The Kapo System Of Aviation Regulation and CASA
 

In my opinion, there are features of the Kapo system that may be admired by CASA and may inform some of its current or proposed self administration policies for general and sport aviation. Unless robust protections of procedural fairness and natural justice are in place, together with safeguards against undue CASA influence, self regulation as practiced by CASA may just create a group of "Mini Me CASA's" with, if anything, more dictatorial powers and unfairness than the current system.

For such a system to work there need to be strong checks and balances, not only in the relationship between CASA and associations but between the association and its members. Without these in place, self regulation is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Sunny I think Pastor Martin Niemoller's famous poem fits well with your post.

Didn't that sort of thing go out of fashion years ago?
You sound like some sort of populist or socialist.

Sunny says
"What a quaint idea" said the banks. "How yesterday. Royal Commission? Why? Nothing to see here"

Now CASA are the NAZI's? Seriously Sunfish go to Europe and chill.

Godwin's law at its finest here.



Unsubscribe? GOLD!

Lookleft,
As far back as the 1960s, DCA "enforcement" was referred to as the "Airstapo", particularly by ATC personnel, it ain't new.
Among various associations, over the years there has been no shortage of examples of "enforcement" behavior that, to say the least, lacked procedural fairness, the usual process was to "know" the victim was guilty, with actual legal standard of proof regarded as an unnecessary impediment to summary conviction.
How does the saying go?? "Give a little man a little power".
Sunfish is spot on with his concerns.
Tootle pip!!

So LS CASA has an anti-semetic policy? Is advocating Liebenstraum for its employees? Believes that its genetic superiority puts it above all other races? Swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler? When you start accusing people of being NAZIs thats what you are essentially saying. At the same time you are shredding any semblance of credibility that you may have had. Western democracies have always had bureaucracies that exercise unfettered powers if they are allowed to but to start putting them in the same ideological box as the NAZIs just means you have lost the plot. Just take a deep breath old man and think about what you and Sunfish are suggesting.

I know some CASA minions and they aint all that bad really.

To be honest I think the system CASA is managing is so big and complex much like the financial industry and no one really knows how it all really works so they keep on finding ways to "improve/optimise" it without understanding the overall consequences.

Lookleft,
I am not accusing anybody of anything, I am merely stating a fact if life, particularly for ATC, in the '60's, when I first came across the expression, thanks to a couple of regular drinking mates, who worked in Sydney Center. That was about the time tape recorders became a whole new weapon in the hands of the DCA "enforcers" (if you prefer that expression) to make life miserable for working controllers.
Get down of your high horse, and check your history, the Gestapo were not exclusively concerned with the Jewish population, and I rather suspect you are confusing the Gestapo and the Schutzstaffel aka SS.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Before you lose the view from your high horse, just take another look, I didn't make any reference the Nazi. And I am not Sunfish.

In case it has escaped your notice LeadSled the 60's were over 50 years ago! I am well aware of the differences between the Gestapo and the SS which makes Sunfish's original post and your subsequent post so absurd.

Well, golly gee, the '60's were over long ago, who'd a thunk it??
Unfortunately, the attitudes of the era have only been reinforced as the years have gone on, referring to the "enforcers" of CASA as the "Airstapo" is still current, as is the expression "iron ring" for the "real" management of CASA.
If CASA were such a reasonable outfit, why does it have the national and international reputation it has, and why have there been so many inquiries into CASA and its predecessors, including Royal Commissions, and the longest Commonwealth inquiry since Federation??
Why the frequency of AAT cases, compared to almost all but the Immigration and Taxation mobs, given the very small size of the aviation sector, particularly the GA part that generates virtually all the AAT cases??
Get rid of your rose colored glasses and have a look at the real world.
Why do we even need an "aviation summit".
Why has Anthony Albanese produced a Labor aviation policy that includes an overhaul of CASA (again).
Why has Qantas established a major maintenance operation in USA??
Tootle pip!!
PS: Australia/CASA was absent from the list of those involved in the development of the new FAR 23, does that tell you anything, the list included NZ, CA, China CAAC, UK and several EU countries as well as EASA??
PS2: A good friend, who is generally well and accurately informed, says that CASA generates more formal enforcement actions per annum than the FAA, can you explain that, beyond claiming that the aviation sector in AU is made up of a high proportion of criminals.

