Grey areas........?
 

SPLATR,
Totally agree with you.....what grey areas?
Either the MR was valid or not...either the medical was valid or not...where do the grey areas come into the equation. AXIOM; cannot agree with your perception that because you flew the aircraft WITHOUT A VALID MR, and you survived, DOES NOT make it OK by a long shot......I will go as far as saying you were a bloody idiot for doing it; risking the insurance of the owner, a long drawn out legal battle if you injured or killed somebody AND your own licence if you got caught!:mad:
I have a lot of trouble with some of the arguments here; these are not new rules or rules that could be claimed to be 'foreign' to any of us.......they are the simplest yet most flaunted in GA without a doubt!:D
If you don't like the rules, do something about changing them(!) not that you'll get a lot of support 'cause there are quite a few around that think these two rules in particular are pretty much OK.

I'll give myself up on Monday.

In my last days of feedom let me tell you what a "grey area" is.

Some examples.

"Flight Safety Australia", the CASA blurb of volume 5 number 4, particularly pages 20 and 21. A quote from the analysis by Steve Bell, a LAME and CASA safety promotions officer.

"the maintenance release is the only tool pilots have at their disposal to determine if an aircraft is airworthy. It is the only safe and difinitive method of communicating the aircraft's state to other pilots, maintenance personnel, the operator and the owner". (I concur).

I now quote from some letters to an owner pilot who having relied upon a MR to attest to the airworthiness of an aircraft in a purchase, went through an extended CASA investigation, a Commonwealth Ombudsman's investigation, a Senate inquiry, 5 years of political lobbying, obstruction by CASA, seizing and loosing of vital evidence by CASA and the loss of many, many thousands of dollars;

Dr Paul Scully-Power:

"I have to say to you, as I think has been made clear before, that CASA does NOT suscribe to the view that a maintenance release is the primary document that provides information to a pilot / purchaser about the airworthiness of an aircraft". (I don't concur).

Peter Langhorne, Chief of Staff to Hon John Anderson:

"a maintenance release is a record of required maintenance. It was never intended to be a document that on it's own should be relied to purchase an aircraft. Although it plays an important role, it CANNOT be a guarantee of an airworthy aircraft". (I don't concur).

Honourable John Anderson, Deputy Prime minister and minister for things that fly:

"I am advised that while a maintenance release plays an important role in recording the maintenance of an aircraft it cannot be a guarantee of an irrworthy aircraft". (I don't concur).

This is but one of many examples of "grey areas" and are documented in Paul Phelan's "phelan Papers".

If you feel this information to be less than the truth, ask him for specific examples and get him to give you their contact details.

I'll say again my theory on CASA's problems:

They are "sh*t scared" of being sued and are rewriting the regulations so that everything is "illegal", thus allowing no discretionary movements by their field staff.

I must say, that my dealings with the lower eschelon of CASA have been cordial, however I do remember blokes like "Colonel Klink" (not his real name), who were real bast*rds.

Ask Arthur Pape for some examples of "grey areas" in medicine.

I'll be off to pack my toothbrush now folks, see you in about five years. I'll bet everything is in black and white in my case ???

:confused:

Is Vaseline available in 20 litre drums.......
 

On a serious level.......what you quote above is probably correct BUT, what would the state of the nation be if there was NO maintenance releases???? We, as pilots, have nothing more to go on as to the 'perceived serviceability' of any particular aircraft and therefore rely very heavily indeed on that document. I think we all know there are limits on the ability of the document to ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE the serviceability of the aircraft, but as I said before, that is all we have available to us.

On a not so serious note; do you realise that during your 5 year stint at Her Majesty's Pleasure, if you get a job in either the leather goods workshop or pressing number plates, you will probably earn more than the average GA pilot headdown and arseup out here?!!!!!:mad:

Axiom,

Mate, you really don’t want to go live ‘inside’. In the main, they are indeed a different class of humanity with considerably lower goals and ethics than any CASA representative could ever stoop to. And that’s just the warders. The inmates are worse!

The MR was never the final document to indicate the state of an aircraft as far as a buyer is concerned. I have been responsible for the purchase of a few used aircraft, some worth many millions. It requires an expert to delve through the aircraft logbooks and the various Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives and manufacturers maintenance schedule. Invariably such an audit finds items that have ‘slipped through the cracks’, some compulsory and others advisory.

The MR is issued simply to advise that on the date of issue the aircraft was airworthy and all required maintenance completed to date (and unfortunately E&OE). Additional checks prior to expiry date/TIS are enumerated thereon. If pilots, operators and C or R holders are honest then any further defects will be recorded on the MR. The C or R holder will receive AD’s and SB’s from time to time and will return the aircraft to have such issues rectified. That is the system.

