigue risk management systems. Presenters with experience in the development and operation of specific aspects of a fatigue risk management system provided practical, best-practice advice. There were many opportunities for everyone to ask questions of both the presenters and CASA, triggering useful discussions. Feedback from those who attended was very positive. There was support for the format, the standard of presenters, the quality of information and the opportunities to get practical answers to questions. CASA would like to thank everyone who participated including: Dr David Powell, senior lecturer and specialist in Aviation Medicine with the University of Otago in New Zealand and previously the chief medical officer at Air New Zealand; Mal Christie of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau; Jenny Allcock of the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator; Adam Fletcher and Richard Yates of Integrated Safety Support; Ben Cook of Human and Systems Excellence; Greg Fallow of the New Zealand Air Line Pilots Association and Captain James Boland of Express Freighters Australia. There was very strong support for another fatigue risk management forum to be held in 2016.

More than 40 people representing 22 aviation organisations attended a special fatigue risk management systems forum in November 2015. The aim of the forum was to ensure there is a mutual understanding between CASA and aviation organisations of the requirements and expected outcomes to be achieved prior to being approved for a trial of a fatigue risk management system. To achieve this mutual understanding 30 inspectors and staff from CASA took part in the forum held in Melbourne. Presenters with experience in the development and running or specific aspects of a fatigue risk management system provided practical, best-practice examples of what works. There were many opportunities for everyone to ask questions of both the presenters and CASA, triggering useful discussions. Feedback from those who attended was very positive. There was support for the format, the standard of presenters, the quality of information and the opportunities to get practical answers to questions. CASA would like to thank Dr David Powell, senior lecturer and specialist in Aviation Medicine with the University of Otago in New Zealand previously the Chief Medical Officer at Air New Zealand, where he led the FRMS for 15 years; Mal Christie of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau; Jenny Allcock of ONRSR; Adam Fletcher and Richard Yates of Integrated Safety Support; Ben Cook of Human and Systems Excellence; Greg Fallow of NZ ALPA and Captain James Boland of Express Freighters Australia. There has been very strong support for another fatigue risk management forum to be held in 2016."

It would seem that there were two forums held recently in Melbourne.

One with more than thirty FOIs and other CASA staff;
One with 40 attendees and one with 80 attendees are reported.
Both meetings (or was it only one meeting with a massaged message inadvertently posted together with the first draft) surely not at the same time. Will the real forum please stand up?

Wonder what the overall cost was? Would anyone from CASA be able to put a dollar cost on this or these forums? Were any of Mr. Skidmore's 26 member "Tiger Team" who are working full time to correct the hopelessly compromised Part 61 regs in attendance?

What details and costs about accomodation and meals can we be given?
No doubt many being flown in from Canberra and further afield.
It seems that a lovely time was had by all and of course they’ll all be back next year to have a wonderful conference all about the next tranche of changing regulations. Much more enjoyable than working for a living, our fuel levies bringing happiness and satisfaction to our masters.

Meanwhile back in the real world of what’s left of GA, it is gasping for air, struggling to pay the bills and struggling at the task of coping with a new suite of regs that will see many more aviation businesses close their doors.

What’s it all about? Not a single example or detail about any practical outcome in Mr. Skidmore's pat on back communique from the 'fatigue forum(s)'.

Bureaucracy unlimited, huge pay packets, lifestyle, ego and power might explain life on another planet. Meanwhile not a real reform in sight, fiddling with unworkable regs and granting exemptions is not reform, the situation is out of control.

Reform will not be simply returning to old regimes, the industry must demand policies to advance GA in growth, the need is immediate and urgent.

Independent instructors and LAMES like USA, moratorium on compulsory SIDs, car type PPL medicals like sport category. Change to the Act to include industry health.