Cattlewtruck,
Big and Complex??
You speak in jest, of course.
One major airline group -- about the size of an outstation for a US major.
One smaller airline group, a statistical rounding error by US or EU standards.
A small and diminishing number of small regional carriers.
Most larger business aircraft not even on the VH- register.
A shrinking GA sector, a fraction of the size of 20 years ago.
A list of "approved" maintenance orgs. a fraction of even ten years ago.
"Heavy" maintenance has largely disappeared from Australia.
Avgas sales down about 40% in the last several years.
What manufacturing there is mostly being conducted on FAA or EASA approvals.
A flying training sector that has almost disappeared , except for a handful doing contract airline cadet training --- a pale shadow of even NZ.
Big and complex???
Tootle pip!!

Good to see you are back in the current century! All those points you list a very familiar to those who read these pages (more than is probably healthy for us) but there is nothing new in what you have written. I am not an apologist for CASA by any means but often the narrative offered does not actually fit the facts. Unless you want to accuse the international body that oversights civil aviation of corruption then I think you will find that they don't have a problem with CASA. As evidence of this (rather than hearsay) here are the latest ICAO USOAP results. https://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx The simple fact is the Government can ignore the noise from below and point to the laurels from above to demonstrate what a good job they are doing. So all the clamor for US style regs and an overhaul of CASA can be ignored when ICAO itself says there is room for improvement but in the words of Mr Grace " Carry on you are all doing very well".

As for Albanese don't hold your breath. He will be going to Wagga with his class struggle ideology front and centre. Where some see hard working businessman he will see the privileged classes who need to be squeezed harder to get the money to support the welfare state.

Just remember people, with CASA or any government overseer,

THEY'RE NOT HAPPY UNTIL YOU'RE NOT HAPPY

Lookleft,
I really have no idea where you fit into the aviation scene, but ascribing such as the Forsyth Report and many previous and invariably highly critical reports, including Royal Commissions, into CASA and its predecessors as "noise from below" take self-delusion to a new level.

Indeed, the contempt you generally exhibit towards anybody who does not subscribe to your views is, in my view, a dead giveaway.

As for the opinions which I rely upon, they are the unvarnished opinions of real people , all highly respected in their specialties, not publications that have been subject to the sort of "politically diplomatic cleansing" that is typical of government/ICAO and similar public documents.

Indeed, to quote and old friend of mine, ICAO lead auditor, some time ago during a CASA audit, over lunch in Canberra: "(my name), if this was an airline, you would have to pull its certificate".

In the real world, CASA/Australia's reputation has not only not improved since that time, but deteriorated significantly.

All to the very great cost of Australian aviation businesses that used to be, that are struggling, or should be but never will be.

If CASA is such an exemplary organisation, why are Australia's overall air safety outcomes significantly inferior to US??

Why has the US air safety record steadily improved, while Australia has remained (comparing like for like) essentially static??

Tootle pip!!

Lookleft, Oh very, very good! The USOAP audit is an audit of CASA capabilities as in organisational design and resourcing, the audit results have nothing to do with it's performance!

The critical elements (CE's) relate to specific tools and capabilities e.g.:

The rest is all framed as "The State shall establish.......", "The state shall provide...", "The state shall implement...".

So of course CASA comes out well. They have a very nice toolshed in other words, but the audit does not address what they do with the tools provided.

To put it another way, Its like auditing a hospital and giving it excellent marks for its architecture, equipment and facilities.. while overlooking the fact that its staffed by homicidal doctors and sadistic nurses.

Yes Sunfish but it is organisations like ICAO that the Government (s) can point to to show the general public that there is no problem and that there are no aviation safety problems in this country. So your great political theory of bringing aviation to the forefront of the aviation illiterate electorate gets no traction.

Its actually worse than that Lookleft, given the high marks the ICAO gives Australia for regulatory capability, why are the results so appalling.... ..As evidenced by the Forsyth review?,

BTW, I don't believe in trying to explain aviation to the electorate. What I believe in is giving the electorate reasons to vote against sitting members, that is quite different from an education program.

