[Kharon]

HOI ! over HERE – a REAL battle is raging.

The whole story may be followed on P-Prune. It is not a classic; it is however a typical Australian story of ‘embuggerance’. Not sure what can be done to assist; but, to make this tale of woe as widely known as possible may just get some pressure on the government minister to get off his beam ends, listen to the industry, acknowledge the three decade old battle and actually do something’.

Start at the beginning or – tune in – HERE – and please – read onwards. If you have an ounce of aviation fuel in your veins; or, common decency – get behind this man and bang a drum – hard and often.

glenb – “I was fully approved, and then in October 2018, I received a notice that CASA intended to bring a cessation to all operations, and that's where the story begins. There was no prior indication at all. That opened up a pandoras box of problems. Soon I will start outlining some of these on here.



I must emphasise that there are no allegations of any safety concerns, in fact CASA have agreed that APTA increases safety, so one would wonder my Mr Graeme Crawford in his role would work so diligently to bring APTA down. This individual may be a ripper bloke outside of the work environment, and probably gets himself involved in the local community, and contributes widely. I can only talk of my own personal experience with him, but in my opinion his manner is bullying and intimidating in nature and only degrades safety outcomes.



Whilst, it is only my perspective, and he is entitled to Procedural Fairness, I have launched a substantive complaint against him I feel that he has compromised safety, acted in breach of his obligations under the PGPA Act, and breached CASAs own Regulatory philosophy.



I have no doubt that at some stage this morning, I will receive a letter from CASA threatening action against me, but frankly, its time for me to protect APTAs reputation, and the many professionals that have workred in so diligently and in such a well intentioned manner. Let me return shortly with only one example of my CASA experience. Everything is fact, and I will provide evidence. As it is related to aviation safety, it is in the public interest.


Once again folks, thank you for the support.


International AOPA should be heard and seen to be involved – even if only in spirit. In fact – IMO – it is time every aviation business in Australia stood up and said – as eloquently as possible E- DUCKING – NUFF.

[thorn bird]

Dear, Oh dear, Oh deary me, not AGAIN?

You couldn't make this stuff up, but it's all too familiar.

The Polliwafflers make much noise about "Sovereign Risk" when dealing with foreign enterprises attempting to invest in Australia. What about the "Sovereign risk"or lack thereof for Australian entrepreneurs attempting to invest in Australian aviation?

Glen Buckley, from what we see, saw a problem, namely the inordinate costs involved with CAsA's draconian, absolutely inane concept of teaching people to fly an aeroplane, in that those costs could not be borne by any enterprise other than a large company with very deep pockets. A small regional aero club or flying school could not possibly sustain the overheads required.

Mr Buckley saw a solution and applied his innovative ideas to corral the administrative burden of those costs into a single entity which would have compliance oversight over satellite organisations at the coal face thus sharing the huge cost burden of meeting CAsA's gobbledegook regulations, leaving them free to get on with their job and focus on teaching their students.

Mr Buckley"s innovative idea opened up the potential to revive general aviation and restore small country Aero clubs and flying schools to their former place in regional Australia, and therein lies the rub. Mr Buckley is an innovator the very antithesis of the CAsA iron ring management ethos, his true "Crime" was he had the potential to make a success of his enterprise.

I can't help wondering if pressure was brought to bear on CAsA by the large integrated schools to bring him down, many in the industry believe CAsA is corrupt, largely because there is no apparent Rhyme or reason behind their pathetically amateurish attempts as a regulator, maybe the question should be how corrupt?

The tragedy illustrated by Mr Buckley's experience is the obvious, absolute disconnect between the upper echelon of CAsA and its minions and the disparity amongst those as to what the regulations mean and how they should be applied. As we have seen over time what is kosher to one aint necessarily so for the another.

Mr Buckley was led up the garden path by some White Hats within CAsA eager to help him, as they had empathy with the industry and saw an opportunity in his vision and did their best to assist it. Good for them, but they probably paid a heavy price for that.

Enter the Black Hats, unfortunately after Mr Buckley had invested his money in the mistaken belief he had CAsA's anointment. Then everything began to fall apart.

Here's a man with an innovative vision, imbued with a safety ethos, with a solution to the death of regional aviation caused by CAsA. He did all in his power to consult, seek guidance and act on the advice provided by CAsA.

Where he fell down was not realising he was dealing with a completely unethical, incompetent organisation.
An organisation managed by egotistical sociopaths who would stoop to any depths to protect their hegemony over Aviation. Mr Buckley unfortunately did not understand that innovation is the antithesis of CAsA managements beliefs.
They can not nor will not allow him to succeed,whatever it takes.

[Peetwo]

Glen B embuggerance - UPDATE.




The UP thread is still running hot and given the importance of this current CASA embuggerance in the broader context, I have decided to regurgitate some of the more pertinent posts starting from the Glen B handwritten letter to St Commode:

https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...letter.pdf

Sandy Reith:

Glen’s hand written letter

Anyone reading Glen’s letter couldn’t fail to appreciate the depth of feeling and the sense of longing for a resolution from CASA. Having witnessed many careless and punitive actions of CASA throughout GA across the last fifty years I would fully concur with the other experienced voices here. From my very limited knowledge of the subject, I understand that Glen has embarked on a business model that enables flying schools to combine some functions in order to meet new and extraordinarily expensive CASA administrative requirements. My guess is that CASA never considered such a rational move and hence Glen’s model, in the eyes of CASA, is unconventional. Nothing upsets the bureaucratic juggernaut more than being outwitted, it confronts the beast and calls into question its hegemony. It lives on primacy and authority and will have no qualms whatever to remove anything it perceives to threaten it’s position. It can’t do too much to the airlines, they are too big and will have huge clout politically, so GA is the fall guy, a plaything, whipping boy and reason for the ever changing rules and restrictions.

Only political moves can change the behaviour of CASA.

I well remember Brian Reddish coming to me, about thirty years ago, looking for support because, at the end game, they crushed his Hervey Bay fixed and rotary wing flying schools and charter ops by sitting on his applications for new CFI and or CP appointments. Then he couldn’t operate, ran out of money and just folded. By not formerly cancelling or suspending his operating permissions he had no direct means to counter their unjustified actions against him.

And from the "K" post above:

glenb – “I was fully approved, and then in October 2018, I received a notice that CASA intended to bring a cessation to all operations, and that's where the story begins. There was no prior indication at all. That opened up a pandoras box of problems. Soon I will start outlining some of these on here.

I must emphasise that there are no allegations of any safety concerns, in fact CASA have agreed that APTA increases safety, so one would wonder my Mr Graeme Crawford in his role would work so diligently to bring APTA down. This individual may be a ripper bloke outside of the work environment, and probably gets himself involved in the local community, and contributes widely. I can only talk of my own personal experience with him, but in my opinion his manner is bullying and intimidating in nature and only degrades safety outcomes.

Whilst, it is only my perspective, and he is entitled to Procedural Fairness, I have launched a substantive complaint against him I feel that he has compromised safety, acted in breach of his obligations under the PGPA Act, and breached CASAs own Regulatory philosophy.

I have no doubt that at some stage this morning, I will receive a letter from CASA threatening action against me, but frankly, its time for me to protect APTAs reputation, and the many professionals that have workred in so diligently and in such a well intentioned manner. Let me return shortly with only one example of my CASA experience. Everything is fact, and I will provide evidence. As it is related to aviation safety, it is in the public interest.

Once again folks, thank you for the support.

Hmm...shades of the Scottish Git's letter to Bruce Rhoades...



Next St Commode in reply:

Initial Response - Shane Carmody

---

'Dear Mr Buckley,

Thank you for your letter of 28 May 2019.

In the first instance it is important that I publicly confirm for you (and for those addressees you have chosen to include) that:

There is no administrative action currently pending against APTA, and

That no adverse decisions have been taken by CASA in relation to APTA's authorisations to conduct flight training.

I will review the various matters you have raised and will respond in due course.

Regards

Shane

Shane Carmody
CEO and Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority'

And then: Initial Notication to APTA from CASA (click on link to read)

Next glenb continues:

CASA initial action

Dear CASA,

Please find above, the initial correspondence that you sent to me. At 9AM on the morning of 23 rd October 2018, I had no inkling at all that I was to receive that notification. CASA had not previously raised any concerns at all with me, in fact they had been extremely encouraging and supporting of the concept. My reasonable expectation is that the CASA Subject Matter Expert (SME) from my Certificate Management Team, would have raised any concerns with me prior to initiating such a substantive process. As you can see from the correspondence, there are no allegations of safety concerns raised, but rather an accusation related to the Aviation Ruling and our Temporary locations procedure, which I will attend to later.

This document, was effectively a "request for documents" and no determination had been made, and I was not given the opportunity to respond or defend myself.

CASA provided a surety of operations for only 7 days into the future, as you can see from the document. From the period 30th October until 25th January 2019, my business operated literally on a minute by minute approval, On 25th January 2019 you notified me that my business could continue operating for three months until 25th April 2019. On 12th February 2019 you advised me that my business could continue operating until 13th May 2019. On 3rd May 2019 you advised that my business could continue operating until 1st July 2019.

Consider the commercial impact on any business, when you take such action. APTAs "product" was in fact surety of operations into the future, in the more expensive to operate regulatory environment.

Imagine if CASA walked into QANTAS, made allegations, did not give QANTAS the right to respond. Placed a temporary date on their business, prevented them taking on any new customers, and prohibited them from marketing their ability. Quite simply, no business in Australia can have action taken against them by a Government Department of such a nature and be expected to "weather the storm". As Mr Carmody stated he does not believe any administrative action has been taken. This has been CASAs stance, and it is this stance that has prevented me going to the AAT to appeal CASAs decision. Therefore Mr Carmody, if what you say is correct, then it only reaffirms my position that CASA have denied me procedural fairness.

This is in my opinion a variation to my AOC. If as CASA claim, it is not, then I would ask them to provide an example of a variation to an AOC.

How can CASA take such substantive action against a business on a simple "request for documents and not based on safety concerns.

Consider the impact of your action on my business, and the people who depend on me for their livelihood;

No one will approach APTA to join as a Member, because APTA has only a limited period of operation.
I cannot attract new staff to the Organisation, because I don't know if we will be approved.
APTA has been prevented from marketing or adding on any new customers.
Every one of my exceptional staff and the member entities now have only that assured employment.
I cannot enter into contracts of supply due the potential limited date of operations.
The business previously valued at a fair amount has now become worthless.

I have no issue with any CASA action provided the approach complies with CASAs own regulatory philosophy, it is well intentioned, and the decision is made in the interest of aviation safety In this case I am firmly of the opinion that it is not. By CASA choosing to adopt this stance they have in my opinion breached their obligations under Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and the concept of natural justice.

With reference to CASAs Regulatory Philosophy. You may recall that this was borne from a the ASSR Review (Forsythe Review). It was a direct result of the manner in which CASA had been engaging with Industry.

I attach the link below, and would particularly like to address the manner CASA engaged me against

Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 5
Item 6
Item 7
Item 8
Item 9
Item 10

Item https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/sta...ory-philosophy

---

&..

The Temporay base location

Following on from my previous thread, and the document I have posted above, you will see how CASA initially pursued a path of using the Aviation Ruling and our Temporary base procedure. As that line of attack failed, they moved to audit results from Latrobe Valley that were proven to be in error. The argument them moved to content of the contracts, then moved to a requirement for signed contracts, and that has now moved on to the content of the contract again, which I am still awaiting CASA direction on.

