[Peetwo]

Harmony? Forget it - the world according to CASA.  

Of course the CAsA sleight of hand in the so called "differences" P2, is where ICAO may advise "A" check, or inspection, or procedure, or standard, CAsA instigates four, then crows "we are just complying with ICAO". When you point out that ICAO only required one, not four, they reply "well Australia's standard is very much higher than the rest of the world". They never consider what cost all their extra's will inflict on industry nor the complexity it adds to our regulations and operations and the difficulty of marrying them with regulations overseas.

I give you an example. forty odd years ago I became involved with a charter company who operated a mixed fleet of piston twins, turbines and a light jet in transport category. All these aircraft were flying around 800 hours a year by around sixteen pilots. Their operations manual was barely a hundred pages and included international operations and RPT.

The company devoted considerable recourses to pilot training and mentoring, by its nature their crews were young and generally inexperienced, their safety record was exemplary.

All the information required to operate an aircraft is contained in the manufacturers pilot operating handbook or flight manual. In those days Australia had its own unique "flight Manual" the "little black book". It had bugger all in it except "P" charts for take off and landing performance. Our regulator at the time refused to accept the manufacturers data based on certification flight testing and insisted on flight tests for first of type to produce these "P" charts, in many cases the performance data produced was less restrictive than the manufacturers certification data. A simple statement in the Ops manual that the company would use the manufacturers operating procedures contained in the Pilot operating handbook was all that was required to comply.

In the modern era of CAsA, operations manuals have expanded to thousands of pages, probably to reflect the thousands of pages of regulation that has been added over the years, it now runs to part A to part H, volumes of what is euphemistically referred to as "Shelfware". These tomes provide CAsA employees a conduit to interfere in the conduct of operations even tinker with manufacturers recommended procedures.

The "Make work" result of this is hundreds of thousands of dollars and years to obtain an AOC, and hundreds of thousands of dollars and months to add a new type to an AOC.
There are many instances where unqualified, inexperienced FOI's have bullied Chief Pilots into promulgating procedures expressly forbidden by the manufacturer. Complaint is futile because your manual must be "accepted", you have a million dollar machine sitting idle eating dollars, so you accept FOI's instructions, knowing what is being asked is unsafe, that you must accept responsibility for it, the FOI accepts none, because he accepts not approves, you toe the CAsA line or your machine sits idle.

In P2's post 91 Bill Hamilton makes a very relevant statement:

"Indeed, in my view, the lack of relevant knowledge and experience in CASA has reached an appallingly low level, it has long been the "employer of last resort".

The Part B of the modern day CAsA "accepted" operations manual, Aircraft Operating Procedures, runs to hundreds of pages, largely large parts of the flight Manual cut and pasted from the "Flight Manual" with added bits and pieces required by the FOI of the day. Yet the Flight Manual is the "Legal" document, it is mandatory to have a copy on the flight deck, there is no requirement to have Part B on the aircraft. The procedures contained in the flight Manual must legally be complied with, in fact the opening statement in most part B's is "Notwithstanding anything promulgated in this manual, the aircraft Flight Manual takes precedence". One could wonder therefore exactly what is the point of the part B in the first place other than a "Make Work" exercise for FOI's.

All these pieces of "Shelfware" also require continuous revision as the juggernaught of  regulatory ineptitude rolls on, thousands of pages added every year for which proof of compliance must be mandated. There is also continuous amendment required where rules already promulgated are found to have unintended consequences and need to be changed. Writing them properly in the first place would save a lot of angst.

CAsA is charged by the government to ensure safety, I don't believe it is any safer today than it was forty years ago, just a hell of a lot more expensive.

Excellent post TB and one that should (but won't) be avidly read by the miniscule, his obfuscating Mandarin and his minions -   

Quite fortuitous that you mention Bill Hamilton because I have been monitoring an email chain that Bill instigated, that provides another classic example of how deeply CASA has diverged from the ICAO accepted standards (SARPs), for in this case maintenance regulations and procedures in relation to the use of lockwire... :

Ken,

Are you across the latest paperwork “policy” of CASA: Every can of lockwire has to have an identity and history raised, and every time you cut off a piece of lockwire, where it went is to be entered on the job sheets by identity. Six lockwired nuts on an assembly equals six multi-line entries to identify said lockwire. In short, all parts and components are to be regarded as Class 1 parts, “fully documented”.
 