By this I mean working with a big and complex set of rules and regulations (bureaucracy) that can only be tinkered with around the edges - visibly busy, active, transformative, etc on matters that mean little or are shortsighted, and never really achieving anything worthwhile in the long run for it's customers. It's voraciously self feeding.

BTW, I really do appreciate the way you put the other meaning of "Big and Complex" into perspective.

Can I add this: Catering for the welfare of sooks to the point of nothing getting done.

For crying out aloud, as some of you may know I've recently got a gig with the feds (not CASA). Today I was told there were some people in my team that felt like not turning up to work because of my attitude, and as a consequence I was disciplined.

In the last 3 years since I started this gig in the federal public service (in a number of other teams) I've been putting my own reputation at risk taking brave steps in modernising systems that you the general public patronise highly on a daily basis. I simply don't give a toss about the boat anchors in my place and get on with the much needed and overdue improvements to our organisation's systems.

Today after hearing the news from my manager I felt like throwing in the towel, but then I realised these sooks would never resign from their own job-for-life even if they don't feel like turning up to work because of me. Honestly, they can go f@ck themselves and I plan on continuing doing what I do the way I do it which seems to get the results.

Indeed, some of these sooks don't belong anywhere near systems that are important to the lives of many Australians, these sooks have regularly proven that they are not worthy of the responsibility the role demands, they belong in a zoo or at best on a David Attenborough documentary special.

First prize for the unofficial PPRuNe rant of the week, cattletruck!
Ever thought about entering federal politics?
I reckon there's a place for you, there.

Thanks gerry, yeah I've been mightily p!ssed orf with that lot today.

Hang in there, and "keep us posted".
Tootle pip!!

Sunfish, your aviation dystopia is already here in RAAus and GFA. I know people who have been threatened with expulsion from both organisations which would result in their being unable to continue the activity and being unable to have beneficial use of their property. Not over anything to do with their flying but internal politicals and/or publicly raising issues the powers that be would rather not be raised.
A few months ago I met one who left a gliding club over a safety issue after the club threatened him over a social media post highlighting the issue. GFA and clubs would rather sweep issues such as these under the carpet to maintain the entirely false illusion that gliding is well organised and safe. That person has now been the victim of a nasty little behind the scenes campaign to prevent him joining a gliding club in his home state (it is a CASA requirement to join the GFA and a GFA requirement to join a State gliding association and a gliding club in order to fly gliders) by people I know who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves but won't be because they are suffering from "noble cause corruption".

Eyrie, you hit the nail on the head. Giving an association or "club" the delegated authority of CASA without robust internal checks and balances within the club is a recipe for disaster because there is no legal avenue of redress like the AAT for what its worth.

Furthermore there are ample examples of dysfunctional associations as anyone familiar with the Victorian sporting shooters association would know.

If we want to give the 'German' and jackboot analogies for CAsA a rest, I'll modernize for you.
Since the independent agency that is CAsA has become its own Soviet, Stalinst ways apply.
To get rid of someone you dislike,all you had to do was make some allegations about them and the KGB would do the rest for you,... interrogate and eliminate.
Having had false testimony made up against me ( by 3 idiot "AWIs" ) with a view to a criminal conviction..and with possible , jail time , I see the similarities in their methods.
How to change the 'Beast'... very difficult as we know.
Yes, yes..there are some good honest folk in CAsA. Ive met a few*...but there some really nasty, power crazy physcopaths in there as well..unfortunately...and CAsA covers up serious criminality for them to protect CAsA's 'good name' ( Ha ha Ha !...what a sick joke).

Hands up all those that think CAsA is the fount of aviation expertise, a benefit for the GA Industry and has "just culture". (Just ar$e, actually)
Anyone? ...No-one ...ah well.
* i can count the 'good guys' on one hand, but I have to advise that I used to work in a saw mill ...and dont have many fingers on that hand.

May those polllies that want a Federal ICAC get up. Sadly its needed, and I'll be at the front door when they open for business.

