PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)

- - Senate heavies CASA (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/626132-senate-heavies-casa.html)

Senate heavies CASA

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaz3g (Post 10588358)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-...ashes/11578554

this might be interesting...kaz

Folks,
The makeup of the new RRAT is proving to be quite aggressive, as far as CASA and ATSB are concerned ---- will it make any difference ----- with this Minister??
At least it is better than the RRAT not being there.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Wonderful example of : Lies, Damned lies, and statistics.

A few more details of the Committees findings in this link, for those who don’t have the inclination to listen to the full enquiry:

ATSB escapes RRAT Hearing with No Recommendations - Australian Flying

It's a testament to the efforts of Ben Morgan at AOPA, amongst others. Can I encourage GA businesses to please join AOPA and support the advocacy efforts driven by a strong committee of experienced GA volunteers.

Not only Morgan. Leafroller. Some serious input to certain parliamentary personages from others

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clearedtoreenter (Post 10590860)

Hummm. The ATSB get off virtually scot free, although there were dubious statistics and glaring omissions regarding pilot qualification and behaviour and CASA get it in the neck from an inquiry that wasn’t even about them??? Hard to take anything too seriously in any of that!

Folks,
The ATSB treatment of "statistics" was a complete nonsense, as were certain subsequent statements emanating from CASA.
You simply cannot draw statistical conclusions from just two accidents over a longish period of time.
What has happened to Angel Flight reveals personal prejudices of some in ATSB and CASA, and little more.
Tootle pip!!

Kaz: For future reference, being whipped with wet lettuce is not the same as being ‘heavied’.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 10590897)

Kaz: For future reference, being whipped with wet lettuce is not the same as being ‘heavied’.

True, but it’s encouraging at any time to see the Government scrutinise it’s agencies for pernicious behaviour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stickshift3000 (Post 10591035)

True, but it’s encouraging at any time to see the Government scrutinise it’s agencies for pernicious behaviour.

Stick,
Might I suggest you tally up all the various inquiries into CASA from Parliamentary committees through to Royal Commission, over the years, including the longest ever Parliamentary inquiry since federation in 1901, over 300 sitting days (ended 1996) ---- and what long term difference has it made to the "Iron Ring" or what was known in DCA days as the Airstapo, to the benefit of aviation, ALL aviation, not just GA ????
Tootle pip!!

If you think those in CAsA pay any heed to comments from RRATs etc, then you are sadly mistaken.
WGAFF in (non) Av House, Cantberra.? Its just like water off a duck's back

From the current (14 October 19) Senate Notice Paper: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...t_Notice_Paper

Quote:

BUSINESS LISTED FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION

On 16 October 2019

Business of the Senate—Notices of motion

Notice given 29 July 2019

1 Senator Patrick: To move—That the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights- Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019, made under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, be disallowed [F2019L00134].

Four sitting days remain, including today, to resolve the motion or the instrument will be deemed to have been disallowed.

Four days to go...

Senator Patrick will formally move the disallowance motion this afternoon (Wednesday 16 October). May be worth watching: https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Even...B28397}&type=1

Now postponed until tomorrow (Thursday 17 October).

Only two sitting days to go, including today, until the instrument will be automatically disallowed if the motion is not moved and rejected.

Senator Patrick’s disallowance motion is due to be put at around 1530 ESST. May be worth watching: https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Even...-9CF141115FD2}

Neither the government nor the opposition is supporting the motion. F*ck.

Defeated. 12 ayes and 29 nos.

The Laborials showing leadership as usual.

Vomit.

Sen. Patrick spoke well and with conviction. Shame about the result.

Vote the b****** out of office.

That is probably the only practical solution. Unfortunately, most of the people who whinge about CASA will nonetheless continue to vote for one of the major parties in the duopoly, who have happily abdicated responsibility to CASA on a bi-partisan basis.

To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, people keeping voting for these people and deserve to continue to suffer the consequences, good and hard.

Given the results of all the other Senate enquiries I'm surprised LB that you thought that on this occasion that the result would be different. Don't take this as criticism of your position on the issue I am just genuinely surprised that you thought that the Senate was going to vote in a way that would overturn the CASA Instrument.

Newly elected Senator Susan McDonald LNP Queensland had the courage to cross the floor and vote with the cross-bench on this. She is a supporter of Angel Flight and coming from Cloncurry understands the importance of GA to the bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lookleft (Post 10596378)

A valid point, LL. I guess my naive hope was that the same political resistance to the first knee jerk would be brought to bear against the second.

Senator MacDonald (new) is to be respected for voting on the evidence and principle.

It’s a pity that perhaps even Senator Patrick has succumbed to intuition rather than objective evidence. The strongest point against the imposition of more maintenance requirements is not that there is no evidence to suggest there was any maintenance-related causal issue in relation to the accidents (but it’s a strong point nonetheless). Nor is the strongest point the cost of the maintenance (but it’s a strong point nonetheless).

The strongest point is that the imposition of mandatory time-based maintenance based on arse plucks made decades ago increases the risk of Community Service Flights. There are now millions of hours of data gathered from piston engine monitors to show what meddling with a functioning piston engine can do. Same with other aircraft systems. Fortunately for the people unnecessarily exposed to the extra risk, the probabilities move from remote to not quite so remote.

So increased risk for extra cost, with no causal connection with the accidents. That just about sums up the ATSB/CASA team effort these days.

So we now have AOPA members, Angel Flight supporters, Glen Buckley supporters and probably others who might be prepared to create and hand out voting material at the next election? The Government has a one ? seat majority. We target marginal seats only and announce we are going to do our level best to ensure the sitting liberal member is NOT re elected.

