Thank you CASA, i feel so much safer.
 

Its a beautiful Sunday mid morning, wind light and variable, 3 kts! perfect flying day, not a cloud to be seen.. all those aircraft at Bankstown, just waiting for an opportunity to corrode, and have the grass grow a little longer around them, as this thriving industry demands of such aircraft these days on such a day..
Sitting around the flying school, a knock at the door, OMG! A student maybe! Whoohooo.. there is hope! Oh oh, Oh, Hi Mr CASA dude? DAMP you say, of course none of us have been drinking or taking drugs, we are pilots remember, most of us are actually capable of taking responsibility for ourselves.. In the interests of safety yadda yadda, oh, the receptionist, you want a drug test? oh ok, any drugs? yeah i had a head cold the other day, no sir, i dont have a pilots licence.. yes, i do have airside access, how can i talk to the instructors? ok lick this stick and sit here and don't move for half an hour...

I have no way of conveying to CASA, just how grateful i am in knowing that my aviation career and time in the air is now that much safer knowing the dangers posed to us by a receptionist with a mild head cold! i mean, really, think of the SAFETY! YOUR SAFETY... and CASA's of course. now i can sleep easy, and take off safe in the knowledge that CASA, is doing all it can to tackle the real safety issues this industry obviously faces.. the receptionist. :mad::ugh:







though, after the DAMP test, 1, or maybe 2 aircraft were seen in the circuit during the day.. lucky they didn't take off earlier, the danger and all.

UL

That would be so damned funny……..if it were not a serious joke.

So did she pass, or did the Codral do her in? :ugh:

Just been having a "chat" with Horatio Leafie on another E-Comms tool about the idea of making Rock Fishing illegal sans lifejacket. We should DAMP test them too. :rolleyes:

She passed.. and on a sunday morning, those guys must have been on at least double $$. doubling up the safety i guess.

Did that really happen today at BK, UL?


If not, when?

Jaba,


I agree with you on the rock fishing issue. (Particularly here in NSW where quite a few rock fishermen have drowned in recent years.) I reckon that it should be an educational rather than an enforcement issue. Modern 'Personal Floatation Devices' (PFD's) are available for under $100-00 from your local BCF store etc. They are very comfortable to wear and may save your life, if one is washed into the ocean.

Most, not all, Mr Ultralights, are capable of looking after themselves. It's because of the idiots who aren't able to that make us go through this BS.

Several past (and some not so long ago world wide) accidents have brought alcohol or drugs into it as a factor.

Does random testing really make it safer? That's debatable. Hopefully it does, considering the money spent on it!

I can only think of one, the six that in at Hamilton Island 10 or so years ago. What other incidents?

If you're talking about airline flight crew showing up hungover / drunk, yes that has happened but I'm pretty sure it was airport or airline security personnel that caught them out, not the regulator.

CASA loves making us feel "safe" from perceived issues, rather than addressing real issues within aviation. :*

In the Hamilton Is matter, there was not a therapeutic amount of any drug found that would have impacted on the event. This crash was the catalyst for what we have today. An imagined threat without medical substance. Or to put it another way, a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

Carson Air metro crash not too long ago.

Wake up! These regulations have more to do with CASA bureaucrats furthering their careers than safety.

CASA and its predecessors have been collecting accident data for how many years?? At least since the 50's if not the 30's. There is a minimum of 30 years data. More than enough for CASA to make proper evidence based decisions. But when have we ever seen it??

The guy doing the testing at our field gave come crazy figure of 1 in 1000 positive drug detections and those tongue scrapers cost $40 each.

Do the numbers from there !

Let's say he can do those in a couple of months, include his salary and car etc and you'll see it costs a lot of money to catch a pilot or crew member using drugs, but it's hard to put a cost on a life or more should the worst happen...

But, as OA observed, where is the evidence of drugs or alcohol being causal factors in aviation accidents? A rumour that Fred smoked the occasional joint on his days off isn't evidence.

If it were an evidence-based system, DAMP resources would be diverted to quality control of food eaten by pilots - the single biggest cause of incapacitation.

Can I suggest...?

Re "Oh, the receptionist, you want a drug test? oh ok, any drugs? yeah i had a head cold the other day, no sir, I don't have a pilots licence... "

This should be described with date / time, the CASA person's name, and formally sent to Mr Mark Skidmore, with a polite, factual letter for notification / further explanation.

I would think it hard to convict a 'non-flying' person for what is obstensively, a 'flying offence'. (?)

The answer should be 'of interest'.

Cheers

SSAA ??
 

I'd be interested to know what Safety Sensitive Aviation Activity the CASA people believed the receptionist was involved in.

If the answer is 'none' then why should she have to submit to a test?

Over_Centre, if you want to be really pedantic (As I believe CASA are in this case) the receptionist has access to Airside and thusly to aircraft and in an inebriated state could mess with an aircraft by accident or on purpose.

I don't believe this is actually really a valid threat personally but that is undoubtedly how CASA would spin it.

Where do you draw the line?
 

And what if I was there that morning. Visiting friends in Sydney. Might pop out to Bankstown to have a look around, see what's changed.
Chatting to the receptionist when CASA arrives........

Before strict liability with road rules in NSW, the police had to have reasonable excuse to assume intoxication to justify a breath test. Driving erratically for example. Random breath tests, like DAMP checks are fishing expeditions. A Rex/ Jetstar/ Virgin passenger CAN be airside on the tarmac at Sydney whilst legally intoxicated. The pilot has no valid reason to remove him/her but CAsA can? (NOTE: legally intoxicated, not blind drunk).


It would be less costly and more safe if the Regulatory Review Program were to tell us what "IS" permitted rather than what's "NOT" permitted because it appears "EVERYTHING" is illegal.

1/1000 positive detections. Bet they don't say how many actual convictions they get or how manybof those are false positives.

The Police have a hard time making drug driving charges stick so I don't think CASA would have any better strike rate.

A very simple system:

- One sentence in the Civil Aviation Act: "Everything is prohibited, except by exemption by CASA."

- Give everyone in CASA pads of exemption forms.

It's just about the way the system runs now.

Millions saved by shutting down the 'reform' program.

Cancel All Sensible Applications


Or


Cancel All Sensible Aviation


??