In issuing the MR the authority will not include items for call-up during the next maintenance cycle. Such items may include prop overhaul, engine overhaul, undercarriage inspection, wing bolts inspection, re-weigh, new AD’s and SB’s etc. Therefore if you exceed the specified TIS you risk the possibility of overrunning other mandatory checks scheduled in the next cycle.

Our responsibility is to operate within the system. Grey areas may provide mitigating circumstances that reduce the penalty but are not authorised, justified or excused by law!

Anyone is welcome to a copy of the document Axiom refrred to, simply by e-mailing me: [email protected]. It's in .PDF format but don't print it out unless you own a paper mill. Volume ii is being prepared, but the problem is that clique of malevolent individuals which is running its own agenda within CASA, is conducting so many random purges it's hard to keep up with the documentation. Its management is either unaware or encouraging them. If the management is unaware, it is incompetent. If the management is aware but doesn't understand, it is incompetent. If the management is aware and approves of some of the activities, as many now believe, it is worse than incompetent.

ANY system works well and most would agree that if we all worked within the system, the if nothing else, we would have conformity.

Trouble is, CASA USE the system, convolute the system, ABUSE the system, alter the system, ammend the system, redefine the system, misinterpret the system, misuse the system and impinge on my freedoms and rights while some (who have never eered in their life), believe that the privelege of working within the system as it stands confers some biblical responsibility on my part to know all the ins and outs.

If a MR is not THE document that tells a pilot that the a/c is airworthy, then what is??

How many pilots out there have been taught how to read and interpret an aircraft or propeller logbook. It was certainly not in my PPL curriculum. I think you would find that most engineers would prefer a pilot to keep his hands off them.

If nothing is transcribed from the MR (ie defects), to the logbooks, then this obviously is not "the document" either.

Are manufacturers bulletins and recommendations incorporated as AD's or is this at the owners whim??

As far as I am concerned, if an enginer signs out an aircraft, then on that day and time the a/c is airworthy. Any subsequent damage should be recorded in the MR and either signed off or a date for rectification annotated.

An estimate for wear and tear should be proportional to the time in service since the MR issue and the aircraft sans cosmetics IS airworthy.

THIS IS BLACK AND WHITE.

IT IS CASA SAYING IT IS GREY !!! and now threegreens is moderating the tempo by saying the system is not infallable.

The system is FLAWED if CASA are allowed to work the system to their advantage.

Thanks for the info blueH, reminds me of that old story;

Freight run, middle of the night, middle of nowhere.

Pilot.. I'm fuc*ing bored !

ATC... unidentified a/c, say your callsign.

Pilot.. I said I'm fuc*ing bored, not fuc*ing stupid !

Read Paul's paper people. sorry for the alliteration. :p

And what, Axiom, would you have had CASA do to the person who issued the MR to which you referred? There was no personal or property damage when the aircraft flew on the authority of that MR – must be OK merely to smack him on wrist. You wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to say that he should be prosecuted and his licence taken away, would you?

Ignorance is an exquisite flower, and one not lightly to be bruised with facts. It’s especially exquisite and lush in Australian aviation. I’ll try to prune, not bruise.

CASA does not prosecute anyone. The DPP prosecutes. CASA makes its decision as to whether to send a brief to the DPP, and the DPP makes a decision whether to launch the prosecution, on the basis of the Commonwealth’s prosecution policy.

The people who subscribe to the ‘smoking hole’ enforcement policy – that is, you don’t prosecute someone or take their licence away until after they’ve caused a smoking hole with an aircraft at the bottom of it – might ask why should CASA refer anything other than a smoking hole to the DPP.

Australia has ratified the Chicago Convention. Article 12 of that Convention says:[emphasis added.]

The words ‘insure’, ‘prosecution’, ‘violating’ and ‘regulations’ have meanings in the Convention that are not too far removed from what you might understand them to mean.

Australia – note, not CASA – has signed up to a Treaty that obliges it to prosecute all persons who violate the applicable rules and regulations relating to the flight and manoeuvre of aircraft within its territory or with VH on the tail, or to notify ICAO of a difference. Australia has not notified ICAO of any difference from at least the quoted part of Article 12.

CASA’s – yes CASA’s - obligations include the obligation that:That was the legislature’s idea. It’s the law.

Hands up those who think CASA should ignore the law.

Some politicians, and indeed some industry demagogues, take advantage of the ignorant by suggesting or failing to refute the suggestion that CASA is autonomous and can effectively do what it likes, however it likes.

Don’t be sucked in.

There is a suggestion in this thread that CASA’s administrative powers are somehow unique and unconstitutional. Bollocks. The last fool lawyer who argued that in the Federal Court had costs awarded against him personally. See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c...2002/1532.html

Dear creampuff, nice to see you come out again.

I'll need time to digest your last. I know where you are coming from, but have a gut feeling of the black and white thing / for me against me syndrome.

As Johannes B once said, you can't have one leg either side of the barbed wire fence.