For this post let me deal with the Temporary locations. The background to this is that for as long as I recall Flying Schools have been able to use a "temporary locations" procedure. This facilitated flying schools running operations from a different location than their main base, for short term use.

During the APTA design stage I worked with a CASA team referred to as CMT 2. These personnel were well intentioned, and had a good grasp of APTA and CASA material. The conversation at the time went very similar to;

APTA "Once we put in an application for a new base to join us, how long do you anticipate it would take CASA to process the application so that we can activate the base"

CASA "Approximately 6 to 8 weeks, but in the interim you could activate them through a " Temporary locations procedure, while CASA makes their assessment. That will facilitate continuing operations.

APTA; That's great, lets go down that path.

So in the design stage we adopted the recommended CASA procedure initially which is extracted from CASAs own guidance material and please make note of that fact, as it will become more pertinent later in this post. We placed that into our manuals and adopted that procedure. Under CASAs very own procedure, that we adopted in our manuals they approved bases under that procedure, so I reasonably felt that CASAs own procedure was acceptable. In November 2017, we underwent a Level 1 CASA audit, being the highest level audit, and that audit included the bases and no concerns were raised at all by CASA at that time.

Then as you are aware and without any prior concern expressed, CASA hit me with that notification suggesting I was in breach by using that procedure, which lead to a meeting in the CASA Office. This time under a different CMT as CASA had initiated a change of CMT oversighting APTA.

The new Regional Manager made a statement, that he had legal advice that the Temporary locations procedure was not intended for flying schools. That surprised me. We then advised that is the guidance we had received from CASA CMT 2. The FOI demanded "Did you get that in writing'. At this stage it became apparent that the CASA personnel I was dealing with were not familiar with their own guidance material.

I have made multiple requests to CASA over the last 7 months to explain what is the breach, that attracts the restricted date of operations.

How can I possibly have a breach, if CASA offered the procedure, CASA approved it, then approved bases under the procedure, and then audited us on it, and then does not explain the issue to me. I cannot fix something up unless I know what is wrong. The procedure has been around for years

This entire matter appears to me to be somewhat confusing. A couple of interesting side issues. Our first base under the procedure was quoted as a 5 hour task, which we paid CASA the fee for, and in fact it took them almost a year to process. Thankyou CMT for suggesting a well intentioned, compliant, tested procedure, so that particular base didn't have to wait 10 months to be activated.

I have cut and pasted the CASA suggested procedure below, and attached our procedure as it is somewhat larger than, and perhaps more robust than CASAs suggestion.

"Where flying training activities are required to be conducted at an alternate location from the company's main training base, the following matters must be considered:
1. Exposition change management procedures
2. Instructor familiarity with the
a) aerodrome;
b) local operating procedures; and
c) risks associated with operating at that aerodrome.
3. Aerodrome suitability for the task, including:
a) other users of the aerodrome
b) physical dimensions and characteristics, in respect to the types of aircraft proposed to be operated
c) preference for the use of registered or certified aerodromes;
and) if an ALA is to be used, the advice in paragraphs 4B6.7 and 4B6.8 must be considered, in addition to the other considerations listed in this section.
4. The availability of suitable facilities and services such as:
a) flight planning, briefing and crew rest and refreshment areas
b) fuel
c) aircraft parking areas
d) aircraft maintenance services.
e) NOTAM and weather services
f) communication ability with operational headquarters and other relevant agencies such as:- Fire services- Ambulance- Police- Aerodrome owner- Airservices Australia. "

I am confident that the Temporary Loactions procedure in the attachment is equal to the best practice in the industry

Then from Leadie:

Originally Posted by Sandy Reith 

Only political moves can change the behaviour of CASA.
I well remember Brian Reddish coming to me, about thirty years ago, looking for support because, at the end game, they crushed his Hervey Bay fixed and rotary wing flying schools and charter ops by sitting on his applications for new CFI and or CP appointments. Then he couldn’t operate, ran out of money and just folded. By not formerly cancelling or suspending his operating permissions he had no direct means to counter their unjustified actions against him.

Folks,

And, as I remember all too well, trying to help Brian. The CASA complaints were completely without merit- and subsequently disproved, but by then, an honourable man and his family, as well as his business, had been destroyed.
Where have we heard this story before --- time and again!!

Tootle pip!!

And on 'clear and concise':

Sandy:

The CASA philosophy

Reading from the CASA website about it’s philosophy we find the following, quote:-

clear and concise, using plain language and concepts wherever possible

One could be forgiven for thinking that this says it all. The Act says “clear and concise.” It does not have a free get out of jail card such as “wherever possible.”

---

glenb - Clear and concise

Interesting point Sandy, the obligation to provide "clear and concise aviation safety standards' is actually an obligation that CASA are required to achieve, and in fact I provide the extract from the Civil Aviation Act below.

The failure to achieve that, impacts significantly across industry, and in fact I suggest every business owner in the GA sector has been impacted by this failure. In fact that leads beautifully into my next post, which further and highlights the failure. Now that failure alone wouldn't be as significant, if it was accompanied by a collaborative approach from CASA towards industry. Its not an environment to act in a bullying or intimidating nature. In fact everything in this story comes back to those failures. The failure to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards and the failure to act in a well intentioned manner.

9 CASA’s functions (1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;
by means that include the following: © developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

The latest from glenb 3/06/19:

CASAS APPROACH IMPACTS ON SAFETY

---

To those of us operating at the General Aviation (GA level) in Australia, and I include smaller Charter Operators and Flying Schools in that grouping, the manner in which CASA conducts itself with Industry compromises safety and that's why it must be checked.

Whilst I am somewhat time limited, I do intend to demonstrate, from my own personal experience, how the Aviation Group headed up by Mr Graeme Crawford has lead actions, or been responsible for actions that have negatively impacted on safety in my Organisation On all occasions my organisation has taken action, and often at significant expense,to counter the effects of those actions.

I intend in this post, and by updating via the "edit" function, to very clearly demonstrate that. I am sitting here waiting to have a coffee with someone, so will return and update as time permits. 

Example One

I have received a very high level of support from many areas of industry including many GA Operators. My advice is do not become involved in my issue if you have a commercial interest in the industry. If you have nothing to lose, or are prepared to lose everything, I welcome your support. 

I have been a critic of many of CASAS decisions over the years, and I have put my name to those criticisms. I've been very upfront admittedly. The passage of time has demonstrably proven my criticisms correct. From my own personal experience, CASA as an organisation, is dangerously resistant to Continuous Improvement or substantive feedback. From my personal experience, that creates personnel within CASA that have an "axe to grind", and they will use their position inappropriately, and make decisions that cannot be demonstrated to be in the interests of safety. The result of those decisions, is that they will cause commercial, or other damage to your business. CASA personnel would be aware of those impacts when they make those decisions. I draw on my own personal experience when I make those statements. That commercial impact on your business and its effects on safety must be considered, in deciding your course of action.

CASA have created an environment where many operators feel too are scared to intimidated to speak up. That negatively impacts on safety. That has been my personal experience.

---

And in support of glenb:

Okihara - Glen, thanks for sharing your story and spearheading the effort against this tyranny.

Words of encouragement will only lift your spirits so much and, as you mentioned, some who may not want to become personally involved with your issue may still want to put their money where their mouth is (or would be in this case).

Quote:

CASA have created an environment where many operators feel too are scared to intimidated to speak up. That negatively impacts on safety. That has been my personal experience.

Hence: why not set up a gofundme.com page and raise some funds for your upcoming legal expenses? As others pointed out, you need to lawyer up lest you get gobbled up by your opponent. Many in the industry stand to benefit from your initiative so let them support you. This way people can support you while remaining anonymous.

What I would also suggest: Think of this as opportunity to take the APTA philosophy of united we stand to make it the defender of GA rights across the board and not just for your own organisation. Talk to your contacts in flight schools across the country and propose a $10/h (voluntary) increase on instruction rates to finance your legal costs.

Apologies if that has already been mentioned before. I'm still catching up with this thread.

---

Stickshift3000 - I'm a student at an APTA-affiliated flying school. Having witnessed the significant benefits of this business arrangement first hand, I - and likely many other students - would be happy to offer any support via means mentioned above.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Via AOPA Oz:

AOPA Australia comments on Airservices Australia's announcement to reduce aviation charges for the first time from 1st July.


Aviation charges will be cut by two per cent next month following a price freeze in 2015 and the consolidation of an efficiency program at Airservices for the non-operational divisions of the organisation.

The program, which quarantined air traffic control and aviation rescue and fire-fighting services, delivered savings of more than $170 million, creating the headroom to reduce charges for the first time. The price cut will result in multi-million dollar savings for Australia’s airlines and aviation industry.  Airservices Chief Executive Officer Jason Harfield said, “We are passing on these savings to the aviation sector while not compromising operational safety and continuing to improve service delivery and invest in new technology to help the industry grow.

“Without the price freeze and changes introduced under our efficiency program, customers were facing price increases of 15 per cent from 2016, costing the aviation sector an extra $380 million over the period to 2020… I am very proud of the fact that Airservices is in a position to support the aviation sector in Australia, both through operational excellence and now through lower costs,” Mr Harfield concluded.

However, AOPA Australia Executive Director Benjamin Morgan did not think the savings went far enough, “Whilst saving $2 from every $100 spent with Airservices Australia is welcomed by our struggling aviation community at this time, a glaring fact remains: general aviation has been burdened with significant ADS-B cost imposts with aircraft owners shelling out tens of thousands of dollars, enabling Airservices Australia to make savings on legacy navigation aid maintenance and upkeep.  Airservices Australia should be doing the right thing by passing on an ADS-B rebate to owners (as in the US) who have upgraded, enabling them to share in the $170 million in savings,” he said. 

MTF...P2 

[Cap'n Wannabe]

CASA RESHUFFLES IT’S ASAP CONTINUING TO EXCLUDE AOPA AUSTRALIA

AOPA Australia Executive Director Benjamin Morgan offers an opinion.



The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has announced a reshuffle of it’s Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), with Tristar Aviation founder Adrianne Fleming OAM, Kestrel Aviation founder and President of the Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA) Ray Cronin and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) expert Dr Reece Clother appointed to the panel.

Making way for the new appointments were; Virgin Australia’s Rob Sharp, Australian Airports Association CEO Caroline Wilke and the TAAAF’s Greg Russell.  Remaining members of the TAAAF are;

Professor Pat Murray – Chairman
Mr John Gissing – Qantas
Mr Jim Davis – RAAA
Mr Michael Monck – RAAus
Mr Graeme Crawford – CASA
Mr Rob Walker – CASA

Yesterday’s announcement seems to confirm what everyone has suspected for a long time and the timing of the re-shuffle neatly coincides with a recent call from the TAAAF for greater control by the CASA board over its Director of Aviation Safety.

Suffice to say, it appears CASA did not receive that news well.

The stunning exclusion of the TAAAF and the Airports Association appear to follow on from public statements leading up to, during and after the recent election, that have put the associations in opposition and conflict with both CASA and the Minsiter.

A mere coincidence?  Maybe not.

Whilst there are some poweful appointments to the ASAP, the credibility of CASA’s advisory panel now seriously at risk with the regulator boldly communicating an unwillingness to hear anything other than it its own voice and opinion.

Clearly there are some difficult times ahead.  Meanwhile AOPA Australia warmly welcomes the TAAAF and the Airports Association to our growing club of associations who have dared publicly disagree with CASA!

