PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   A Quick "poll" if you have a moment. Much appreciated (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/619804-quick-poll-if-you-have-moment-much-appreciated.html)

zanthrus 26th Mar 2019 03:18

I no longer give a f#c$ about the new CASA regs. I have been flying over 30 years and the aircraft flies the same now as then. Teaching someone how to fly is the same. So I simply get on with the job the same as always and ignore most of the bull$hit.Tick the boxes on the new crap forms but do the job as before.

thorn bird 26th Mar 2019 04:21

about as clear as mud. Absolutely, positively, without question, not concise.

outnabout 26th Mar 2019 04:37

I have never known an industry to be so meticulous about regulating alcohol intake, whilst at the same time, being the cause of alcohol intake.

Clear and concise? I don't think so.

An acquaintance, who works for our Cherubs Against Sensible Aviation, has just purchased a share in a single engine piston......and is now learning first hand the delights of the regulations for maintenance. He is PPL, so won't learn the true joy of trying to run a (profitable) aviation business under the cumbersome weight of red tape.

thorn bird 26th Mar 2019 06:04

excerpts from Australian flying magazine:

The Federal Government released their manifesto Planning for Australia's Future Population last week, a large part of which is effectively a policy of investing in the regions to restrict the relentless march of capital-city suburbia. It talks about new roads, new rail infrastructure and jobs growth among many things. Out of curiosity, I searched the document using the term "aviation" and got NO RESULTS FOUND. Searching again under "airports" found reference to Western Sydney, a rail connection to Tullamarine, and Hobart Airport. That's it. Our industry and community gets no other mention in this tome, which can be taken squarely as a pitch for votes in the May election. Such scant mention of aviation in a policy that boasts about "better connecting regional Australia" tells the aviation community exactly where we stand: nowhere. Despite the rhetoric of successive ministers it is clear the government believes aviation plays no part in the future of Australia other than as gateways to and from the capital cities. How can a serious government honestly believe it can connect regional cities by ignoring the most efficient way of doing it? It is a depressing norm that aviation always gets the rhetoric, but not the action. This time we've even been excluded from the rhetoric, an effect of not representing enough votes to make politicians sweat at night.


Quote:"..the industry decline co-incides with the death of the Department of Aviation.."

Perhaps the goverment would have done well to consider Ken Cannane's position on jobs in the regions. The head of AMROBA last week outlined how he believes regulation is stifling the industry's potential to generate jobs. His plan is allow small operators in flight training and maintenance to function without having to abide by the heavy regulations that load so much cost onto businesses without returning even a reasonable increase in safety. According to Cannane, the industry decline co-incides with the death of the Department of Aviation and the rise of the Civil Aviation Authority and the CARs in 1988. The CAA became CASA in 1996, which it does appear only exacerbated the problem. In short, not all the functions and responsibilities of the DoA were picked up by either CASA or Airservices Australia. One of these was simply looking after an industry that reported employs 200,000 people in this country. Cannane is a firm believer in the concept of independent flying instructors and LAMEs as a way of taking general aviation back to the regional airports and therefore catalysing the process that turns small into medium and results in the very jobs the government says it wants to generate.

Duck Pilot 26th Mar 2019 06:19

Certainly no...

Clinton McKenzie 26th Mar 2019 08:54

This is one of the key points I made in my submission to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review:

The regulatory reform program has failed and, in its current structure, is beyond repair

In the unlikely event that the ‘new’ package of aviation safety rules is implemented (not merely “completed”) sometime, the package will still be a complicated, convoluted mish-mash which fails to achieve the aims of the reforms.

Despite 155 pages of regulations growing to 2,827 pages (so far) there is almost no practical consequence for the way aircraft are operated and maintained today compared with when the regulatory reform program commenced.

The volume and complexity of the rules, combined with the symbiotic nature of the regulatory regime, results in unnecessarily high risks of inconsistent interpretations of the rules as between individual staff of the regulator, and unnecessarily disruptive (and, in some cases, destructive) consequences for industry participants.
This is one of the comments I made in my submission to the ‘Discussion Paper’ on AVMED:

I gave up reading the ever-growing pile of civil aviation laws in about the year 2000, when it became obvious to me that almost none of it made any practical operational difference compared with the rule set in force when I attained my pilot licence. I have subsequently successfully completed seven Flight Reviews, therefore demonstrating either that my judgment of the safety-relevance of the current regulatory mish-mash was correct or that the various Approved Testing Officers who conducted the reviews are as ‘dangerous’ as I am.
On any objective analysis, the answer is an emphatic ‘no’.

Piston_Broke 26th Mar 2019 09:17


Originally Posted by glenb (Post 10429071)
would be keen to try and get 100 hundred responses if possible. (It makes it much easier to work out the percentage)

State of the regs aside, how can you take 100 responses simply from PPRuNe members to be representative of the 30,000+ (?) licensed pilots in Australia???

Lead Balloon 26th Mar 2019 09:38

CASA takes two tragic incidents during private community service flights and extrapolates that to make conclusions about the safety of CSFs generally.

Lies, damned lies and statistics...

glenb 26th Mar 2019 11:19

Piston Broke, if I get 30,000 replies I would be ecstatic, and I will get the kids to run the percentages. If 30,000 pilots voted one way and all 900 CASA staff voted the other way. That would be 97% against 3%, if my maths is right. By the way, I reckon that about 850 of the CASA staff would be as fed up with it as much as we are, they have to work with the same rubbish as we do!!!