I am on tippy toes right now, so bear with axiom while he digests all this.

By the way, where are these "industry demagogues" when I need them ? :confused:

A few observations on previous posts:

ISLANDER JOCK

The hypothesis of aeroplanes crashing into a crowded school yard is a popular one with one of the Tribal Elders at Northbourne Avenue, even when he’s discussing aerial photography over the West Australian deserts. However, given the surface area of the planet, the number of crowded school yards thereon and the number of aeroplanes that are crash every year by pilots whose medical certificates have lapsed, is not the crowded school yard a bit unnecessarily emotive?

Likewise, would those same protagonists would be screaming for the blood of the Department of Motor Transport (the regulator) if a loaded semitrailer crashed into a crowded ice cream parlour? I’d have thought they’d be too busy lynching the driver!

BLUE HAULER

“Before taking such action CASA must give notice to the holder and require him/her to show cause why the variation, suspension or cancellation should not take place.”

Do we know whether that happened?

MENEN

“25 CASA charges to answer for.”

Was that 25 flights without a current certificate? Or what? A Queensland operator recently copped a show cause listing 62 items, and it was apparently leaked to a government agency which was one of his customers. At the subsequent show cause almost all the matters were (quite rightly) set aside – mostly because they were CASA errors - and the company was told the recommendation would be that it should be given nine months to address the remainder – which were administrative issues. Of course, there’s no assurance that CASA will follow the recommendations.

It is a standard CASA tactic to itemise a huge number of “facts and circumstances.” This itemisation should in fact have three categories: “facts, circumstances, and uninvestigated allegations made by competitors, untrained and unqualified observers, and former employees.”

“CASA are not all fools and its a good bet that they have had their eyes on this clown for some time before obtaining the hard evidence necessary to nail him to the wall.”

Unfortunately the ones who are not fools keep their heads down and therefore don’t get much done. And do we know enough about the case to denounce him as a clown?

“SPLATR”

“my view is that standards in GA has dived dramatically over the past 30 years”

Having viewed aviation from above for over 40 years, I don’t think you’ll find any statistical support for that statement.

A number of contributors are overlooking the fact that police don’t make traffic laws, they just enforce them. CASA does the lot. It does in effect make the rules, (even though the regulations have to be passed by the Parliament), but it also makes what it describes as rules by endlessly rewriting CAOs (and slipping in little bits that nobody notices), forcing people to write nonsensical prescriptions in their operations manuals under pain of not having their AOC renewals recommended and then accusing the operator or pilot of breaching CAR 215 (9) by not doing what the ops manual says, and also by writing things into the AIP. There are other examples but I don’t want you dozing off over your keyboards.

“If there is a problem with the way they administer the laws then there are avenues of redress.”

Now we’re getting somewhere. Among the avenues of redress all too often overlooked are action against the individual CASA decision maker (whom, we’re told, didn’t even turn up at the court in Horsham.) The following is an extract from a legal opinion obtained by CASA in a not unrelated matter:

“CASA would be covered by the Indemnity in relation to defamation actions as with various other actions which may be brought (eg negligence, including negligent misstatement, breach of confidence, injurious falsehood, misfeasance in public office etc). However, the Indemnity will not apply in favour of a CASA officer, where the officer is guilty of serious or wilful misconduct. The likelihood that such actions would be brought, not only on the grounds of defamation, appears very high. The Commonwealth's exposure to damages in relation to CASA’s liability for defamation or other tortious liability under the Indemnity and to costs for such proceedings, is considerable.”

You ask:

“Are you really suggesting that if CASA finds someone breaking the law that they have to go to court each time to administer the consequence?”

Absolutely! For one thing, if they had to produce evidence and be cross-examined, they wouldn’t be able to take all these unilateral shortcuts. If I’m caught speeding or drink driving I have a choice – on the spot fines, or go to court. Was the gentleman in Horsham offered the choice?

“CASA should act fairly and without malice and I know that individuals within the organisation have not always done that; but that is a management issue within CASA that needs to be addressed”

Could we put a deadline on that, while there are still some aviation businesses operating?

A now-famous saying by a well-known administrator: “But Minister, if I had to have proof, I’d need another hundred inspectors!”

BLUE HEALER

It wasn’t a PA32, it was a PA23, and the autopilot wasn’t working. Nice dog though.

AND LASTLY

Having worked through the whole thread, I can’t find anything that says what happened in court, although I’ve been told the magistrate put a flea in CASA’s ear over something they hadn’t done – possibly sent along the decision maker. I think it was adjourned to a later date. If anyone is aware of the proceedings, why not share the info?

walking eagle; I hope you are a friendly demagogue, how come I didn't get a mention?

I have been researching and "brain fadeing" on creampuff's post and think I need counselling. I am still at it though.

If you and I are searching for inner peace, we won't find it here, I'm afraid, but someone must rattle the can now and then.