[thorn bird]

Why am I surprised, you would have to be A-SAP to believe that this group were anything but window dressing.

[Peetwo]

CASA RESHUFFLES IT’S ASAP CONTINUING TO EXCLUDE AOPA AUSTRALIA

AOPA Australia Executive Director Benjamin Morgan offers an opinion.



The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has announced a reshuffle of it’s Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), with Tristar Aviation founder Adrianne Fleming OAM, Kestrel Aviation founder and President of the Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA) Ray Cronin and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) expert Dr Reece Clother appointed to the panel.

Making way for the new appointments were; Virgin Australia’s Rob Sharp, Australian Airports Association CEO Caroline Wilke and the TAAAF’s Greg Russell.  Remaining members of the TAAAF are;

Professor Pat Murray – Chairman
Mr John Gissing – Qantas
Mr Jim Davis – RAAA
Mr Michael Monck – RAAus
Mr Graeme Crawford – CASA
Mr Rob Walker – CASA

Yesterday’s announcement seems to confirm what everyone has suspected for a long time and the timing of the re-shuffle neatly coincides with a recent call from the TAAAF for greater control by the CASA board over its Director of Aviation Safety.

Suffice to say, it appears CASA did not receive that news well.

The stunning exclusion of the TAAAF and the Airports Association appear to follow on from public statements leading up to, during and after the recent election, that have put the associations in opposition and conflict with both CASA and the Minsiter.

A mere coincidence?  Maybe not.

Whilst there are some poweful appointments to the ASAP, the credibility of CASA’s advisory panel now seriously at risk with the regulator boldly communicating an unwillingness to hear anything other than it its own voice and opinion.

Clearly there are some difficult times ahead.  Meanwhile AOPA Australia warmly welcomes the TAAAF and the Airports Association to our growing club of associations who have dared publicly disagree with CASA!

Why am I surprised, you would have to be A-SAP to believe that this group were anything but window dressing.

Hmm...but hang on a second, weren't AHIA and AWPA (Australian Women Pilots’ Association), along with RAAus, active members of TAAAF? So has there been a splintering of TAAAF membership?  

If that's the case then it's just same old Big R-regulator tactic ruling and conquering by division...  

Besides the ASAP IMO loses all credibility merely by including the Scottish Git as a remaining member - FDS!

By the by, can anyone believe the bollocks that Hitch put out in his LMH on this turn of events...  

CASA yesterday announced its second iteration of ASAP. This is an advisory panel that utilises industry people to tear apart proposed regulation and give CASA input on the way forward. CASA has added both Ray Cronin and Adrianne Fleming to the panel, a move which has to be loudly applauded. Both Cronin and Fleming have contributed significantly to most aspects of general aviation in this country and bring to the panel the passion and experience that GA needs from its representatives. CASA has copped slings and arrows in the past about a lack of GA representation, especially from AOPA. The inference has been that ASAP member TAAAF was not properly representing the views of GA. Whether or not that's true is now a dead matter as TAAAF is off the panel for the time being. However, it will be very hard to justify statements about a lack of genuine representation now that two of Australia's most prominent and passionate GA exponents have been taken on board.

some of the antagonism has receded - Hmm...do you reckon? 

The general aviation community has been shaken in the past couple of weeks over action taken by the local council to effectively shut down Tyabb Airport. It even made A Current Affair. The good news today is that after a meeting between the respective principals, the council has indicated it won't enforce the letters that ordered companies on the airport to cease operations for the time being. It seems that both Peninsula Aero Club and Mornington Peninsula Shire Council have found a more harmonious way forward. The ball is now with the shire, which has been tasked with providing some information the aero club wants, with another meeting scheduled for a couple of weeks. PAC is standing its ground and insisting it has all the permits and the rights to keep operating, but some of the antagonism has receded. So, some good signs, but the fight is not over yet.

Airservices cutting charges is good news for our industry. Yes, 2% is only a flea on a black dog when it comes to how much aviation costs, but right now, with most costs and charges going in the other direction, we need to take whatever comes our way. Airservices CEO Jason Harfield has credited the cost cuts to saving realised under the Accelerate scheme, which sought to streamline the organisation. Hundreds of jobs were lost under Accelerate, but Airservices has stated that none of them were "front-line" positions. With OneSKY looming large, there were fears that the cuts to personnel had been too deep, but except for a couple of hiccups along the way, there hasn't been a lot of evidence of that. Most of the worries are still about  front-line personnel levels, especially when it comes to reviews of staffing requirements at various airports and the emerging remote-tower technology. All of this should mean more cost rollbacks in the future, unless all the savings are re-absorbed by OneSKY.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...UkK4Giu.99

Oh well at least Sandy was quick with a retort:

Sandy Reith • 16 hours ago

I’ll add my applause to the appointment of Ray Cronin and Adrianne Fleming to CASA’s advisory panel, incongruously dubbed ‘ASAP.’ As Soon As Possible seems to suggest that we might expect some speed in CASA’s reaction to it’s debilitating regulatory over reach. But of Ray and Adrianne no doubt that these two highly experienced individuals will add greatly to the deliberations of ASAP. 

However I’m sure I won’t be alone in wondering why not AOPA representatives as well? After all AOPA represents private pilots, this is a major part of it’s platform, it’s raison d’etre. To take representatives from from an industry body would seem to be fully in line with democratic practices.

 Ben Morgan was equally as quick with a reply to Sandy:

BENJAMIN MORGAN  Sandy Reith • 15 hours ago

Won't happen Sandy, CASA are not interested in constructive criticism, nor are they willing to work with anyone that disagrees with their regulation and/or policy. The recent re-shuffle is a telling story, laid bare for all to see.

Meanwhile in the Iron Ring version of 'Alice in Wonderland' an update on the ongoing APTA embuggerance: (previous: APTA embuggerance update)

Dear Minister Mc Cormack, or the recipient.

I wrote to the Minister at the start of the week on matters I considered of significance, with regard to aviation safety in Australia. I have not received an acknowledgement, or a response.

Can you please confirm that this is the correct email for such matters. Alternatively, if the correct protocols are to formally lodge such matters through the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ASTB) please advise. The issues are significant and effect aviation safety, so at least an acknowledgement that this is the correct email address to reach Minister Mc Cormack would be appreciated.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley


(In response to McDo'Naught's non-response to this: To the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable Mr Mc Cormack.)

---

Dear Mr Shane Carmody,

 
There are no regulatory breaches. There are no safety concerns expressed by CASA.
 
CASAs actions have placed significant restrictions on my ability to trade and that has been repeatedly identified to CASA, as has the associated commercial impact. Craig Martin will be the Subject Matter Expert (SME) within CASA.
 
Within a week,  CASA will make yet another decision to allow continuing operations through another temporary approval, or in fact, close the operation down. I don’t need to outline the enormous organisational instability that brings to the staff, and my ability to retain them, to customers, students, members and suppliers. These “temporary approvals” have now continued for 8 months and understandably bought the business to its knees. The staff and I are exhausted and drained, so is the business. My Key Personnel must now make decisions about their own employment options, and that impacts on continuing operations amongst the group, with the associated consequences on businesses, staff, and suppliers.
 
To bring this absurd matter to a close it simply needs one decent human being, acting in a well-intentioned manner, to make a good decision. It is that simple.
 
It needs one person to give me 3 hours of their time to tell my side of the story. it then needs that same person to spend a further 3 hours revising the Regulatory Philosophy, the functions of CASA, the enforcement manual, the Public Service Commission website, the definition of unconscionable conduct, the PGPA Act, the Ministers Statement of Expectations on CASA, and a familiarity with Administrative Law.
 
It needs that same well-intentioned person, to then seriously contemplate what it means to operate under the Australian Coat of Arms that will be proudly displayed throughout every CASA office. Reflect on the substance of it, the history behind it, the standards, ethics, governance and integrity that is conveyed by having the privilege to operate under it.
 
Then simply arrive at a decision.
 
As you are aware my preference is to resolve these matters through well intentioned face to face discussion. That is the most effective way to resolve any dispute.

However, I have had the opportunity to receive some industry funded and substantive legal guidance on my matter. This meeting was initiated by someone in Industry, and I did not pay for the consultation This firm does not provide litigation funding, and that necessitates me seeking support from wider industry, should I elect to continue. At this stage there is no obligation on my behalf to proceed. If I do:
 
The first stage is a relatively straightforward process costing approximately $50,000. This would provide a robust and detailed overview of the validity of the claim, for both Industry and CASA to consider and would provide full transparency to both parties. On production of the report perhaps I could have the opportunity to meet with CASA again. The case would be based around CASAs failure to deliver clear and concise aviation safety standards, and the effects of that failure on safety and industry, as evidenced by my experience, and no doubt many others.
 
I am fully satisfied that in fact, CASA have failed to achieve “clear and concise aviation safety standards”. That is the root cause of every one of my current issues, and in fact the wider industry’s.

I am fully satisfied that 5 personnel within CASA have acted inappropriately, and in my opinion unlawfully, although I respect that that needs to be determined.
 
My hope is that you could respond indicating if there is a potential change of stance within CASA and a willingness to genuinely resolve the matter via a well-intentioned decision maker that you nominate.
 
Respectfully,
 
Glen Buckley.
 

Hmm...."let's do the timewarp again.."  - 

MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Good weather for Ducks? - 

On the subject of Ducks and industry some references...  

The shoving of ducks, thereof.

TB – “I often ponder what and who was the catalyst that set in train the shift in CAsA from being a service provider to the authoritative pseudo policing force it has become today. There is also the question of why?”

That is a question the wise owls and I may add, some of the CASA ‘white hats’ (those left standing) have been pondering for a long while now.

TB – “I have been told the catalyst that turned CAsA’s attention inwards was the change in the law that took away their immunity from prosecution meaning that the entity of CAsA or anyone employed by them could be sued, collectively or individually. That must have been a terrifying prospect for any public servant where any advice or collaboration with industry could risk them being hauled before a court.”

Gee Whizz – that is a well supported point of view. Many of the BRB ‘wise owls’ advocate that a removal of discretion from the rules would support the removal of CASA liability. I know: that is a very simplistic (nutshell) description of the solution; but in principal that seems to be ‘the solution’. Except:-

The notion of bringing in the ‘CASA’ hole in the Swiss cheese seems to have been ‘corrupted’ and utilised as an excuse to form a service to industry into an untouchable ‘power base’. One which will not, nor cannot be challenged. From this philosophy endless power and a bottomless pit of public money has, progressively, been given with CASA able to manipulate the system into the unchecked, unbalanced monstrosity we see today. This is bad enough; but to put the final nail in the coffin – opposites don’t attract in this case. The selective process used to ensure the ‘right stuff’ is hired has aided and abetted ‘the system’. Some first class folk have ‘signed on’ to the CASA pay list, only to leave within a short time – returned to industry. I’ve always believed that it is those people who should be chatting with the Senate committee; through immunity and any ‘confidentiality’ agreement ‘waived’. For the truth of it is, that those not ‘happy’ in the service of CASA are those who should be talked to – those who simply could not stick it. Then again, we all know how whistle-blowers wind up.

