CASA Again!
 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-...crash/10396812
Here again is the model litigant.

ABC 7:30 program tonight.. Set your VCRs

Folks,
All sound very familiar, not much point in commenting further, because it has all been said before.
Just change the names and dates, for any number of other cases.
Tootle pip!!

CASA crow about having the trust of the aviation community and then you see this, the reality is that it is all smoke and mirrors and simply the underhand business as usual.

Dont ya just love 'em.
Rest assured their phrases of choice ' not a fit and proper person' and ' an imminent threat to aviation safety' are a one way street. Sure as hell doesnt apply to any of the xxxxxxxs within CAsA..!
I feel for the guy, and sure as hell dont have any faith that the AAT will give him some justice either.
A tragedy compounded by a travesty.
Disgusting...but all in the name of "safety", of course.

If the pilot is licenced, current and confident to conduct aerobatics / adventure flights, and the aircraft is licenced to conduct aerobatics / adventure flights, then I don't understand the drama. In the top video, I can't see whether or not the passenger in the rear on the left is wearing a seatbelt but apart from that, if the operation was licenced and current, then what regs have been broken?? I am assuming that seatbelts should be worn during aerobatics / adventure flight manouvres?

If they are not licenced to do aerobatics with passengers then that is a different kettle of fish entirely.....

NOTE - I don't have an aerobatics rating..

There's a bloody big difference between "adventure" flights in a Yak that is certified (or at least, designed) for it, and a scenic charter in a 172 that is restricted to the Normal category with passengers in the back seat. I reckon you'd be hard-pressed to convince CAsA a spilt-S is required, or that negative-G pushover with the coke-bottle hard against the headliner is kosher...

CASA suffers from these problems.
Not enough funding, career bureaucrats, the want of a Minister who has a relevent aviation background, a heavy reliance on ex police types as investigators and an arrogant beligerant holier than thou approach to all its dealings with the aviation industry. When the VCAT Member or similar whose only experience in aviation is a flight to London for a Contiki tour simply groans and says "If CASA says its not safe theres noting I can do" because you cant afford a QC and years in litigation, nothing can improve.

With proper professional oversight, and a willingness to work with not against those it deals with, safety would improve by leaps and bounds. As it stands, the smaller the operator, the bigger the stick.

At present, it is commercial suicide to self report, seek advice or assistance.

Flying visits by hit squads who concerntrate on wrong parts on wrong shelves, does not say much for the quality of its investigators.

By the same token, idiots in command of aeroplanes, idiots in command of flight schools, idiot mechanics, idiot student pilots, idiot planning Ministers do not make for safe flying.

When you can call CASA and make an anonymous report but can not call and ask for advice anonymously, what hope is there?

The further you go from a capital city, the worse things get from both sides. Over the last 30 years, it all just gets worse. "Pommy Backpacker" mentality reigns supreme, get em up, give em a thrill, get another load up. Mind you, if the pommy backpacker asked to see a license or a log book, no one would get up.

Most of these issues would be resolved by investment in technology that monitors maintenance, repairs, licenses, hours, weights and measures.

But that would see half of the bludgers on the public payroll made redundant overnight.

The phrase "an accident going somewhere to happen" (& in this case it unfortunately did) springs to mind here...

A very poor display by a supposed CPL in my opinion & some of you guys can't see why CASA does what it does from time to time...

I call BS on that statement. I saw the plastic coke bottle float slowly up and kiss the roof. The aircraft would have been pulling just a tad over 0 negative gs. I have seen much higher gs negative and positive sprung on me by nature. To my mind a completely controlled planned manoeuvre is much safer than a surprise one of unknown strength. I think a lot of pilots think they are 1g negative and freak out when actually they are at zero g and weightless. At 0g there is not much stress on the wings. Work it out.

What would you say to negative G maneuvers that were of sufficient magnitude to result in a power interruption? Such as occurred on the accident flight only 60 seconds before the loss of power that caused the crash??

Any time you spin in it ain't going to be pretty...Even if it is from only 100 feet.

Because someone died and the resulting publicity highlighted the activities being undertaken in these C172 aircraft via the medium of youtube.

AIso, I would have thought that pulling zero or negative G in an aircraft with a gravity fed fuel system is best done at very safe altitudes.