The drought has just about beaten me, but my wife is beginning to understand me. When I sell the farm, I may take up pprune full time. The pay can't be any worse. :rolleyes:

Walking Eagle

You don’t for one minute suspect that a politician would have the necessary nous to write and modify traffic laws? Police departments have legal sections staffed by experienced police officers with prosecutor skills and/or legal qualifications that do the leg work and forward it up to the Minister. Since most politicians are former farmers, union shop stewards or article clerks they put the law up for parliament as is. If it wasn’t for concerned citizens such as Axiom many of these bills would be passed. Those concerned citizens who lobby their local member for change and the police officers are the real writers of the Traffic Act (and other Acts and Regulations)

CASA would be no different.

Buggar'd if I know – the case hasn’t made the new papers in my neck of the woods.

Walking Phelan…..I mean Paul Eagle….. I mean Walking Eagle

Which Civil Aviation Orders aren’t disallowable instruments and therefore subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny process as regulations? Which bits of AIP don’t reflect disallowable instruments?

And don’t go all journalist on me: specify the paragraphs of the CAO or the AIP to which you are referring. Which of them has the "little bits that nobody notices"?

But in any case, you won’t have to worry for much longer, at least in so far as the CAOs are concerned: apparently there won’t be any under the ‘new rules’. Just a few more decades of consultation and drafting, and the tunnel at the end of the light will be upon us.

On the compliance and enforcement policy front, I’m pleased to note that CASA (through a headhunter) yesterday advertised two new positions in the Office of Legal Counsel, one of whom will be Deputy General Counsel and whose job description includes formulating CASA’s compliance policy and processes. I suppose they’ve figured out that you can put a thousand pilots - or even aviation journalists - in front of a thousand typewriters for a thousand years, and they won’t produce a coherent regulatory compliance policy and procedures.

Walking eagle
I have to very strongly agree with SPLATR on this one. The average product out of the training sausage machine these days is the worse it has been for 40 years. There are very few exceptions. There is more emphasis on cost control than on flying standards and knowledge. Get them out the door at a price, blow the standard. And with an in-house ATO you can set the standard where you like! Bring back external/independent testing I say!

Airmanship was the first thing to fall of the truck some 10+ years ago. Now stick and rudder skills are making way for systems management and GPS and the like. Just sit on the fence one day and watch the average x/w landings from 150's to Jets. It is really obvious. And many pilots when you ask were not trained in x/w because the instructor thought it was too windy that day!!!! Many think the peddles on the floor are for taxi and brakes! One new CPL recently was observed to place his feet on the floor just after takeoff in a twin – when queried he said they are not needed in flight…!!!
geeeez.

I could go on.

This is very clearly a CASA problem but their own FOIs are victims of the same system and many don't know any better themselves. CASA wont let them fly or do tests so they continue to live in wonderland. I guess they won't see it as a problem until there is a 'smoking hole'.

CASA are NOT a safety based organisation, but a regulatory and compliance body that seems to believe that if you comply you will be safe. And we are the victims of this mismanagement!!

Creampuff, I cannot let your last post go unanswered regarding what I would have CASA do to the engineer in question and that particular MR.

This bloke did call for the blood of the engineer and, you guessed it, he (the engineer), was SUMMARILY slapped on the wrist. Other similar situations have had the full wrath of CASA descend upon engineers (see again the Phelan papers), and they are out of business.

INCONSISTENCY !

If the system is so black and white, WHY ?

THEN a company search discovers a direct link between the engineering company and the top end of the CASA food chain.

CO INCIDENCE ?

This is not ignorance on the part of the person in question, and it has the hallmarks of a CASA set up. It is a lack of probity and integrity that borders on the corrupt.

Given this, now NO I would not call for a suspension or licence removal, waste of time actually.

There are a lot of other people who don't support the system, like me, but try our best to work within it. When something like this happens it only reinforces our already jaundiced opinion of things. Chigago Convention or not.

I wish we could all depend on it for support, not prosecution of varying degrees and I guess until it happens, people like you and I will be at odds with each other.

Things have change since the old DCA days, I think for the worse.

It is the Office of legal Counsel and their "ILK" that are the problem, not the solution as you seem to imply.

I appreciate your reply however and I did read it vigourously.

:cool:

Correction
 

It's Airservices, not CASA, that's advertised for those lawyers.

Apologies :O

Perhaps the metaphor's a thousand controllers tapping on a thousand typewriters....:D

More to follow, Ax.

Couple of points.

1. Seaview. Paul did in fact have a valid medical. He also had an infection, so the question was, was he fit to fly, not was his medical legally valid, fit to fly is essentially at the pilots discretion!!! (thus opening up a whole new grey area for axiom to contemplate).