The obsession with hiring ‘law enforcement’ types rather than ‘operational’ types further supports the notion that the protection of CASA from liability or responsibility is the foremost reason for a ‘private’ police force. Nothing wrong with Coppers – but – they think differently: there is a rule – there is a breach – handing over to the legal eagles, with evidence – next task. End of. It is a lot easier for them with ‘strict liability’ and about a hundred way to Christmas for every sentence of ‘the rules’ to be broken – unintentionally – but that don’t signify. Legal at 100 KpH – in breach at 101 KpH. Fish, barrel and shooting – easy money.

This of course leads to the notion that essentially all aviation folk are criminals who have not been caught – yet. This leads to more untrammelled power, bigger budgets and the myth, like all good stories keep growing. This, in turn takes a load off the ministers who, like most folks, don’t have a clue about a specialised industry. Naturally they will rely on their very own experts; pass their laws and pay what is asked – to keep Australia’s reputation as a world class aviation citizen. Our airlines and services do that – despite our CASA being acknowledged, world wide, as one of the worst.

This clearly demonstrated through this year's series of proving runs – Angel Flight, Bruce Rhoades, Glen Buckley and others – the cynical part being that the Essendon DFO accident slips out of sight and out of mind. Nowhere near good enough – is it.

Aye well; I’ve only wasted a few minutes, a scrap of electricity and a tiny fraction of bandwidth.

Toot – FWIW – toot (again).

Conniptions and Kittens.

"If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,"

I don’t imagine for a moment that old mate  Kipling would understand the CASA ‘mentality’. Back in his day, there was, no doubt about it – wrong’uns – but they had to mind their P&Q’s, for the punishment was severe for those who overstepped the bounds. Not so today when it’s the ‘wrong-un’s’ who write, interpret, manipulate and enforce ‘their’ version of what is deemed (by their lights) to be right and wrong. That which probably is fair and reasonable can be and often is twisted to suit the purpose. Civil Aviation Regulation 206 being a classic example.

It is, even in the beginning, not a very good law. The spirit and intent was honourable enough; but, it has caused many a headache over the decades, particularly when ‘non legal’ folk (on both sides) decide that ‘they’ have the right of it.

CAR 206 was primarily invoked to protect the ‘two airline’ system. In it’s infancy airline transport operators needed all the help they could get, big country, few people etc. Not much has really changed, we still only have two ‘big’ operators. But what of the rest?

Secondary airlines (for wont of better) such as Rex also benefit from the protection offered; which is fair enough. It takes time and costs a shed load of money to provide paying passengers with the equivalent level of ‘safety’ expected from an ‘airline’ system.

So you can see the CASA problem; it is politically and operationally unacceptable to have half baked, fly-by-night operations carting the unsuspecting public about the country side. So the operations CASA licence need a level of, let’s call it ‘oversight’ to assure the public that travel by air, on a commercial basis is as safe and legally compliant as it can be. The insurance fellah’s demand this and the travelling public expect it. All this fair enough and pretty much accepted as world wide practice.

Down stream from the ‘big guns’ are the charter (air taxi) operators. For these operators there were, in the beginning a choice of two philosophies available to CASA. One, being the difficult ‘approval’ process’ with high costs, delays, endless words in manuals. The other, (which IMO would have been a better choice) was easier entry and approval with heavy surveillance and CASA involvement in development of ‘standards’ and practices (enter the twin daemons ‘discretion’ and ‘liability’). The thing which (IMO) bothers CASA (and industry) the most is the idea that an operation is beyond their control.

The holder of an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) and the operations conducted are tightly controlled. Let me try to explain; let’s visit the offices of DUCK air Services. One day a fellah walks in to see the boss; he wants to buy an aircraft for his own use, but needs to offset the operating costs – in short, he wants the aircraft put to work. This can be and often is done, quite legally and safely. DUCK applies to have the aircraft type included in their certification; jump through the CASA hoops and, with luck, time patience and money – the aircraft becomes available for use. Not an easy process – but it can be and is done – quite often.

What would give the Chief pilot (DUCK AS) conniptions and cause CASA to have kittens is if the boss said (or worse, failed to mention) that Joe Bloggs, two towns over was running commercial operations with his own aircraft, cast and crew under the DUCK banner and simply paying a fee for the ‘use’ of the DUCK certification. Borrowed or hired AOC?

Rather than solve the chicken and egg problem, throw 206 in the bin where it belongs and adopt some modern rule sets which resolve the problem, CASA have persisted with DIY rule making and made a royal pig’s ear of the thing. Proof of this is clear and visible in parts 61, 141 and 142. The same ‘thesis’ exploration and PhD clap trap is about to create more headache and heartbreak through part 135.

What (IMO) CASA cannot let go of is the ‘mystique’ of law and the academic wrangling over the minutia, which allows the knaves to twist the written word and parlay it into criminal charges on a whim; or a mission; or a personal grudge. For thirty years we have been waiting for reformed, sensible rules with which we can willingly comply. God’s only know the real cost in dollars; it begs the question. Did we get value for money?

The ‘practical’ problems for CASA are as simple and as old as the aviation game itself. The real aviation nations, close by, NZ, PNG and half the Pacific Islands resolved these issues many moons ago. Simple rules for simple problems open the gates for investment; ease of market entry promotes competition; good surveillance and audit keep the buggers honest; and, a regulator you can actually talk matters aeronautical through with would be a gift from the Gods – or a minister with half a brain. Alas……we remain well and truly………


Toot – toot.

White hats, Black hats and Swans.

P2 – “Hmm...perhaps a whistle-blower or two is what we need, that and a Minister prepared to do his job - FDS!

She was poor, but she was honest,
Victim of the squire's whim:
First he loved her, then he left her,
And she lost her honest name.


The article raises many questions, some very subtle, which, more than likely will get lost in the political perception and in the distractions created to maintain public confidence: particularly in the tourism area. Enter the Swans. No matter how deep, dark or dangerous the political waters may be, the government must be seen to be effortlessly gliding over the surface, calm, serene and in complete control – no matter how frantically they are paddling beneath the surface.

But, in fairness, what can the ‘minister’ actually do apart from keep the lid on it all and call in ‘expert’ advice. There’s the rub. Who will be the ‘expert’ advice? What will be the outcome of an inquiry? What will be done with the results tabled? I believe we in Australia have had a couple of cracks at solving similar problems over the past three decades, without actually getting to the radical cause of our problems. The Kiwi’s had better luck when good sense prevailed and they started with a clean sheet, new regulations and a revamped front row. A sparkling success story; so where has the wheel come off.

See him in the House of Commons,
Making laws to put down crime,
While the victim of his passions
Trails her way through mud and slime.

If it were me, I’d think I’d start with the retired or resigned list. When the ‘new’ CAA kicked off they were (IMO) a first class act, a little pedantic in that way the Kiwi’s have, but straight as a die. As the original team and leadership faded, new blood was brought in, along with the virus. There is a particular ‘type’ of parasitic worm which infects government bodies; and, once established they colonise and slowly, but surely they multiply. The colony usually begins in a management corner and expands from there. This is no whimsy of mine. I can cite many proven examples of where a ‘manager’ has built a hand picked crew and gone on with impunity to wreak havoc or dispense favours as and whenever it pleased.

“He says the issues largely concern the behaviour of managers, especially those in the helicopter and health and safety units.”

Clearly, the Whistle-blower has knowledge of one such ‘bad apple’ but how many other departments are affected with the same rot. One may, with a little patience, see a clear pattern in the Australian system. There are places where the CASA crew and management are first class, constrained by law and process but nonetheless upright citizens who get things done – the right way. Then there are the others; but, they are a home land problem, not NZ’s.  

Standing on the bridge at midnight,
She says: "Farewell, blighted Love.'
There's a scream, a splash--Good Heavens!
What is she a-doing of?

But the CAA's director Graeme Harris has responded by saying it has "very robust" processes to deal with poor performance and complaints.

Once I hear the trite catchall ‘ROBUST” quoted, I cringe. The only part of the process which is ‘robust’ is defence of the minister and the top bureaucratic layers from public exposure of the rot within. Don’t know about NZ but in Oz we have things like the CASA ‘Ethics committee’ , which depending on who, what why and when will protect against any and all ‘complaints’ levelled. This is a thing a minister will never be allowed to witness, the public will never know and those accused of bastardy will either be ‘returned to industry’ under fell ‘confidentiality agreements’ and a guaranteed job; or, promoted and protected. Aye, the Swan on the lake looks peaceful and serene;

"It's the same the whole world over;
It's the poor that gets the blame,
It's the rich that gets the pleasure.
Isn't it a blooming shame?'

"Much of the senior management is simply distrusted by the people who work for them," the worker said.

Not a bad suggestion – unrealistic but sound. No minister will risk exposing the holes in the governmental safety cheese. They simply dare not, what with air safety being a sacred cow and all. Best to let the ‘experts’ deal with it and stay well clear. It’s an expensive but necessary protection racket. The only way to beat it is to dump a load of shit on the ministers desk, in broad daylight, with the media in attendance. Make it so high that it cannot be denied as anything else but what it is. Point out quietly, politely but forcefully that tye crap stops on his desk, on his watch.

"Get off your arse and do something about it. Seven people perished in a bad accident. We need to get to the bottom of it," Gameren said.

That approach will not cut the mustard. We have the Essendon King Air collision with a bloody big building built on a runway – guess what will change. No prize for correct answer.

Going to be entertaining watching how the Kiwi’s handle this little howd’yado. Watch the media first, see how long and hard they carry the ‘public safety interest’ story, before it becomes diluted and quietly cast by the wayside. Then all you have to do is wait for the inquiry, wait for the results and watch them passed over as merely ‘an opinion’. Good luck Kiwi’s, methinks you will need it.

Toot- toot...

Keeping on with this week's theme I note that AOPA Oz's SME Nick Christie is also aligning the Ducks, this time on the subject of Part 149 ...

IS PART 149 A DEAD DUCK?

AOPA Australia's NICHOLAS CHRISTIE offers his OPINION, after discovering that many of the organisations that CASA was hoping to drag into the new regulatory framework, might simply ditch the plan and leave CASA to work out what to do next.

Flying high on the priority list at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority are plans that some in that organisation are hoping will be accepted graciously by the industry, without further ado. Changes to the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (called Part 149) are being introduced in an apparent attempt to re-align to ICAO standards. But many key aviation bodies are starting to adopt a far less positive stance, that could see Part 149 meet its ultimate demise.



What is Part 149?

Currently, SAB’s (Sport Aviation Bodies) are in operation because they are exempted from certain Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR’s). It’s why organisations like the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) and the Australia Parachutists Federation (APF) have certain permissions from CASA. For example, the SAAA has a permission to provide for an ‘Authorised Person’ who can check your experimental aircraft for issuance of its Certificate of Airworthiness. And that sort of thing.

But slowly, CASA is moving to ‘Parts’ of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (1988) to replace the CAR’s and the supporting CAO’s (Civil Aviation Orders).

The relatively new ‘Part 149’ of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (1988) provides that a Sport Aviation Body (that could operate under previous exemptions) will be forced to apply to CASA for an ASAO Certificate; a CASA ‘license’ to operate as an Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO). It means that if they don’t apply, or they are not granted a certificate, there will be ‘strict liability’ provisions on them if they attempt to perform an administration function. Or if they don’t comply with the provisions of their certificate, there’s trouble too. It’s a provision that has been forced onto the industry.

Part 149 is much more than a ‘gun to the head’ of Australia’s specialty Sport Aviation Bodies to apply for a simple certificate to operate. It also allows CASA to transfer the cost, legal liability and operational responsibility to self-administer under Part 149. The ASAO’s will also need to resource themselves to properly administer their members, under the watchful eye of CASA.