RatsoreA 26th Mar 2019 12:29


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 10430118)
CASA takes two tragic incidents during private community service flights and extrapolates that to make conclusions about the safety of CSFs generally.

Lies, damned lies and statistics...

It’s like that in more aspects of life than just aviation. Driving, firearms ownership, what free speech you decide to use on the internet. CASA are just keeping with the times.
Viva le revolution...

LeadSled 26th Mar 2019 12:47

Folks,
I am staggered that there are (at 23.44 on 26/03) eleven people who voted YES??
Who are they ---- lawyers??
Or trolls??
Or smoking No.1 Good S---t.
There has to be some reason for such deviant behaviour.
Tootle pip!!

hawk_eye 26th Mar 2019 20:11

Several years ago I was involved in writing a Part 142 Expositon for a medium sized flying school. There was much back and forth with the CASA FOI as I tried to meet each of the 450 tick box items he had to sign off before we gained approval.

When one piece of feedback came back to me stating that nowhere in the document had I mentioned that the Flying School’s facilities had ‘climate control’ I knew there was something grossly wrong with the system. The cost of that Part 142 Exposition (in addition to a Training Managanent System and Staff Training and Checking Manual that had to be written as well) I estimate would be somewhere in the vicinity of $50-75k. And that manual did nothing to improve safety - all it did was explain the procedures the flying school currently operated under. And I fear all it will have done is create additional burden every time the school has an audit.

A fun fact - the new manuals totalled about 30,000 words. That equates to about 1500 words for every aircraft the school had....for no discernible increase in safety 🙄

thorn bird 26th Mar 2019 20:45

hawk_eye,

your post goes a long way to explaining why those little aero clubs
that used to be scattered around the "kickatinalong" towns who
perhaps, if they were lucky, trained a dozen pilots a year, are no
longer there.
I occasionally watch the odd Tube videos of pilots out and about
their country sides of their countries, having fun with their flying machines
doing all sorts of fun things that would simply not be allowed here, or be
made so expensive nobody would bother.
I believe that's a part of why the industry is so much in decline, the
regulator has taken the fun out of it.

Sunfish 26th Mar 2019 21:23

Jobs, investment, growth. Just a memory.

Okihara 26th Mar 2019 22:05

@Sunfish: congratulations on your 7000th post!

Piston_Broke 26th Mar 2019 23:23


Originally Posted by glenb (Post 10430231)
Piston Broke, if I get 30,000 replies I would be ecstatic, and I will get the kids to run the percentages. If 30,000 pilots voted one way and all 900 CASA staff voted the other way. That would be 97% against 3%, if my maths is right. By the way, I reckon that about 850 of the CASA staff would be as fed up with it as much as we are, they have to work with the same rubbish as we do!!!

Again, the state of the regulations aside:

You clearly won't get anywhere near 30,000 responses because only a small percentage of pilots and other licensed parties would be PPRuNe members.

As it is, the topic has had over 3000 views but only 152 have taken the poll. That in itself says something i.e. perhaps only those who have had issues or have an axe to grind have voted. Maybe you should have had a third option "Don't know or undecided" to cater for all those (I suspect the vast majority) who have had little or no involvement interpreting the regs..

The current 152 responses is only 0.5% of the 30,000, so you can hardly say that is a representative sample, and trying to extrapolate that to CASA employees is another matter.

FWIW a friend who works in the federal area of transport and security has said if you think the CASA regs are difficult to interpret, have a look at the various Acts and Regulations related to aviation and maritime transport and facilities security.

zanthrus 27th Mar 2019 04:28

So the 2848 people who did not vote are the majority scared silly by CASA goons? Can't really blame them but as a Pilot group we all need to stand up to these idiots in Fort Fumble and just say no, NO, NO WAY IN HELL, F#CK NO!!!

Pinky the pilot 27th Mar 2019 05:50


I am staggered that there are (at 23.44 on 26/03) eleven people who voted YES??
Who are they ---- lawyers??
Or trolls??
Or smoking No.1 Good S---t.
There has to be some reason for such deviant behaviour.
LeadSled;
As of now, 1614 CSuT on 27/3 there are sixteen who voted YES.
Re your question as to who they are, may I venture the opinion that they could possibly be CASA Lawyers smoking No.1 Good S--t.:E

That is the only reason I can think of anyway!:confused:

Left 270 27th Mar 2019 07:36

I would bet my house those 16 did the poll on an iPhone and had finger trouble

aroa 27th Mar 2019 07:49

NO writ large.

Only people like Carmody, Smart Aleck, P Gobsome, A Anustasi and few other criminal employees, who have had their arses covered by CAsA would posit that the Rotten Regulator is doing a good job.
Well, they think they are....while 'busy' faarking an industry with an ever continuing avalanche of strict liability criminal BS. And they even go beyond their legit safety remit, with regulations about commerce
IMHO Cretins Against Sensible Aviation are a national disgrace.

As others have said , just ignore all the crap as best you can and get on with it.
Its no safer now than it was 40 years ago, in spite of a fright train load of regulations and paperwork.
Jobs and Growth...yeah. THEIRS
Way passed the time for CAsA to be told to Foxtrot Oscar.
Oh for some political testicular fortitude, someone,? somewhere?....anyone ???
Keep banging that Judicial Inquiry drum.!


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:52.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.