So how about we get our facts straight before we disturb any more ghosts!!! :(


2. Creampuff. Nice try at outing, you ain't so secure yourself are you :)

Gonna go for one of those AsA jobs mate???? :}


Chuck

Ulm: everyone knows who I are. I’ve admitted to our identities on numerous occasions.

Of course we will be applying for those jobs.

And BTW: Fit to fly is not at the pilot’s discretion. I suggest you read CAR 6.16A(1), twice:

Greyer and greyer.

So, I scratched my knee on my boat yesterday. Does that impair me???

How do I know??? Go to a doctor every time I get a zit, or a scratch, or a headache??? (yeah, some are stupid, but where do you draw the line, axiom oh guru of grey, can you shed some light).

I know, why not have a medical before each flight, that would be safe now, wouldn't it!!! :} (but not affordable :) )

Perhaps, as some in CASA have suggested, I should write on my MR every time I have a bugsmash on my windscreen and then fill the MR up explaining how I rectified it and in accordance with what stupid CAR.

May the Gods save us from rampant lawyers and their idiot regulations!!! :yuk:

Subject out of hand.
 

The original focus of this thread has been lost to series of sometimes convoluted and sometimes emotional and sometimes sensible red herrings.

Nobody has yet answered the simple question,

"IS THIS GUY ENTITLED TO A TRIAL OR NOT" ?

Some see his hung already, some are awaiting an answer from the system.

To make things easier for those who want to debate the merit of the rules, I have started a new thread with a poem rewritten from an old DCA "crash comic" circa seventies.

Go for it people, in the interim, lets see where the original focus of this thread leads.

26th February wasn't it ?

Mr or Mrs or Ms ulm, I think we have some common ground here.

BTW "Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt.

Robert Lindner.

Fun job
 

Sounds like a fun job to apply for...

Job Description:

Lawyer required for regulator

Detail:

How would you like to interpret and draft legislation for what is the flying equivalent of the Building Industry.

Experience:

All the public think that train drivers run the rail system - so you must be an aviator.

Gotta be a bloke

Can do that law stuff


Rewards:

1. Public Service Pay - woo hoo

2. No Recognition of a Job Well Done - Because the constituents you are protecting don't understand the issues at hand

3. If you don't read the fickle and ever changing political environment well enough you could become an intellectually challenged yet politically savvy person's fall guy

4. You'll have to move from Utah or wherever you reside to Canberra

Man, sign me up!

Your not taking those pills again, are you creamy?!?!
 

Now Cream, I cannot believe that even you would take on a job with AsA legal (loosely termed) counsel.:)

An eminent lawyer such as yourself could surely see you would have no chance of defending the indefensible!!! (assuming you have no idea what will be dumped on your desk day 1, OR DO YOU?!?!?):*

One would have to be a legal trained octopus to fill the job and only then if equipped with a fire extinguisher on each tentacle, able to leap tall sh_t piles with a single bound and be sh_t cunning as Chris Murphy.
I would suggest anyone with half a lawyer’s brain would not touch them with a barge pole!!!

Believe me, CB they know they are in deep sh_t!!!!!

Triadic

As usual, spot on. Good to see you still kicking!!!;)

This thread has gone on a bit and off thread a lot.

Fol de rol and a hey nonny no.

Blue Eagle got it right the first time;
All the rest is just interesting.

Robin Hood may well have been a romantic notion emulated by the "experimental" (AUF) brigade but don't expect me to step up for a ride in your fantasy.
Risk your self by all means, but not the gormless and unsuspecting.:}

gaunty

It is my understanding that this is what happened, ie NO Passengers.

Now I know you are not a fan of AUF (exp or whatever), BUT, where is the difference between flying a private aircraft and operating a car.

Take it a step further, AUF require a current drivers licence. To drive a 50 tonne truck through inner Sydney requires the same.

Engine (wing, pilot, whatever) fails on an AUF, time to manouvre (in the case of the engine), not one yet has hit a house and killed someone.

Brakes (steering, driver, whatever) fail on a truck/bus. Western NSW 8 years ago, 12 killed 30 odd injured. Newell Hwy, (regularly) but recently, truck clips back of caravn, car crashes, kills two. And so on and so on.

So why is private aviation so over-regulated???

But back to the thread. If we TRUSTED CASA, then it would probably all be OK. but very few do. Why, they are simply corrupting the process - shunting regs through giving them more power. Making regs over prescriptive and stupid, acting with undue haste and no forethought and generally being an uncoordinated flock of self serving egos.

Added to that, the regs are a shambles. No one knows if they have contravened them and few care. It has gone from proactive regulation of a vibrant industry to a random game of russian roulette where only CASA knows where the bullet is!!!

That is why a different form of justice is needed, that is why this guy (and more like him) needs his day in court.

ulm

May I turn your question
around and ask why is motor vehicle operation so under-regulated.

Should not the privilege of a motor drivers license be conditional on a minimum standard of health.