Rumblings of discontent

AOPA Australia has recently learned that many SAB’s are now starting to cool their jets; something they never really wanted in the first instance is now looking decidedly less attractive from a cost and risk perspective, and less likely to be implemented at all if everyone rejects the idea.

It’s mainly because CASA’s new legislative pearl of wisdom plans to hand over control to SAB’s to regulate their portion of the industry, and in doing so, dumps ‘strict legal liability’ onto them. That is to say, the organisation – and by implication the accountable manager(s) and safety manager(s) in these organisations – will be ultimately responsible arising from their actions or inactions.

Aviation bodies in Australia are rightly concerned that CASA has not outlined exactly what PART 149 means for them, and they have questions as to how much it will cost to ensure each body can comply with the provisions. They also want to know exactly how premiums for professional indemnity insurance will be funded. According to some of the SAB’s we spoke to, not only has there been no guidance, there is no money to assist either. It appears to be a loaded gun to the head of the SAB’s to comply with a provision that may see some or all of them meet their ultimate financial or legal demise in the future.

To add insult to injury, two of the bodies – the MAAA (Model Aeronautical Association of Australia) and the AWAL (Australian Warbirds Association Ltd) will not even get a shoe in; they’ve apparently been disallowed from the pathway offered for Part 149, by CASA.

The 53-page draft circular issued by CASA ‘Approved self-Administering Aviation Organisations’ outlines the requirements of the writing and approval of Part 149 Manual of Standards (MOS) that each organisation needs to submit, prior to their approval. It also outlines the limits and conditions imposed on ASAO’s, the number of ASAOs that can be issued certificates, their enforcement powers (and CASA’s ability to intervene), the ASAO’s requirement to share information with CASA, and other provisions.

But the organisations know that the reason that they exist is because they provide specialist services, expertise and do specialists tasks for their members and the industry. They are each unique and valuable to their members in their own right.

If CASA tries to impose a monopoly on the industry and allow just one SAB to cover all the necessary areas (like parachuting, gliding, experimental sport aircraft, rotorcraft, warbirds), it sends a message that they would be happy to accept a private-member company operating a monopoly in aviation. At best, it will open the door for accusations of the Government fostering a privately funded, anti-competitive environment. At worst, a massive class action or public legislative enquiry will see CASA seriously challenged.

The opportunity

RAAus appears to be bucking the emerging trend by completing the paperwork necessary to oblige CASA with their application for Part 149 approval. But if RAAus is certified, it will not be enough to allow CASA a credible attempt at the Part 149 project, because it needs multiple players to have any chance of being viable.

If the industry rejects Part 149 unanimously, it could set the scene for reform in the industry that would be ground-breaking. It could mean that the industry stands as one, identifying and eliminating the things that set each of these organisations apart, while pushing hard towards reform on things that bring them closer together.

To this end, the opportunity to reject Part 149 may provide the industry a moment to shine; to send a clear message to CASA while allowing the SAB’s to show a united front on things that really matter, like standardised medicals for all private pilots without regard to the registration numbers on the tail.

What we know is that CASA has renewed reasons to be concerned. While RAAus still appears (at least on the surface) to be driving down the slippery Part 149 highway, the others in the industry are now questioning – more than ever before – whether they should slam the brakes on the project now, or gently squeeze them and tell CASA to come to the table with a proposal that makes more sense.

This will be a test of the resolve of the industry to unite – and the coming months are going to be key. Let’s see if they will choose to lie down, or take a stand to change the course of aviation in Australia, for the better.

Hmm...see what I mean - 

Now where's the end of that Ducked tape? - MTF..P2 

[Kharon]

Duck 149 - Not only alive:

But thriving and gaining weight.

"CASR Part 149 specifies the requirements for aviation administration organisations involved in sport and recreational aircraft activities."

Not being familiar with the Approved Self Administering Aviation Organisations (ASO) system, walking into it ‘cold’ and only having Master Christie’s potted version (see above) to work with – I took a little time to dig around and see what the fuss is about. To those who understand and have been through the argument, the AOPA article may well make some sense; however there is little to inspire the ‘insurrection’ demanded and little grounds for a boycott. Seems to me CASA have stolen the march after ‘due process’ and consultation.

"The regulation was made on 12 July 2018 and commences on 14 July 2019."

"The Manual of Standards was made on 18 December 2018."

If it is, or can be shown that CASA have reneged on ‘agreement’ reached during the consultations; or, have weighted the new regulation to suit ‘vested’ interests, then it is a court battle not a political one now, for the regulation is there in fact, effective 14 July 2019. AOPA provide no indication that 149 is in fact law; if it is then why is the protest beginning a full year after the 'consultation' event? Well after the horse has not only bolted, but is halfway across the parish by now. It is an established fact in history that the end result of nearly every ‘consultation’ bears little resemblance to that which was ‘agreed’.

“However, the mechanisms that link self-administering organisations to CASA have been subject to considerable review since the 2007 NPRM and may be the subject of further review on the basis of public consultation before the regulation undergoes final legislative drafting.”

On the surface and in practical terms the above statement seems fair and reasonable; this has been in the works and on the table since 2007. Up front it seems that there has been adequate opportunity for ‘consultation’ and submissions.

“These requirements allow an ASAO and CASA to have an overarching view of the compliance status of the ASAO’s authorisation holders, which will facilitate the early identification of any systemic behavioural issues that could adversely affect aviation safety and present a risk to either the ASAO’s operations, or to the safety of air navigation generally.”

The reasons why (above) in principal, seem to be responsible and cognisant of the duty of care CASA have; and, to ensure that they perform their design function, as requested and required by the ‘Act’.  Furthermore:-

“These requirements ensure that the ASAO has developed the procedures, processes and information flows necessary for an ASAO’s personnel to safely perform their aviation administration functions. They also provide information necessary to satisfy CASA that the ASAO meets the regulatory requirements for the issue of an ASAO certificate under regulation 149.075.”

Once again, what reasonable person could have any objection to the underpinning principals espoused. It seems that the principals of holding an Air Operator Certificate; or Flight school licence have been applied. Those principals, whilst ‘heavy handed’ , expensive and onerous etc. exist in real life, for no approval can be given without compliance. That is the state the industry has allowed itself to be bullied and brow beaten into. But I digress (easily done).

A fast skip through the 149 rule set reveals much of the same stuff we find in most of the existing new rules: the if’s, but’s and’s and maybe’s. All well and good for the legal eagles but a minefield for those attempting to remain in compliance – on a shoe string budget – like our Sports Aircraft Associations.  For example :- 149 F. Read it carefully, I did and it is seriously scary. I read it through twice – to be sure, to be sure. Even to a terminally thick head like mine, the implications are of great concern. As Christie says:-

"It also allows CASA to transfer the cost, legal liability and operational responsibility to self-administer under Part 149."

Not only, but also 149F effectively allows CASA to waltz in, demand changes and leave the certificate holder carrying the can for CASA preference. True dat............

Could this all have been prevented? Probably. I neither care nor want to know why there is so much disunity among the Alphabet Soup Groups. I do know that so long as it exists it will be not only exploited, but fuelled and fed by CASA. I’d knock some fool heads together if I had my way, maybe even kick some silly, ego fed, profit driven rumps: alas. When one sets out to tackle a dangerous mountain, the only real chance of survival depends solely and wholly on the entire team working together. Sail a yacht in the Hobart classic – team effort. It all come down to a concerted effort by all; no team = no win. Sort yourselves out boys, the crocodiles have you by the nuts.

Toot – toot.

[thorn bird]

God I luv Australia, there has to be something in the water here:

It the good Ol USA. Index (Yes they even include an index) Part 61

Subpart J—Sport Pilots
§61.301   What is the purpose of this subpart and to whom does it apply?
§61.303   If I want to operate a light-sport aircraft, what operating limits and endorsement requirements in this subpart must I comply with?
§61.305   What are the age and language requirements for a sport pilot certificate?
§61.307   What tests do I have to take to obtain a sport pilot certificate?
§61.309   What aeronautical knowledge must I have to apply for a sport pilot certificate?
§61.311   What flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply for a sport pilot certificate?
§61.313   What aeronautical experience must I have to apply for a sport pilot certificate?
§61.315   What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot certificate?
§61.317   Is my sport pilot certificate issued with aircraft category and class ratings?
§61.319   [Reserved]
§61.321   How do I obtain privileges to operate an additional category or class of light-sport aircraft?
§61.323   [Reserved]
§61.325   How do I obtain privileges to operate a light-sport aircraft at an airport within, or in airspace within, Class B, C, and D airspace, or in other airspace with an airport having an operational control tower?
§61.327   Are there specific endorsement requirements to operate a light-sport aircraft based on VH?
Subpart K—Flight Instructors With a Sport Pilot Rating
§61.401   What is the purpose of this subpart?
§61.403   What are the age, language, and pilot certificate requirements for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
§61.405   What tests do I have to take to obtain a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
§61.407   What aeronautical knowledge must I have to apply for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
§61.409   What flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
§61.411   What aeronautical experience must I have to apply for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
§61.412   Do I need additional training to provide instruction on control and maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to the instruments in a light-sport aircraft based on VH?
§61.413   What are the privileges of my flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
§61.415   What are the limits of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
§61.417   Will my flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating list aircraft category and class ratings?
§61.419   How do I obtain privileges to provide training in an additional category or class of light-sport aircraft?
§61.421   May I give myself an endorsement?
§61.423   What are the recordkeeping requirements for a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating?
§61.425   How do I renew my flight instructor certificate?
§61.427   What must I do if my flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating expires?
§61.429   May I exercise the privileges of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating if I hold a flight instructor certificate with another rating?

Sample of the body of the legislation (Apologise for the formatting aint my forte):

