[Peetwo]

CASA red tape embuggerance through Caper & Part 135 -   

Reference from above:

A hopeful Hansard -  

While trolling through pages and pages of Senate hearing transcripts sometimes I come across a section of Hansard that truly gives me hope that the shiny bum Senators may actually give a toss about the parlous state of affairs inside of the Australian aviation industry. The following Hansard, from last Friday's Senate air routes inquiry, is one such occasion...   

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
15/02/2019
Operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities

Addendum to last:  Answer to QON addressed to Norton White at 15/02/19 Senate Spring Hill public hearing (see: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...d54d50078a )

And via Shame or Fame for McDo'Naught:

Quite the Caper indeed.

Now, I know what the court ruled – a legal breach. I know the operation was shut down. I also know that the ‘rules’ which caused this to happen have been a sore point, particularly when used to the extent of actually closing down an operator. Although Carmody’s ‘new’ regulations may prevent this sort of head banging; not much will change – not in a ‘safety’ sense; but, the operation which was closed down would, under the new rules have been quite legally safe.

It all seems like a lot of time, trouble, jobs, business and money could have been saved by asking Caper to desist for a while – as the rule applied was about to become ‘nugatory’ under the latest changes, (classification of operations) which have not only been coming for a long while, but will change little at operational level.

Reading the FAA and NZCAA versions of Parts 125, 135 and 121 reveals little difference  in the way Australian ‘charter’ flying is conducted now– barring a few twiddles and ‘paper-work’. Of course the Australian version is the heavyweight champion – on the scales; pound for pound, it takes much longer in a more complicated way than the mature ‘authorities’ promulgate in their tried and tested Part 135.

CASA are not – and I reiterate – NOT providing rules to ensure and increased ‘operational safety’. They are producing instead reams of pages which prevent their responsibility for anything; and, to avoid itigation. For this we have waited 25 years and spent a half billion; to end up with an indecipherable pile of dribble, like the Roger Weeks wet dream, expounded in Part 61 and the incredible nonsense the MoS produces.

I’ve no idea what the minister or his government think they are buying; but it’s time to stop and think about getting a rope on CASA and restraining the ‘legal’ to focus on the very real operational safety matters which are NOT being addressed. At least not by CASA anyway. We must give thanks to the boys and girls who, despite CASA interface and loopy logic, run operators Safety Management Systems and despite having to ‘deal’ with CASA legal, still manage to keep our skies safe. Quite a trick – in the circumstances.

What heinous breach of basic ‘operational safety’ did Polar, Barrier or Caper commit? I shall leave that up to you to decide – while you consider RAAoz getting a weight increase – gods help us; AF in kit built aircraft, flown on a drivers medical – terrifying.

Perhaps, the minuscule, 'well advised' minister could take ten minutes to read through an articulate, considered, legally grounded opinion or two before he looses all credibility and (hopefully) his seat - Start  - HERE.      (Numb nuts)

Toot toot.

And from an anonymous source, via Facebook...  : https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s...9027532696

Dear Senators

May I express my thanks for your interest and concern of the plight general aviation in Australia faces struggling to survive under the burden of a capricious, inept and I believe a corrupt regulator determined to completely shut down a whole industry.

I understand you have examined a picture of a comparison between the US rule set and Australia’s. This picture only illustrates a small part of industries problems.



There is also the question of all the many manuals and expositions the industry must produce to satisfy CAsA policies and directives.
The photo below illustrates just some of the manuals an AOC holder must produce and have accepted or approved by the regulator. This AOC only covers small piston aircraft.

Commonly known as Shelf-ware within the industry, because they sit on the shelf and gather dust until the next CAsA audit, where the differing opinions of the FOI of the day invariably means re-writing large swaths of what was compliant one day and non compliant the next.

The cost of producing these manuals and expositions can run into tens of thousands of dollars. The cost of maintaining them tens of thousands more.

It can take two years and cost a quarter of a million dollars to gain an Australian Air Operator Certificate (AOC)..

After a CASA audit more than a hundred thousand dollars was spent defending an AOC and re-writing its expositions after less than three years in operation.

An AOC can be granted in New Zealand in about two months and cost less than $10,000 dollars.

These manuals largely regurgitate information already available in the manufacturer-supplied manuals, but with a unique Australian slant as well as directions from CAsA FOI’s.

Unfortunately many of these FOI’s have very little in the way of operational experience, which can lead to directions that are patently unsafe.

You cannot object, not if you want your AOC or permission granted.



The small binder at the bottom of the picture is a Part 135 fixed wing operating manual for an FAA Part 135 operator.

When they employed me they operated:

Six Boeing 737/800 aircraft
One Boeing 767 Aircraft
Eight Bombadier Dash 8 aircraft
Two Gulfstream G5 aircraft
Two Hawker 1000 aircraft
Two Citation 550 aircraft
Four Air Tractor oil dispersal Aircraft
Two Twin Otter STOL aircraft
Thirty eight multi engine helicopters

Exactly what is CAsA and what is its purpose?

Is it a Safety regulator?

Is it a police force?

Being both, I consider, is an anathema to everything Australia stands for.

Why was the regulation of aviation placed under the criminal code, reversing the onus of proof with strict liability?

Very few first world countries have aviation laws in the criminal code.

The penalties applied are quite horrendous for trivial offences, such as failing to produce a logbook in the required time limit. The huge fine that can be applied if you happen not to be able to prove your innocent is trivial when one considers that a criminal conviction essentially ends a pilot’s career.

Imagine the general publics reaction if a minor traffic offence resulted in a criminal conviction that ended your career.
Many countries in the world will not allow entry if you have a criminal conviction.

My understanding that strict liability was introduced by a cadre of eastern European lawyers employed by CAsA some years ago. Some of these lawyers were actually ex Stasi lawyers and was implemented to make it easier to achieve convictions.

CAsA will say as a citizen of Australia you can always appeal to AAT or the high court.

I will say the law is for everyone; justice however, is for those that can afford it.

Some have tried but you need very deep pockets. CAsA has the public purse to draw on.

A quote from one AOC holder who ran afoul of CAsA over a safety dispute with an FOI.

“It cost me a million dollars for lawyers to find out CAsA can do whatever it wants”

In the past twenty years just how much money has CAsA spent on legal representation?
Has CAsA proved itself to be a “Model Litigant” in the legal arena?

There is ample evidence of CAsA and its minions falsifying evidence, swearing false statements and committing perjury. Even when they lose or cannot convince a DPP to prosecute they can still act administratively or destroy who they believe are miscreants by rumour and innuendo or direct threats to people who might employ them.

There is a complete lack of trust and fear within the industry for CAsA and what they are capable of.
CAsA’s spin is it is first and foremost a “Safety Regulator” that is its sole function.

But what does that mean? 

 

MTF...P2