I see very few truckies at my local truck stop who are NOT dead :p set candidates for a massive cardiac infarct or stroke as they climb back into their rigs after the regulation "truckies special" with a bag packed with "comfort food" for the odd snack en-route.

They crank up their 40 plus tonne "B" doubles, for which BTW I also hold a licence, and head off on what we loosely call the "highways" of this nation with oncoming traffic closing speeds of over 200kmh with a lateral displacement of a few metres.:eek:

What chance you and your children should their ateries decide to slam shut just as they approach you in your 1.5 tonne sedan.:(


May I suggest that your local State Dept of Transport would elicit the same response should they decide that they have a duty of care responsibility to apply a minimum level of safety to the roads by insisting on the aforementioned "truckies" holding a valid "medical".

May I also suggest that the "dialogue" necessary between the Regulator and whoever, does not go forward in any useful way whilst that is held and communicated as a personal view.

My mother in law may well be ugly, bossy and interfering (she is not and a beautiful person, but just for the example ;) ) but she is not going to go away, so we must work out a means of communication that serves us both and keeps the peace.:uhoh:

Calling her ugly, bossy and interfering just isn't going to get her attention and in a mood to transact a workable truce.:=

I have to concur with the views of BLUE-HAULER. AXIOM friend you need to take a broader view, you might find CASA are not as bad as you think.

Two issues here Mr AXIOM, CASA's exercise of it's formal powers and the views of Mr Dick and Mr Boyd on CASA's excercise of it's formal powers.

For others of similar views you do not appear to understand the law.

Parliament, the peoples representatives, determined that people who wished to own, operate and or fly aircraft should be subject to legal and regulatory oversight, it is after all a major economic transport system. So the powers of oversight are exercised by several bodies.

One, Parliament, considers all matters excepting those in the province of the Courts. Parliament drafts and passes the laws and by Government decisions sets policy guidelines for portfolio administration. Parliament decided eighty years ago that a person to exercise the privileges of flying an aircraft has to have a license, has to comply with the Rules of the Air, and respective legislated requirements for the operation and maintenance of aircraft. That is a community accepted and sound proposition. That the State via CASA requires you to be licensed means that the authority for you to fly is regulated by the State, therefore it is a privilege, not a right. Your continuation of the exercise of that privilege is conditional upon your compliance with all relevant laws of the land.

The other major form of oversight, the Courts, exercise oversight by adjudicating on matters brought before them. The broader Common Law has over time determined that you exercise the privileges of your license with a duty of care and with the actions of a reasonable man or woman.

The ATSB/BASI have the powers of oversight and report with respect to aircraft accidents and incidents. They exercise an oversight of aeronautical safety on behalf of the Australian public.

Your insurers also require that you comply with the law of the land and exercise your duty of care responsibly. That is the condition upon which insurance risk is covered.

The State (i.e. CASA) can bring an action or a person (business or individual) can bring an action before the Courts. CASA has no discretionary power accepting in those matters where alternative remedies are allowed for in the Act and Regulations. So a CASA officer as an officer of the law cannot ignore a breach of the law, its called perverting the cause of justice if you do.

Judicial power means the power to decide whether or not the claims of one party are true beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal matters) or true on the balance of probabilities (civil matters). They are also able to rule if the exercise of power is excessive, that is 'ultra-vires'.

The fact that the hypothetical bankrunner is being visited regularly by CASA and the said employee is being summonsed as a result is proper exercise of authority. How would your employers company stack up against say any of the majors or regionals ?

The Courts not finding for CASA but for you, shows the proper exercise of their authority. The State makes the allegation, you defend, the Courts makes a finding. That is the way the system works.

If you worked for a proper company you would soon realise that regulatory compliance is a big deal, you spend the time to do it legally, it costs, but thats the way to do it. CASA's happy, the Insurers are happy and the Board is happy. The travelling public is happy and so the Politicians are happy. See the picture ?

If you choose to fly, without a valid medical then you are choosing to fly without a valid license, simple. You do so in the full knowledge that it is summonsable offence, that is you can be made to answer for your actions in a criminal court. Your also choosing to fly knowing you will now be uninsured and liable for any torts that may result from a accident or other injury claim - brave pilot thats all I'll say.

There is no point in griping about it or being too busy with everything else. It's simply a matter of personal organisation. So why attack CASA for simply doing there job.

Now such a person whose license was out of medical currency could have also rung CASA and sought an extension on the medical, that may have been possible too. There's a thought!

Finally, there are a lot of rich and noisy galahs who think they are eagles.

:p :p :ok:

grip-pipe;

I believe you haven't learn't a thing on this post, I AM a victim of CASA's incompetence and corruption of the very things you hold so dearly to your simplistic (or, as I read it, that of a knowledgeable view) of the separation of the powers.

When you can give me a positive (not what's written in the Reg's), version of the state of affairs in GA in Australia today, I'll throw the towel in.