§61.301   What is the purpose of this subpart and to whom does it apply?
(a) This subpart prescribes the following requirements that apply to a sport pilot certificate:
(1) Eligibility.
(2) Aeronautical knowledge.
(3) Flight proficiency.
(4) Aeronautical experience.
(5) Endorsements.
(6) Privileges and limits.
(b) Other provisions of this part apply to the logging of flight time and testing.
© This subpart applies to applicants for, and holders of, sport pilot certificates. It also applies to holders of recreational pilot certificates and higher, as provided in §61.303.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-11133, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004, as amended by Amdt. 61-125, 75 FR 5221, Feb. 1, 2010]
 Back to Top
§61.303   If I want to operate a light-sport aircraft, what operating limits and endorsement requirements in this subpart must I comply with?
(a) Use the following table to determine what operating limits and endorsement requirements in this subpart, if any, apply to you when you operate a light-sport aircraft. The medical certificate specified in this table must be in compliance with §61.2 in regards to currency and validity. If you hold a recreational pilot certificate, but not a medical certificate, you must comply with cross country requirements in §61.101 ©, even if your flight does not exceed 50 nautical miles from your departure airport. You must also comply with requirements in other subparts of this part that apply to your certificate and the operation you conduct.
If you hold And you hold Then you may operate And
(1) A medical certificate (i) A sport pilot certificate, (A) Any light-sport aircraft for which you hold the endorsements required for its category and class (1) You must hold any other endorsements required by this subpart, and comply with the limitations in §61.315.
  (ii) At least a recreational pilot certificate with a category and class rating, (A) Any light-sport aircraft in that category and class, (1) You do not have to hold any of the endorsements required by this subpart, nor do you have to comply with the limitations in §61.315.
  (iii) At least a recreational pilot certificate but not a rating for the category and class of light sport aircraft you operate, (A) That light-sport aircraft, only if you hold the endorsements required in §61.321 for its category and class, (1) You must comply with the limitations in §61.315, except §61.315©(14) and, if a private pilot or higher, §61.315©(7).
(2) Only a U.S. driver's license (i) A sport pilot certificate, (A) Any light-sport aircraft for which you hold the endorsements required for its category and class. (1) You must hold any other endorsements required by this subpart, and comply with the limitations in §61.315.
  (ii) At least a recreational pilot certificate with a category and class rating, (A) Any light-sport aircraft in that category and class, (1) You do not have to hold any of the endorsements required by this subpart, but you must comply with the limitations in §61.315.
  (iii) At least a recreational pilot certificate but not a rating for the category and class of light-sport aircraft you operate, (A) That light-sport aircraft, only if you hold the endorsements required in §61.321 for its category and class, (1) You must comply with the limitations in §61.315, except §61.315©(14) and, if a private pilot or higher, §61.315©(7).
(3) Neither a medical certificate nor a U.S. driver's license (i) A sport pilot certificate, (A) Any light-sport glider or balloon for which you hold the endorsements required for its category and class (1) You must hold any other endorsements required by this subpart, and comply with the limitations in §61.315.
  (ii) At least a private pilot certificate with a category and class rating for glider or balloon, (A) Any light-sport glider or balloon in that category and class (1) You do not have to hold any of the endorsements required by this subpart, nor do you have to comply with the limitations in §61.315.
  (iii) At least a private pilot certificate but not a rating for glider or balloon, (A) Any light-sport glider or balloon, only if you hold the endorsements required in §61.321 for its category and class (1) You must comply with the limitations in §61.315, except §61.315©(14) and, if a private pilot or higher, §61.315©(7).
(b) A person using a U.S. driver's license to meet the requirements of this paragraph must—
(1) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle;
(2) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);
(3) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and
(4) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-11133, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004, as amended by Amdt. 61-124, 74 FR 42562, Aug. 21, 2009; Amdt. 61-125, 75 FR 5221, Feb. 1, 2010]
 Back to Top
§61.305   What are the age and language requirements for a sport pilot certificate?
(a) To be eligible for a sport pilot certificate you must:
(1) Be at least 17 years old (or 16 years old if you are applying to operate a glider or balloon).
(2) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English. If you cannot read, speak, write, and understand English because of medical reasons, the FAA may place limits on your certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of light-sport aircraft.
 Back to Top
§61.307   What tests do I have to take to obtain a sport pilot certificate?
To obtain a sport pilot certificate, you must pass the following tests:
(a) Knowledge test. You must pass a knowledge test on the applicable aeronautical knowledge areas listed in §61.309. Before you may take the knowledge test for a sport pilot certificate, you must receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who trained you or reviewed and evaluated your home-study course on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed in §61.309 certifying you are prepared for the test.
(b) Practical test. You must pass a practical test on the applicable areas of operation listed in §§61.309 and 61.311. Before you may take the practical test for a sport pilot certificate, you must receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who provided you with flight training on the areas of operation specified in §§61.309 and 61.311 in preparation for the practical test. This endorsement certifies that you meet the applicable aeronautical knowledge and experience requirements and are prepared for the practical test.
 Back to Top
§61.309   What aeronautical knowledge must I have to apply for a sport pilot certificate?
To apply for a sport pilot certificate you must receive and log ground training from an authorized instructor or complete a home-study course on the following aeronautical knowledge areas:
(a) Applicable regulations of this chapter that relate to sport pilot privileges, limits, and flight operations.
(b) Accident reporting requirements of the National Transportation Safety Board.
© Use of the applicable portions of the aeronautical information manual and FAA advisory circulars.
(d) Use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage, dead reckoning, and navigation systems, as appropriate.
(e) Recognition of critical weather situations from the ground and in flight, windshear avoidance, and the procurement and use of aeronautical weather reports and forecasts.
(f) Safe and efficient operation of aircraft, including collision avoidance, and recognition and avoidance of wake turbulence.
(g) Effects of density altitude on takeoff and climb performance.
(h) Weight and balance computations.
(i) Principles of aerodynamics, powerplants, and aircraft systems.
(j) Stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery techniques, as applicable.
(k) Aeronautical decision making and risk management.
(l) Preflight actions that include—
(1) How to get information on runway lengths at airports of intended use, data on takeoff and landing distances, weather reports and forecasts, and fuel requirements; and
(2) How to plan for alternatives if the planned flight cannot be completed or if you encounter delays.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-11133, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004, as amended by Amdt. 61-125, 75 FR 5221, Feb. 1, 2010]
 Back to Top
§61.311   What flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply for a sport pilot certificate?
To apply for a sport pilot certificate you must receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the following areas of operation, as appropriate, for airplane single-engine land or sea, glider, gyroplane, airship, balloon, powered parachute land or sea, and weight-shift-control aircraft land or sea privileges:
(a) Preflight preparation.
(b) Preflight procedures.
© Airport, seaplane base, and gliderport operations, as applicable.
(d) Takeoffs (or launches), landings, and go-arounds.
(e) Performance maneuvers, and for gliders, performance speeds.
(f) Ground reference maneuvers (not applicable to gliders and balloons).
(g) Soaring techniques (applicable only to gliders).
(h) Navigation.
(i) Slow flight (not applicable to lighter-than-air aircraft and powered parachutes).
(j) Stalls (not applicable to lighter-than-air aircraft, gyroplanes, and powered parachutes).
(k) Emergency operations.
(l) Post-flight procedures.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-11133, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004, as amended by Amdt. 61-125, 75 FR 5221, Feb. 1, 2010]
 Back to Top

§61.313   What aeronautical experience must I have to apply for a sport pilot certificate?
Use the following table to determine the aeronautical experience you must have to apply for a sport pilot certificate:
If you are applying for a sport pilot certificate with .  .  . Then you must log at least .  .  . Which must include at least .  .  .
(a) Airplane category and single-engine land or sea class privileges, (1) 20 hours of flight time, including at least 15 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor in a single-engine airplane and at least 5 hours of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in §61.311, (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training, (ii) 10 takeoffs and landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport, (iii) One solo cross-country flight of at least 75 nautical miles total distance, with a full-stop landing at a minimum of two points and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of at least 25 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations, and (iv) 2 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor on those areas of operation specified in §61.311 in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test.
(b) Glider category privileges, and you have not logged at least 20 hours of flight time in a heavier-than-air aircraft, (1) 10 hours of flight time in a glider, including 10 flights in a glider receiving flight training from an authorized instructor and at least 2 hours of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in §61.311, (i) Five solo launches and landings, and (ii) at least 3 training flights with an authorized instructor on those areas of operation specified in §61.311 in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test.
© Glider category privileges, and you have logged 20 hours flight time in a heavier-than-air aircraft, (1) 3 hours of flight time in a glider, including five flights in a glider while receiving flight training from an authorized instructor and at least 1 hour of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in §61.311, (i) Three solo launches and landings, and (ii) at least 3 training flights with an authorized instructor on those areas of operation specified in §61.311 in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test.
(d) Rotorcraft category and gyroplane class privileges, (1) 20 hours of flight time, including 15 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor in a gyroplane and at least 5 hours of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in §61.311, (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training, (ii) 10 takeoffs and landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport, (iii) One solo cross-country flight of at least 50 nautical miles total distance, with a full-stop landing at a minimum of two points, and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of at least 25 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations, and (iv) 2 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor on those areas of operation specified in §61.311 in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test.
(e) Lighter-than-air category and airship class privileges, (1) 20 hours of flight time, including 15 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor in an airship and at least 3 hours performing the duties of pilot in command in an airship with an authorized instructor in the areas of operation listed in §61.311, (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training, (ii) Three takeoffs and landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport, (iii) One cross-country flight of at least 25 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations, and (iv) 2 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor on those areas of operation specified in §61.311 in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test.
(f) Lighter-than-air category and balloon class privileges, (1) 7 hours of flight time in a balloon, including three flights with an authorized instructor and one flight performing the duties of pilot in command in a balloon with an authorized instructor in the areas of operation listed in §61.311, (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training, and (ii) 1 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor on those areas of operation specified in §61.311 in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test.
(g) Powered parachute category land or sea class privileges, (1) 12 hours of flight time in a powered parachute, including 10 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor in a powered parachute, and at least 2 hours of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in §61.311 (i) 1 hour of cross-country flight training, (ii) 20 takeoffs and landings to a full stop in a powered parachute with each landing involving flight in the traffic pattern at an airport; (iii) 10 solo takeoffs and landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport, (iv) One solo flight with a landing at a different airport and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of at least 10 nautical miles between takeoff and landing locations, and (v) 1 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor on those areas of operation specified in §61.311 in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test.
(h) Weight-shift-control aircraft category land or sea class privileges, (1) 20 hours of light time, including 15 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor in a weight-shift-control aircraft and at least 5 hours of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in §61.311, (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training, (ii) 10 takeoffs and landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport, (iii) One solo cross-country flight of at least 50 nautical miles total distance, with a full-stop landing at a minimum of two points, and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of at least 25 nautical miles between takeoff and landing locations, and (iv) 2 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor on those areas of operation specified in §61.311 in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-11133, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004; Amdt. 61-124A, 74 FR 53647, Oct. 20, 2009; Amdt. 61-125, 75 FR 5221, Feb. 1, 2010]
 Back to Top
§61.315   What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot certificate?
(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph © of this section.
(b) You may share the operating expenses of a flight with a passenger, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or aircraft rental fees. You must pay at least half the operating expenses of the flight.
© You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft:
(1) That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire.
(2) For compensation or hire.
(3) In furtherance of a business.
(4) While carrying more than one passenger.
(5) At night.
(6) In Class A airspace.
(7) In Class B, C, and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, and to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational control tower unless you have met the requirements specified in §61.325.
(8) Outside the United States, unless you have prior authorization from the country in which you seek to operate. Your sport pilot certificate carries the limit “Holder does not meet ICAO requirements.”
(9) To demonstrate the aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer if you are an aircraft salesperson.
(10) In a passenger-carrying airlift sponsored by a charitable organization.
(11) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher.
(12) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
(13) Without visual reference to the surface.
(14) If the aircraft:
(i) Has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS, unless you have met the requirements of §61.327(b).
(ii) Has a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS, unless you have met the requirements of §61.327(a) or have logged flight time as pilot in command of an airplane with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS before April 2, 2010.
(15) Contrary to any operating limitation placed on the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft being flown.
(16) Contrary to any limit on your pilot certificate or airman medical certificate, or any other limit or endorsement from an authorized instructor.
(17) Contrary to any restriction or limitation on your U.S. driver's license or any restriction or limitation imposed by judicial or administrative order when using your driver's license to satisfy a requirement of this part.
(18) While towing any object.
(19) As a pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than one pilot is required by the type certificate of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-11133, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004, as amended by Amdt. 61-125, 75 FR 5221, Feb. 1, 2010; Amdt. 61-125A, 75 FR 15610, Mar. 30, 2010]
 Back to Top
§61.317   Is my sport pilot certificate issued with aircraft category and class ratings?
Your sport pilot certificate does not list aircraft category and class ratings. When you successfully pass the practical test for a sport pilot certificate, regardless of the light-sport aircraft privileges you seek, the FAA will issue you a sport pilot certificate without any category and class ratings. The FAA will provide you with a logbook endorsement for the category and class of aircraft in which you are authorized to act as pilot in command.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-11133, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004, as amended by Amdt. 61-125, 75 FR 5222, Feb. 1, 2010; Amdt. 61-125A, 75 FR 15610, Mar. 30, 2010]
 Back to Top
§61.319   [Reserved]
 Back to Top
§61.321   How do I obtain privileges to operate an additional category or class of light-sport aircraft?
If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek to operate an additional category or class of light-sport aircraft, you must—
(a) Receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who trained you on the applicable aeronautical knowledge areas specified in §61.309 and areas of operation specified in §61.311. The endorsement certifies you have met the aeronautical knowledge and flight proficiency requirements for the additional light-sport aircraft privilege you seek;
(b) Successfully complete a proficiency check from an authorized instructor other than the instructor who trained you on the aeronautical knowledge areas and areas of operation specified in §§61.309 and 61.311 for the additional light-sport aircraft privilege you seek;
© Complete an application for those privileges on a form and in a manner acceptable to the FAA and present this application to the authorized instructor who conducted the proficiency check specified in paragraph (b) of this section; and
(d) Receive a logbook endorsement from the instructor who conducted the proficiency check specified in paragraph (b) of this section certifying you are proficient in the applicable areas of operation and aeronautical knowledge areas, and that you are authorized for the additional category and class light-sport aircraft privilege.
 Back to Top
§61.323   [Reserved]
 Back to Top
§61.325   How do I obtain privileges to operate a light-sport aircraft at an airport within, or in airspace within, Class B, C, and D airspace, or in other airspace with an airport having an operational control tower?
If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek privileges to operate a light-sport aircraft in Class B, C, or D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, or to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational control tower, you must receive and log ground and flight training. The authorized instructor who provides this training must provide a logbook endorsement that certifies you are proficient in the following aeronautical knowledge areas and areas of operation:
(a) The use of radios, communications, navigation system/facilities, and radar services.
(b) Operations at airports with an operating control tower to include three takeoffs and landings to a full stop, with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern, at an airport with an operating control tower.
© Applicable flight rules of part 91 of this chapter for operations in Class B, C, and D airspace and air traffic control clearances.
 Back to Top
§61.327   Are there specific endorsement requirements to operate a light-sport aircraft based on VH?
(a) Except as specified in paragraph © of this section, if you hold a sport pilot certificate and you seek to operate a light-sport aircraft that is an airplane with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS you must—
(1) Receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in an airplane that has a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS; and
(2) Receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who provided the training specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section certifying that you are proficient in the operation of light-sport aircraft that is an airplane with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS.
(b) If you hold a sport pilot certificate and you seek to operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS you must—
(1) Receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft that has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS; and
(2) Receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who provided the training specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section certifying that you are proficient in the operation of light-sport aircraft with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.
© The training and endorsements required by paragraph (a) of this section are not required if you have logged flight time as pilot in command of an airplane with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS prior to April 2, 2010.
[Doc. No. FAA-2007-29015, 75 FR 5222, Feb. 1, 2010; Amdt. 61-125A, 75 FR 15610, Mar. 30, 2010]
 Back to Top
Subpart K—Flight Instructors With a Sport Pilot Rating
Source: Docket No. FAA-2001-11133, 69 FR 44875, July 27, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