Folks,
Sadly, by no means limited to the above, who, in my opinion and experience, are two of the better, but the principle and the problem is across the board, I have seen some shockers over the years.
A while back, the idea of "parallel paths" was policy, (from 1996) that you would always have the option of CASA, to forestall the issues in previous posts, but long and sustained lobbying resulted in the "parallel path" policy being dropped by CASA ---- on grounds of administrative cost and complexity, allegedly.
After all, procedural fairness and natural justice have never been high on CASA's order of priorities.
Tootle pip!!

Leadsled, if RAAus and GFA are two of the better we really are in trouble.
In any case why should an Australian be forced to join a private organisation with an effective monopoly so that a government body can get out of its obligations given to it by Parliament?
Then the government body refuses to make sure the procedures and rules of that body are in accordance with Australian law and the norms of Australian society.
You have obviously never had the misfortune to be a GFA member since about 1983 or so. It used to be better but has gone very bad. The parallel paths options was on the table until 2009 when McCormick canned it without notice or further consultation after the job of writing the proposed rules was given to a CASA incompetent (who was an enthusiastic GFA member) who dithered for 8 years or so and wrote 82 pages of amateurish drivel, the only pages of which made sense were " intentionally left blank".
GFA has taken over tow pilot ratings from CASA which means your rating on a PPL is now in the hands of a private monopoly, makes the creation of an alternative gliding organisation impossible and makes unnecessarily difficult the gaining and keeping of such a rating, particularly when compared to the UK who don't even have a glider towing rating because they think any adequately briefed private pilot can do it and the US where 3 launches under observation by a CFI with tow rating or a CFI with glider rating is adequate. From personal experience that works very well. Best tows I ever had were from a bunch of Texas cowboys who hadn't seen a glider before that day. They got briefed and I'm sure the 3 observed tows were contest launches.
I'm looking forward to the next GFA spin in fatality which will likely be a check flight with instructor now that the GFA ops director (38 years working for bank is great for aeronautical qualification) is insisting on full spins for the ANNUAL checks( not every two years like every other branch of private aviation). That's a lot of risk exposure for zero proven benefit.

Eyrie . . . .. . that man, with all his shallow platitudes, should be removed from his position of supreme authority over others who are , relatively speaking, giants, and in whose shadow this nincompoop holds sway.

He has cost a lot of gliders a great deal as a consequence of his ignorance-based decisions and arbitrary rulings. An embarrassment.

(But please don't say you "look forward" to the next fatal. )

Eyrie,
I largely agree with what you say, but there are worse, in my opinion.
One point, I have never seen any evidence that properly conducted spin and recovery training or checking represents a serious additional risk.
I have had this argument for about fifty years with one of my contemporaries, who has always opposed spin training in GA, but he has never produced a case based on hard evidence.
In US, all CFIs have to be current and recovery, this has been the case for a long time, I can find nothing in the records to suggest a crash record as a result.
Tootle pip!!

PS: With CASR Part 149 (which is nothing like the original concept, or the NZ Part 149), I fear it is going to get worse, with all the disadvantages of CASA micromanagement ladled on top of CASA demanded micro-management by the self-administering bodies.
The "Prince's of Process" reign supreme. It is all based on the basic principles of military command:
(1) Take the credit.
(2) Assign blame.
(3) Shoot the wounded.

