09-27-2015, 02:06 PM
Peetwo, for you;
Q/ First question is why would anyone want to request this information?
Part (a) Someone who is actually proactive at CAsA may have picked up a scent with this operator and be doing a deeper dig. It's not likely, however it is possible. Part (b) Then again CAsA may have one of those 'unofficial' files on the operator in question and they are lining up the firing squad! That is the more likely scenario. Generally as a rule of thumb CAsA are too lazy too get involved in these lower level matters, and quite frankly couldn't give a shit anyway. They usually only get involved for political reasons - to save face or to punish somebody.
Q/ Why would CASA be even remotely interested in this incident?
Please see Part (b) of question 1.
Q/ From the ATSB responses to the CASA CAR 301 'demand', it would appear that it is an accepted SOP for CASA to issue such a demand. So is this normal procedure for CASA? It seems very OTT and also seems to be impinging on the independence of the ATSB and in direct conflict with certain principles as outlined in the TSI Act?
Yes an yes. Part (a) of your question P2 - It's not uncommon these days for CAsA to issue a demand under CAR 301. (Their spiffy enforcement manual outlines this in more detail). They do so on occasion to cover their own asses, but also to extract information that can be stored in their 'unofficial operator dirt file'. As Sunny would say, to put that another way, the operator could be a shonk and CAsA may be lubing up the pineapples, or CAsA could be looking for an excuse to payback the operator for something else from the past, who knows. The other thing, to be fair to CAsA, the best opportunity for them to take a close look at an operator is during an audit or the time of an incident, so they may be acting smart and using the opportunity to take a closer peek under the bed sheets. Part (b) -
Is this a direct conflict with certain principles as outlined in the TSI Act? I would answer yes to that question P2. But remember, many elements of the rules, regulations and the aviation Act as well as the TSI act are purposefully written in a manner that is subjective and loaded with 'intent'. In other words it is pretty hard to nail CAsA or any bureaucracy when they are structured with loads of wriggle room and multi meaning wording. Sneaky sneaky naughty Governments.
P2, to cut through my waffle it goes like this - if I were the operator in this 'incident' after considering Fort Fumbles involvement I would be watching my back. Safety first and all that.
Q/ First question is why would anyone want to request this information?
Part (a) Someone who is actually proactive at CAsA may have picked up a scent with this operator and be doing a deeper dig. It's not likely, however it is possible. Part (b) Then again CAsA may have one of those 'unofficial' files on the operator in question and they are lining up the firing squad! That is the more likely scenario. Generally as a rule of thumb CAsA are too lazy too get involved in these lower level matters, and quite frankly couldn't give a shit anyway. They usually only get involved for political reasons - to save face or to punish somebody.
Q/ Why would CASA be even remotely interested in this incident?
Please see Part (b) of question 1.
Q/ From the ATSB responses to the CASA CAR 301 'demand', it would appear that it is an accepted SOP for CASA to issue such a demand. So is this normal procedure for CASA? It seems very OTT and also seems to be impinging on the independence of the ATSB and in direct conflict with certain principles as outlined in the TSI Act?
Yes an yes. Part (a) of your question P2 - It's not uncommon these days for CAsA to issue a demand under CAR 301. (Their spiffy enforcement manual outlines this in more detail). They do so on occasion to cover their own asses, but also to extract information that can be stored in their 'unofficial operator dirt file'. As Sunny would say, to put that another way, the operator could be a shonk and CAsA may be lubing up the pineapples, or CAsA could be looking for an excuse to payback the operator for something else from the past, who knows. The other thing, to be fair to CAsA, the best opportunity for them to take a close look at an operator is during an audit or the time of an incident, so they may be acting smart and using the opportunity to take a closer peek under the bed sheets. Part (b) -
Is this a direct conflict with certain principles as outlined in the TSI Act? I would answer yes to that question P2. But remember, many elements of the rules, regulations and the aviation Act as well as the TSI act are purposefully written in a manner that is subjective and loaded with 'intent'. In other words it is pretty hard to nail CAsA or any bureaucracy when they are structured with loads of wriggle room and multi meaning wording. Sneaky sneaky naughty Governments.
P2, to cut through my waffle it goes like this - if I were the operator in this 'incident' after considering Fort Fumbles involvement I would be watching my back. Safety first and all that.