Now compare this with Part 149 and the attendant MOS. Go on I dare you! No MOS in the US reg's, its all there in front of you in plain English. No wonder so many people go flying in the USA, its fun.In Australia your just setting yourself up with a mountain of grief to become a criminal.

[P7_TOM]

It does take a little time (even without TB’s dreadful spacing) to come to grips with the FAR’s. Best way I found was to simply forget every way you know about navigating the OZ regulations and simply follow the ‘dotted lines’.

The FAA is, by nature and remit every bit as aware of the ‘legal’ aspects of the ‘law’ as writ; equally, if not even more so ‘compliance’ oriented than the Australian counterpart. Yet the wad of text TB has put up is just about all there is to the FAA stance on the same matters our almost mind boggling 149 seeks to achieve.

I reckon the real difference is in the USA approach to ‘law’ as in governing a ‘free’ nation of folks who will not sit back and have ‘whatever’ comes spoon fed and say thank you. I would love to see the FAA try and foist the Australian Part parts 61, 135, 141, 142 and now part 149 on not only the ‘GA’ operators but on the private sector. The AOPA would have a hernia before the ‘consultation’ ever began. Why – well the Americans would not tolerate it – that’s why.

All of Australian aviation’s ‘problems’ start and end with one thing – too easy going, culturally too well trained to kick up a fuss and; afraid of the consequences of using the most powerful word in the world. NO. They also seem to have a problem uniting against a common enemy.

I can’t begin to count the number of opportunities gifted to the aviation world in OZ, which have been wasted. Take a look back over three decades of parliamentary history – all there; the same splintered, disorganised, wishy-washy effort achieving SDA except a large bill for the country.

Considering Australia’s reputation for ‘a fair go’ and the reputed fighting spirit of this nation ‘we’ seem to have let so much go by – unchallenged – that placid acceptance and bitching after the event has become the norm. This may be acceptable in the change room after being beaten in a match – but when it comes to the rules which govern not only an industry and your own future – I’d have expected a little more in the way of balls.

“Oh me, Oh my, look at what they’ve done to us now.” Bollocks – you let ‘em do it and keep letting ‘em do it; time after time. That is insanity – according to Einstein.

Bugger it, the ancient bladder strikes; “set ‘em up again – I’ll be back soon”. " Handing over". .-.

[Peetwo]

Duck 149 a catalyst perhaps? 



Excellent stuff Thorny and Ol'Tom I was kind of wondering what they had in place in the USofA for the sports/rec etc categories...

I've presently got a mutual tweeper (follower/following) that resides in the US who is all over the current series of fatal accidents in Alaska and Hawaii. So I asked him what they had in place to regulate commercial parachuting ops (re the Hawaii A90 fatal accident that killed 11 -   more on that soon in closing loops) and this was his answer:

...That’s a good question. Federal regulations (14 CFR Part 119) describe the certification requirements for air carriers and commercial operators, but exempts skydiving flights operating within 25 miles of the departure airport. As a result, skydiving flights are conducted in accordance with 14 CFR Part 91 and 14 CFR Part 105...

    
I guess that kind of gels with what rules (i.e FAR Part 61) a sports pilot has to adhere to in the States. 

However for now I want to come back to "K"'s post above.
   
Much like "K" I was somewhat perplexed by what NC was banging on about when according to our very own, Patron Saint of Aviation Safety, St Commode Part 149 is all over bar the shouting: Hansard - Oversight of CASA 19 November, 2018.

St Commode:..I understand, though, that the committee is interested in the self-administered sport sector and the comparison of the medical and other standards for pilots within the self-administered sector against those CASA regulated pilots. Firstly, I'd like to start with the self-administered sport aviation sector. This sector has been self-administered for many years. It conducts limited operations, and its pilots and aircraft are oversighted by approved organisations that are required to meet CASA's requirements to be approved. These requirements include key personnel with appropriate qualifications and experience; procedures which specify the scope of operations and how the organisation will comply with the regulations and the manual of standards; the maintenance of an appropriate structure to manage their approval functions; the maintenance of an appropriate audit and surveillance system, including safety management systems; processes to ensure procedural fairness for CASA review of internal decisions; and an assurance of reasonable, reliable and non-discriminatory access to membership.

Using RAAus as an example—and you heard from them this morning—they are a CASA approved organisation and require people who wish to access the benefits they provide to be members and to pay an annual membership fee. In return, RAAus oversight members' training and aircraft maintenance. Membership also includes a level of public and passenger liability insurance. The level of safety that RAAus offer is less than for aircraft certified, operated and maintained under the CASA system, and accordingly they cost less to operate. Consequently, RAAus aircraft are required to display a warning that persons who fly in the aircraft do so at their  own risk and that the aircraft is not operated to the same safety standards as a normal commercial passenger flight. CASR,

Civil Aviation Safety Regulation, part 149, approved self-administering aviation organisations, was made on 12 July 2018 and will commence on 14 July 2019. It was referenced on a number of occasions today. The proposed regulations were consulted extensively, and it also went through the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and the technical working groups... 

Or if you prefer in pictures:

This invariably led to the now infamous St Commode deception/perception of misleading the Senate:

...That was in November 2017, when we announced these changes. AMROBA, the Gliding Federation of Australia, and AOPA, who were here at the table a few minutes ago, also signed off unconditionally on the part 149 self-administration regulations, which were consulted through the technical working groups, of which they were a part. I'm quite happy to table the document with their signatures on it, if you would like me to. In conclusion—

CHAIR: The inference there is that their evidence to this committee wasn't accurate?

Mr Carmody: Senator, I have a signed letter here, which I'm quite happy to table.

Senator PATRICK:  Perhaps they didn't understand the full circumstances.
CHAIR:  If we need to, we'll let them speak for themselves.

Mr Carmody:  Senator, perhaps they didn't, but they had a shot and they've made a number of allegations. I'm just making the point that they signed off on this as well. We respond to all of AOPA's letters, to the best of my knowledge—maybe not as quickly as they would like; we get a lot of letters. Finally, Senator, I would say that across some of the evidence today there has been a fair bit of cherrypicking, which is the reason why I would like to very briefly step through how this actually works and also how licensing and medicals actually work in the United States and the United Kingdom, because that's what we do. I'm quite happy to take some questions.

CHAIR:  Let's see if the senators are happy to have that tabled.

Senator PATRICK:  That's the signed document from—

Mr Carmody:  It's a signed letter of endorsement for part 149, approved self-administering aviation organisations. It has the signatures of all of the associations—all of the people who were there...

---

& then:

Thorny: "..Now compare this with Part 149 and the attendant MOS. Go on I dare you!.." 

However it should be remembered that Senate hearing occurred before another important date i.e the promulgation of the CASR Part 149 MOS legislative instrument. And that is I suspect where the problem now lies because remember the MOS is where a wannabe Part 149 association needs to refer for the nuts and bolts on how to function/be compliant with the regulation Duck 149. 

My guess is that as we are nearing the official Duck 149 activation date that the Alphabet soup 149 wannabes are coming around to the realisation of just how sinister and just how many potential gotchas there are within Duck 149.

The following part of the Hansard St Commode spells out (in plain English if you don't mind -   ) what exactly will occur once the 14th of July comes to pass:

..The regulations do not compel existing sport and recreational aviation organisations to become approved self-administering organisations. Existing organisations that do not wish to become part 149 organisations can continue to operate under properly conditioned exemptions, subject to relevant civil aviation legislation and CASA being satisfied that they are unlikely to have an adverse effect on the safety of air navigation. Such organisations will only be able to expand the scope of their aviation administration functions—that is, beyond their pre part 149 approvals—or issue additional authorisations if they hold a 149 certificate...