You mentioned "the State, (ie CASA)".

Maaaate ! CASA are not "The State", they are a mob of functionaries of "The State". Nothing else and believe it or not,
CASA used to have discretionary power, and as they should, (as DOCS, when it comes to childrens welfare), but both of these entitities had legislation put to Government and passed (and, are still doing so), to remove any such power, simply so they can't be sued for doing what is in the Reg's.

CASA are worse than I think and it is only by objecting to their out of control antics through forums such as pprune, local State and Federal Government Ministers and their elected representatives that things change.

Appeasement doesn't work, I know, because I am a poor sparrow, thanks to CASA.

STRUTH !! :rolleyes:

Gaunty

I have no qualms with making truckies get medicals, for there lies the heart of the problem (no pun intended :) ), they can, and regularly do, kill other people.

When I used to drive boats for a living I had to have a valid licence and medical. Fiarynuff too.

But now, if I feel so inclined, I can take my little boat out into the remnants of a cyclone, ignore the wall of black rain coming at me and get my main sail torn to shreds. I don't need a licence, I don't need a medical, but I don't risk anyone else.

Now I aint suggesting aviation is like boating. You need to be taught to fly for your own safety and that of the people on the ground. But in the sailing world we get given a little book that tells us what we should do to stay alive. If we ignore it, then so be it!!! Occasionally we get some light touch regulation (lifejacket inspections etc), but that is done in such a way as to be mostly welcomed.

So, why not give the PVT and AWK people the little book, after all, it is in their own heads. Then CASA can go regulate areas where other lives at at stake.

And, to the Sir Humpry gobbeldygook above. Bah!!!! Any 'agency' that cannot use discretionary powers properly is of no futher use to 'the state' and should be shut down. CASA does have those powers and uses them regularly (and usually improperly, ATOs, seatbelt labels, away maintenance approvals etc etc). Now there are some great people beavering away in CASA, I deal with them daily. But it is so hard for them to get things done properly while they are dodging sh!t from soaring turkeys dressed up as eagles.


Chuck

Ulm

Full medical and psychiatric examination of all boaties should be compulsory. I don’t know how many searches I have participated in during the past thirty-odd years looking for thoughtless boaties. In some instances, the risk factor to ourselves was increased due to the distance off shore of the search area or the prevailing weather conditions. One occasion I recall departing Cairns just before cyclone Justin struck, to search 400 miles south of Honiara!

Boats have been around longer than medicals and in particular psychiatrists and bringing such legislation in retrospectively for private boating would raise hell.

As far as private operations are concerned – don’t forget that some private operators are flying turbine aircraft and transporting their employees about. Wonder how they would feel if they felt their front end operators didn’t have to undertake medical examinations?

BH

Don't really want to go there, smacks of Private Aerial Work to me and CASA are just waiting to pounce!!!

And I don't think we should dump medicals, just make them easier to get (not by dropping standards, but by allowing more GPs to do provate medicals).

But medicals was not the gist of my point, regulation was. Why not make a rule book and just give it out. The AYF do, all diving organisations do, the GFA do, and that all works really well.

ulm:

In what capacity do you daily deal with these CASA "Beavers"? and since when are they the "goodies"?

Who are these soaring "turkeys" dropping daily sh!t on these industrious rodents, and when did you become a truck expert?

Where do I buy this little Red book that is going to do away with all the beaver's hard work?

It's not a good idea to go diving and flying thereafter, gives you embolism of the brain, and I'd give boats away altogether, too expensive when you're an aircraft owner, (sorry eagle).

An old Hindu proverb said, "a man without a stick will be bitten even by a sheep",

Are you still yeilding the AOPA stick or gone Canberra happy?

Baaaaaaaad luck if you get bitten.

:(

ulm

OK so you wont mind if I remove, by legislation, the burden of the cost of search, rescue and medical care for those who either don't read your "little red book" and can be shown to have not done so, or have taken the advice therein, but have chosen to depart with a known and precarious medical condition into the teeth of said 'remnants of cyclone'.

I will however leave in the legislation the opportunity for those who wish, to submit themselves to an examination of said “little red book” and a medical and if found reasonably fit, “license” them to go do their thing, in the knowledge that if they do it by the rules and then come unstuck, because sh!t does happen, we will move heaven and earth and the public purse to look after them.

Fair trade I think! Sound familiar too eh!.

Part of the social contract that we have with each other and that we support with our taxes is that we behave responsibly, for own own safety and others benefit.

Since that is a principal not widely understood by a good number of our fellow citizens, a demonstration of which one can see daily on the roads for example, we have found it necessary to do a spot of policing. Not that they always set all that good an example of smarts either, but it's the best we've got.

In any event until that unlikely day comes, we have to protect ourselves and themselves from themselves.:}

I love axioms which is very apt.

Axiom

By your post I figure you think every CASA officer is a bad apple. Far and away not true.