At Avalon East, the CASA Airstapo were out in force, the briefed intent to ramp check every arrival was not achieved, another CASA target missed?? I gather the issue of checking tyre pressures under Schedule 8 raised the “requirement” for “ calibration cards for the torque device required to refit the valve caps”. One aircraft had a valve cap missing, I haven’t heard whether CASA finally grounded it, but there were a lot of very unhappy people, and one aircraft was badly damaged because of the state of the east runway.
 
None of those people will ever fly to an airshow again. “Empty Skies are Safe Skies”.
 
Cheers,

Bill H.

---

Friends & Colleagues,


I flew in on the Tuesday, Avalon East around lunch time, probably the last to arrive (all of about 20 aircraft) and sadly missed the attentions of the Airstapo...

I can verify the poor surface of the grass runway which must have been prepared with a corrugated roller back and forth crossways.

Obviously CASA doesn't believe that checking the actual landing area warrants their time, a missing valve cap does. 

The lock wire.  How about spectrographic analysis from a CASA approved laboratory and tensile testing? Delivery between lab and workshop by ArmorGuard truck to avoid any switching or contamination. 

The basics are being lost;  and in the battle for commonsense, let alone reform, we are not gaining ground. Political action could drive policy in the right direction and is the only hope because it's proven over and over that the bureaucrats are totally intransigent. They will not be deflected from increasing their pressure, power, fee gouging and control. 

One downside, apart from the destruction of an industry, is that the incentive to hide maintenance and flying activities outside the system is greatly increased.

Bill thanks for that info.

Sandy

---

Folks,

As some of you will know, there are two US companies that produce just about all the annealed stainless lockwire used in the known western aviation universe, all to an NAS/MilSpec standard.

The two suppliers are distinguished by being in the mid-blue or light blue containers ---- that is the only obvious difference.

For CASA to determine that a completely artificial identity has to be raised for each little container ( each little container starts off at 1lb, from memory) and that must be recorded, as must each little bit cut off ---- what more can I say.

To say this is all about EASA "harmonisation" ---- WTF???

Stand by for the "no, you can't really change a battery" of "no, you can't legally wash your windscreen, only replace it" to get another run ----- remember, 'tis all on the CASA Schedule 8 MR CD.

Cheers,

Bill H.

---

Bill;

 
This is frog shit!
 
No better cause for public disobedience has been demonstrated to date.
 
I challenge everyone to use lockwire that has proven reliable in their own industry to date or make oath to the effect the paperwork has been stolen, misunderstood, (by purposeful and intended ignorance through purposeful ignorance by the end user). or proven to be a Chinese knock off and the responsibility of Barnaby Joyce and his sycophant Minister in Gippsland somewhere over the rainbow.
 
For God’s sake next we’ll have to use certified lock nuts and certified lockwire put in place by a certified 8” non chrome shifter, and yellow platinum pliers.
 
If I still owned my Auster I would seriously remove all lockwire in protest. In lieu I put a pox on the administration. (like yesterday).
 
I have an un certified 8” shifter probably now worthless for sale if anybody is interested. CHEAP!

---

Bill,

 
Until government/CASA Board/CASA commit to adopting the FAR system then GA will continue to struggle.

Maybe just pick up the NZ regulations and computer system to harmonise locally.

CASA needs to send their GA AWIs/FOIs to the FAA training academy in OK city to be properly trained.

Too many have their own interpretation of the rules.
 
GA will not recover until the independent flight instructor is re-introduced to provide competition to the approved training schools like the USA.
 
Independent FIs train 70% of pilots and that provides additional pilots to enter the commercial flying sectors.
 
Regards
 
Ken

---

Ken,


As a matter of interest, this was/is an HCPT matter, not GA, next time around the particular component overhaul contract will go to NZ or US, this was (for these components) the last man (or should that be person) standing in Australia, gone is gone.
I am deliberately being non-specific as to the components, as that would identify who.

Cheers,

Bill H

---

Bill,

 
If that is the case, nothing will turn the youth from entering aviation because of how it is treated.
Oh well, they still have the 457 process to keep our aircraft flying.
Every other industry uses them.
 
Regards

Ken

    
What next? Certifying & recording the use of speed (100 mph) tape? - UDB!

  

MTF...P2