Dont think too far ahead. If we succeed that means we get Labor, who are just as useless. However we then remind them what we did to the liberal/country parties can also be done to them in turn.

Pretty soon both sides agree on aviation regulation reform. Unless we take political action we are wasting our time.

Senator Susan McDonald (LNP, Queensland)
October 19, 2019.

*CHARITY FLIGHTS LET DOWN BY CASA*
"Yesterday I voted against unnecessary new maintenance rules being imposed by CASA on charity services like Angel Flight. The General Aviation sector is drowning under regulation that is costly, paperwork driven and not leading to safer outcomes. People and communities of regional and rural Australia need a successful aviation industry and I am going in to bat for more practical regulation."

Dear Lead Balloon

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....af6ebdb29b.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 10596587)

Dear LB,

Would appreciate your considered opinion on this latest development on the ongoing CASA embuggerance of Angel Flight??

Quote:

http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/ya..._court_vic.jpg

Crucial E-mails ruled out in Angel Flight Case

17 September 2020
Comments 0 Comments

The Federal Court in Melbourne last week barred Angel Flight from using certain CASA internal e-mails in the case against the regulator's Letter of Demand sent to pilots, forcing the organisation to withdraw their application.

Angel Flight had taken CASA to court over letters sent to pilots and aircraft owners demanding details of operations conducted under Angel Flight's banner.

The organisation was attempting to have pilots relieved from having to comply with the letters because they were issued for "improper purpose".

Angel Flight relied on four internal CASA e-mails to support their case, e-mails which had been supplied to them in the discovery phase of their primary case against CASA to be heard next March.

However, CASA objected to Angel Flight using the e-mails on the basis that they were disclosed only for the primary case and invoked the rule against using them for another purpose.

"We needed those emails to support our case for Improper Purpose," Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani told Australian Flying. "One would have thought that CASA should be the model litigant, as it is required to be as a regulator, and support transparency. Allowing use of their internal emails would have done that.

"Instead they insisted they not be used and invoked the rule that they should only be used for their discovered purpose. As a consequence we cannot use or publish them so therefore have had to discontinue the Improper Purpose case."

Responding to the accusation that they have failed to be an model litigant, a CASA spokesperson said that their action in blocking the e-mails was consistent with that requirement.

"CASA has acted strictly in accordance with its ‘model litigant’ obligations," the spokesperson said. "To be clear, doing so most certainly does not include countenancing another party’s failure to comply with their legal obligations to the court.

"Neither the court nor the other party saw any basis on which a dubious ‘model litigant’ issue might have been raised in the hearing; and as the obligation is incorporated in the Legal Services Directions, which are made under the Judiciary Act, this is certainly something the court would have been alive to, if it were at all pertinent.

"In short, the documents were excluded because the court found their introduction failed to serve the interests of justice."

The e-mails in question were sent in 2018-19 between CASA Executive Director Legal and Regulatory Affairs Jonathan Aleck, Executive Direction National Operations and Standards Chris Monahan, Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody and Executive Manager Stakeholder Engagement Rob Walker.

Angel Flight has said it will use the e-mails in its primary case against CASA to be heard next March, which is an attempt to have the regulations surrounding community service flights struck out.

Does this meet the definitions and guidelines for a best practice government agency model litigant?

Angel Flight is a kid with a pop gun at a real gun fight. Sadly, that’s not surprising given the disparity in resources.

Because the CASA emails were ‘discovered’ - disclosed to the court and Angel Flight - for the purpose of Angel Flight’s punch up with CASA in matter X (the challenge to the validity of the imposition of the ‘community service flight’ condition on flight crew licences), those emails can’t automatically be used for another purpose e.g. put in evidence in matter Y (the challenge to the validity of the demand for information). If I were an applicant in matter Y, I would have sought to obtain the emails by subpoena for the purposes of matter Y.

(And I do wish people would stop referring to the community service flight “regulations”. There are no community service flight “regulations”. All you need to do is “read” what the document in question says to work out that it’s not a “regulation”. In this gun fight, the distinction is fundamentally important.)

But surely everyone feels grateful that CASA is spending more taxpayers money to drive Angel Flight into the ground? It’s about safety, don’t you know.

That’s the spirit! These signs of unity cause CASA to pause for thought rather than laugh out loud.

[Edited to add: The above was a response to Lookleft’s now-deleted the post.]

LB I doubt that CASA have ever given a moments thought to ponder or to chuckle at anything that has been posted here or there. Look at the complete cluster that was the Victorian hotel quarantine program and yet no one will ever be held accountable. CASA have been doing this for years and will also never have anyone who will be deemed accountable. Politicians of both colours make a lot of noise in Opposition then in Government are bought to heal. They make J Edgar Hoover look like a work experience kid.

Any comments of interest /too criticacl probably go on yr file.
CAsA doesnt keep tiles ,, BS !!! I had a read of mine (under strict supervision) , many years ago and there was stuff in there I'd never heard about ! Za Stalina !! Long Live the CAsA Soviet !!
For CAsA and the leading legal acrobat and Pro BS artist, Dr Discrepancy, all this from Av Peasants and Pollies is like water off a ducks back,
These troublesome citizens, Senators etc ...they come and go.
Unfortunately for the av industry the Iron Ring and CAsA culture goes on forever..

We really do have a major problem in the countyr..the elected representatives of "Government" have abandoned governance to the unelected bureaurats.
Hence our sorry position today,,, FCUKED !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lookleft (Post 10888275)

Indeed. Not much to dispute in that.