LeadSled,
Take a look at what happened in Canada. The USA deleted the spin training requirement for private licence in about 1947 IIRC. Canada kept it until the early 2000's IIRC. The reason they gave up on it was that their spin in rate was no better than in the USA in countries with very similar aviation cultures. They were also losing students and instructors in spin in accidents while teaching and practicing spins and recoveries and the wording was something like "in all conscience we couldn't keep the requirement".
There are additional problems in gliders: many of the gliders will be the Polish Puchacz two seater which has an appalling spin in record. Including a couple of blokes in California who were both ex military pilots and one of whom was a graduate of the USAF Test Pilot School. A couple of blokes I know (both the highest level of GFA Instructor) were messing about in one one day and got themselves into a spin they couldn't recover from. They were tightening their straps waiting for the ground to smite them when it recovered and went through 350 feet AGL in the pullout. Others have reported similar hesitations in recovery which appear to happen for no apparent reason. Search for the accident record of this type.
Then there is the issue of wearing parachutes and doing this from a decent height where a bailout is possible. This will not happen much, particularly at sites where the winch is the only launch means.
Now I believe that pilots need to be taught spins before solo but it should be done by very experienced instructors, done properly and ideally in a Pitts or Citabria where you can climb to 10,000 feet set a hard deck and do it quite a few times in an hour. I did this once and learned a lot more about spins and spin modes than ever in gliders. It does not need to be done every year.
There is also the issue that people aren't spinning in from great altitudes, clueless about how to recover. They spin in (including a GFA instructor with student in a Puch) from low altitudes where a recovery is problematic and you would probably hit the ground less hard if you simply kept full pro spin control in.
Anybody who spins accidently while thermalling simply isn't paying attention and is a menace to all the other people who may be below him in the thermal. A momentary stall in a thermal isn't unusual due to a momentary increase in angle of attack from entering a stronger part but easily handled with essentially no loss of altitude by simply moving the stick forward a little. (there is no formal aerodynamics theory training in GFA with written exams which is why many don't understand that)
One more thing: many sailplanes are prone to breaking out into a spiral dive. Without a prop and of very slippery design it is easy to gain airspeed very quickly (roughly 20 knots/second) and if you then apply full opposite rudder, gliders have had the tailboom twisted off.
Teaching avoidance, recognition and nearly recovery before even an incipient spin develops is likely to be a lot more valuable. Spinning is not a normal soaring manoeuver unless you wnat to do aerobatics in gliders. My advice is to do aerobatics in powered aircraft properly designed for them.
Fantome, I'm not looking forward actually. That was sarcasm. Back on April 1, 2012 I had had a nice day flying my powered aircraft to see a friend and we had a nice flight in a self launching high performance two seat sailplane followed by a pleasant flight home. I logged on to my email at home and read about the accident at Ararat where a young female student was killed instantly and the instructor died an hour later. Look it up. I felt sick. Instructor apparently tried to turn back at low altitude after cable break induced by badly being out of station and instructor unable to recover without breaking rope. There was a safe landing area ahead. Aircraft was, yep, Puchacz. Instructor was one of the GFA "mates" (Marketing and Development Officer). I'm not ware of purge of the GFA instructor ranks was carried out to remove other incompetents.
Yet CASA/GFA expects people to fly with these incompetents.

Eyrie,
I certainly agree that spin and recovery training, like stall and recovery, should be all about avoidance, with recovery in the event of the unexpected being an additional benefit.
I am more than a little surprised about your comments about the Canadian record, even at a flying training conference some years ago, (which I attended) in which loss of control was the topic, this never came up.
I can't put a date on it, but FAA made spinning and recovery a demonstration competency for Certified Flight Instructors quite a few years ago
You may or may not know, but loss of control is well to the top of the list of safety concerns, and this is not just GA, but aircraft operations in general, as the airline accident record shows, and Australia is no exception.
I can't speak for gliding, but the standard of competence in low speed flight amongst instructors here is of great concern. When I quizz young CPL pilots and find that they have never really carried out what most of us "old farts" would regard as a minimum of stall and recovery training ---- all in the interests of avoiding problems, not recovering from them.
It is most instructive to load a C-172 to gross weight, and to the aft C.of G limit (mum, dad and the kids off for a weekend) and have the candidate do a few stalls with a bit of flap ---- they find it is a very different aeroplane compared to training weight and C.of G., it is always a real wake up call.
Tootle pip!!

Blood on their hands, really. Should write a book exposing the cover-ups, the sleight of hand , and the abundant evidence pointing to malfeasance (Hempel, a case in point, dare I say.)

Ararat April 2012 - see post by Eyrie at #36 -

https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...401-1w6cu.html

Eyrie, You remind me of a very pleasant flight I had with my gliding instructor in 1973. The aircraft was an ES-52 Kookaburra MK 4 and was the last flight for the day. A winch launch to 1100' followed by a dive then a stall turn. Then a single turn spin and recovery to land. All in 4 minutes.. :D