Without going into names, I had to do flight manuals for 2 of my own aircraft and assist with a lot more. One particular guy in CASA went absolutely out of his way to make it easy.

We had an aircraft doing 5 AM NDB approaches on a Sunday near where I live. Not illegal, just plain stupid. Got all the retired judges, pollies, Major Generals etc all up in arms about the airport.

But the aircraft was 'under receivership', so who was flying it. A really nice lady from CASA found out for me so I could give them a friendly phone call. (No, that wasn't illegal, it was a cure for an anomoly in a publicly available register).

A friend had an altercation with Cairns ATC about trans oceanic flights in single engine aircraft. They reported it, the FOI dealt with it in such a matter both sides actually learned from it with no hard feelings either way.

Yes, there are @ssh@les, but don't blame them all.

Woomera. The little red book is hardly similar to what we have now, just more user interactive. You are beginning to sound like a wanna be regulator mate :)

ulm:

I have a few good blokes within CASA who keep me up to date on a lot of issues and there ARE good people there.

Trouble is, it isn't the apples in the barrel, as you suggest, it's the barrel that's rotten, and it needs replacing ! It's beyond repair!

I am a bit perplexed about what is stupid about doing 5am NDB approaches and why you would want to ring CASA up about it ?

Sounds more like fraternization than curing an anomoly.

:rolleyes:

Heh heh.

Nice try, but I will leave that lure for Open Mike :}

When you are talking small country airports, that are a burden for the council, and when you are talking Bkt based aircraft, then there is a problem.

It caused a big outcry from the people under the flightpath and caused problems. But i whinged about it once before, so I will leave it be. Suffice to say, there are rights and responsibilities and that was just plain irresponsible.

As for CASA, the rot in the barrell started with some of the apples at the top.

AXIOM; I'll take the bait!
 

What is wrong about 5am on a Sunday NDB's?
Surely, you've got to be joking or are you one of the mindless few who always seem to 'stuff it up' for the majority!
We have a right to use the airspace for sure, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that our activities DO NOT unnecessarily encroach on others. Surely, there is nothing to be achieved doing NDB training at 5am on a Sunday that couldn't be done at 10am when the activities will not impact on others?
That type of attitude and behaviour only serves to p*ss people off and all too often, it is avoidable.:} Bit like some of the 'dirt-dart' operators who persist in climbing to height over the same bit of realestate day in and day out in noisy aircraft AND THEN WHINGE when JQ Public gets a group together to shut them down.:mad: If they only took the time out to modify there operation to minimise the impact, then they might not always be in conflict with the general masses!
With that attitude, is there any wonder you have an ongoing love-hate relationship with the regulator?

ulm:

I still don't get the NDB bit and what you are on about, and nor do I get the thing about open mike!

Is this another thing like the airport being there before the houses and then complain about the noise ?

Why would airports be a burden to local Government if they were given money to take them over and then free reign to charge the users.

Most of these airports were built with TAXPAYERS money, given to local RATEPAYERS and then fees levied upon TAXPAYERS to use them.

I was of the belief that rate paying locals were given concessions.

However;

God couldn't be everywhere, so he made CASA. If we agree about the barrel, where do we go to from here ? and how do we get God to fix the barrel ?

And what has this got to do with a bloke in Horsham going to court ?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

threegreens:

I still don't get what is wrong with doing 5am NDB work at say Quirindi, or do you have first hand knowledge of the curfew at ulm's airport that he omitted to tell us ?

I have a twin turboprop come over my place every morning before first light and I don't go ringing CASA about it.

I take objection to being linked with the mindless few and perhaps it is your bloody minded attitude that piss*s pilots past persuasive passiveness.

I bet you are the dog owner who lets his mastiff sh!t over my lawn.

Again I ask, what has this inane courtesy thing got to do with a Horsham court case ?

Start a new topic if you want a winge. :yuk:

I just thought about something;

Is this the threegreens and the democrats swapping preferences already ? mmmmmmmm:(

threegreens

I think he was laying a bait for me. He aint that bad :)

Mate... why are you such a bitter and twisted old git.

There never seems to be an ounce of humour or humility in your posts.

Let me guess JustApplHere.

You are probably a woollen vest wearing career public servant who has spent a lifetime as a behind the back critic - and after 30 years have risen to the dizzy heights of a SOGB.


I think its probably the old-gaurd of CASA like yourself that make it such a disfunctional organisation, unwillingly to hear reasoned argument from anyone that doesn't fit your idea of an administrator.

The sooner CASA is run like a real administration instead of an old-boys network the better for everyone.

Woohoo Lead Balloon. I think you got it in one.

Sorry threegrees,

It may be that it is someone else's dog who is sh!tting on my front lawn.

Leadbaloon, whatever you do don't ask me about the "Cathay Club".

What's a SOGB ?

:p