Hmm...clear as mud? - Nasty bunch of Duckers aren't they...  And that is why "K" is absolutely spot on when he says "the crocodiles have got you by the nuts" -   

But wait there is more because in the process of searching CASR Part 149 on Google I came across an interesting link, which was in fact a comment in reply to the release in 2014 of the ASRR (Forsyth) final report from a Jim McDowall -  https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...Dowell.pdf - that in hindsight is very prophetic in regards to the current situation with the introduction of Part 149 in a couple of weeks time: 

..Since 1998 CASA has been working on the Part 103/Part 149 arrangements. The last
consultation phase was in 2007. By any stretch, in any organisation, this is glacial pace and
this probably goes to the heart of the issue. There is little demand from the sports aviation
community, the sports aviation bodies fear the implications and this piece of regulation is well
down the priority list of CASA, even though it potentially affects 40% of the aircraft flying in
Australia.

As a consequence, there is little faith within the sports aviation community that Part 149 will
be adopted by and it SHOULD NOT BE for the following reasons.

Conflict of Interest

It is not possible for a sports aviation body to be both a regulator and an advocate. There are
many examples in society where these sorts of conflicts are recognised and avoided, for
example a solicitor acting for both sides in an action.

Most sports aviation bodies are set up as associations. Associations are set up for the benefit
of members and when a person joins an association the parties enter into a contract. It is a
fundamental tenet of law that contracts cannot be altered without the permission of all parties
to the contract. Consequently when the rights of a sports aviation body member are altered
without reference to the membership the contract is breached.

CASA seems not to recognise that these bodies are subject to legal responsibilities and
constraints beyond the various civil aviation laws. For example, CASA’s SPORT AVIATION
SELF-ADMINISTRATION HANDBOOK 2010 discusses the imposition of a regime of
corporate governance adopted from the various Australian Standards. These standards are
developed for use in companies and in general terms reflect the subtle but significant
difference between a company and an association; that is, a company exists for its own benefit
whereas an association exists for the benefit of its members. Consequently, statements in the
document such as (page 7):

Compliance management has a reason for its
existence: it demonstrates sound corporate
governance by the board in the management
of company risks, one of which is compliance .
Compliance management also adds value to the
organisation in terms of reputation and sustainability .

An association, as a sports aviation advocate, is representing the risks of its members whereas
the statement above seems to propose that the association is subject to the risk – clearly not
so. The association is merely a mechanism for aggregating the risk for the benefit of the
regulator (CASA)

Compulsion

It is ironic that a government that stands steadfast against compulsory unionism is prepared to
implement systems that require compulsory membership of an organisation in order to fly
aircraft that CASA does not want to regulate directly, quite often in situations that result in
perverse and draconian outcomes.

For example, a pilot with a PPL or ATPL who wants to fly a powered sailplane away from a
GFA club operation has to be a member of the GFA and be subservient to a well meaning, but
amateur system whose recent accident history would demonstrate it is dangerous to be a part
of (with regard to the number accidents involving 2 seat gliders with pilots under instruction).
In practice, a PPL holder is competent to fly a powered sailplane with a very minimum of
instruction, and in keeping with other aspects of these licences...

  Read it, absorb it and weep -   

To add another further irony Jim McDowall was one of only 5 individuals and/or associations that was prepared to have their response to the consultation process on the Part 149 MOS published: McDowall submission - CASA Part 149 MOS consultation.pdf

..I am a member of RAAus and have been a GFA member. I own a glider and have built and own a 95.10 ultralight. I have assisted in the construction or refurbishment of several aircraft. This submission may be published.

As a working document the Part 149 MOS is functionally useless as it lays down no standards for the content of the exposition that is required apart from some broad statements. This creates a potential for a highly variable, subjective approval process. This situation would leave CASA open to accusations of favouring the incumbent ASAO's over new entrants.

As no-one has written a Part 149 exposition for submission to CASA for approval, no-one has any idea of what content will meet with CASA's approval.

Australians expect that if you meet known standards for an activity you will be granted an approval for that activity.
This situation could be easily overcome by publication of a exposition template for Part 149.

It is noted that adoption of the MOS is dependent upon the continuation of the 95 series CAO's. Since the beginning of discussions on Part 149, Part 149 has always been predicated upon the adoption of Parts 103 and 105. The development of these parts has stalled.

Without knowing what Parts 103 and 105 will comprise, there is little point in proceeding with the implementation of Part 149 until such time as Parts 103 and 105 are developed to the point at which Parts 149, 103 and 105 can be introduced properly without a transition into the unknown...

  
Hmm...I think a couple of choccy frogs and a golden Tim Tam are due for that man McDowall...  

MTF? - Definitely!...P2 

[Peetwo]

Duck 149, via AOPA Oz - 


From Ben Morgan:

AOPA PILOT AUSTRALIA

DIGITAL EDITION - 28TH JUNE 2019

https://aopa.com.au/digital-edition-28th-june-2019/

AOPA Australia Members & Industry Supporters,

It’s been another dramatic week in general aviation with six of the industry’s nine sport aviation bodies communicating a clear rejection of CASA’s Part 149 Self-Administration aspirations to the Director of Aviation Safety Mr Shane Carmody.

The groups rejection of Part 149 comes off the back of CASA’s release of AC 149-01 v1.0, which spells out plainly the full scope of strict liability and costs about to be thrust onto the new Part 149 Self Administrations and ultimately their members.

At it’s very core CASA’s Part 149 is seeking to transform the very fabric of our member-based aviation associations, who’s purpose has been to protect members whilst fostering the growth and development of the various sectors, into privatised legislated co-regulators, putting them in conflict with their members.

That’s right, our associations are on a pathway to become privatised versions of CASA with all the trimmings. CASA Pty Ltd – the new and improved regulator where aircraft owners and pilots get to pick up the bill!

No longer happy with just one tax-payer funded regulator that receives $300 million per year to manage the industry’s regulatory needs, we are now on track to create multiple privatised regulators – one for each sector or more! Only in Australia, could this madness ever be taken seriously.

It’s time for a big wake-up call – before it’s too late.

Under Part 149 Self Administration the primacy of the organisation becomes the safe regulation and operation of its members, accepting full strict liability and all costs associated with managing itself within the legislation. The organisation becomes responsible for member surveillance and becomes directly involved in the enforcement of member activities and proceedings.

Be under no illusions, Part 149 Self Administration is the wholesale privatisation sell-off of your rights as an aircraft owner and pilot. And, whilst the glossy marketing is out there promising a de-regulated future with relaxed rules and freedom, the end result will be anything but. What you will get is costs, more costs and then some more costs.

Think it’s far-fetched? How well did privatisation work with our airports?

The new Part 149 Self Administration committees, boards or national councils will be forced to transform themselves into liability and risk mitigation zealots, seeking out all and any opportunity to cover their backsides and personal assets against the potential for litigation as a result of injury or fatality within the membership. This new focus will be driven by nervous insurers who will be seeking to avoid the prospect of a payout and an eager regulator who is always keen to make an example of a person who breaches strict liability.

The prospect of time behind bars is an awfully compelling motivator.

The consequence of the above is that it will become hard to find persons to volunteer as a director, given the exposure to risk. Subsequently, Part 149 Self Administration organisations will be forced to transition to paid board positions, along with retaining significant insurance policies and premiums. Ultimately more costs.

The outlook for Part 149 Self Administration CEO’s and management is also not much better, they too will soon find themselves being tasked by their boards to identify and safeguard against any and all liability risks. The result will be the vast reshaping of each organisation to encompass a greater operational structure and overhead introducing further costs, along with a dramatic reduction in privileges’ as they seek to lower risk.

And, given that blame usually rolls downhill and away from boards in a time of crisis, we can expect to see a dramatic rise in CEO and management remuneration costs, as Part 149 Self Administration organisations struggle to resource persons willing to accept the risks involved.

Regardless of which part of the industry you are involved in, under Part 149 Self Administration the outcome will be the same; Higher Costs + Less Freedom = Lower Risk.

The only future that can safeguard the success of the entire general aviation industry – regardless of what you fly – whilst affording aircraft owners and pilots the greatest degree of freedom, is one managed under a central reformed government regulatory system. Rather than creating division, the industry’s associations should be standing together, demanding that CASA do the job for which it is payed $300 million each year to perform.

We do not need to subject aircraft owners and pilots to higher costs and less freedoms to achieve meaningful change and outcomes.

Best regards,

BENJAMIN MORGAN
AOPA Australia Executive Director

And Sandy's comment in reply:

Ben is correct, the future of GA is at stake and the current CASA direction is wrong. 

Consider and compare the rules and administration of road transport with that of aviation. 

Road rules, straightforward, understandable and uncontroversial. Graduated to cater for the many different users. A (state by state) Department of Transport and Roads promulgates the regulations. Separately police see to the enforcement. Separately the judiciary judges cases brought by the police. A tried and true system that works, part and parcel of our democracy. Not perfect but easily the best system yet devised. 

Now aviation, CASA, an independent Commonwealth corporate with effective power of judge, jury and executioner. A vast compilation of unworkable rules which Parliament has unfortunately rubber stamped into existence as part of the criminal code with strict liability level of proof. CASA being a corporate body, unlike a government department, can be sued and so has a strong motivation to reduce risk to itself. Being independent it has little direct allegiance back to the general public, let alone the General Aviation community. It exists in a Canberra cocoon, barely disturbed by it’s Minister who tries to keep his distance. The Minister issues a Statement of Expectations which is his paltry official direction to CASA. A statement which is little more than the broadest of ‘motherhood’ statements and therefore meaningless. 

But wait, there’s more. Now CASA wants to distance itself, to reduce it’s workload and responsibilities in favour of it’s new version of aviation administration by a series of government sponsored private companies. 

Can you imagine the chaos on the roads if this model were repeated into the administration, regulation and policing of our road rules?  Separate companies controlling the trucking sector, sports vehicles, motorcycles, agricultural vehicles, motor homes, bicycles and so on. Each monopoly body with its board and executive vying for membership, pushing up fees to pay higher salaries and devising ever more complex rules to insulate its self from liability.  

We can’t sit back and watch our flying freedoms and the pursuit of our aviation activities evaporate before our very eyes. Ring write or otherwise contact your local federal MPs and Senators. Join a political party. Band together some friends, organise and make a deputation, our MPs are our representatives, that is why we pay them. 

 
MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AOPA Oz steps into the Regional Express v CASA/ALAEA bunfight - 

AOPA AUSTRALIA SPEAKS WITH ABC RADIO SYDNEY
July 2, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
AOPA Australia Executive Director Benjamin Morgan speaks with ABC Radio Sydney.

BM's got a point - have a look here: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...3#pid10423


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

BM fires off a blistering broadside on Duck 149 -   

Via AOPA Oz:

PART 149: A CORRUPTION OF CASA INTEGRITY

July 11, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan




Anyone visiting their social media accounts over the past week will have seen a considerable body of discussion and debate all focused on Part 149 Self-Administration and the impact it will have on our general aviation industry.

Whilst there are a range of opinions being offered, including some misguided personal attacks and insults, it is clear that aircraft owners and pilots have been afforded little to no information by CASA and are rightly concerned for where their industry is headed if forced to transition to a full user-pay Part 149 self-administration.

From my perspective, I honestly do not understand why any sector of our industry would desire Part 149, which simply duplicates the costs of aviation regulation, creating dual-standards that will only serve to add complexity, confusion and ultimately higher costs to the end user.

What industry needs right now is genuine reform, simplification and unification – not segregation via privatisation and certainly not the empowerment of self-interest.

During the past 20 years of CASA’s management of our aviation industry we have all watched on as they have slowly divided us into competing interest groups, and today we now have multiple pilot training and licensing standards, multiple aircraft registration standards, multiple medical standards and a host of other dual-standards that have nothing to do with safety, but instead on how much money you are paying to whom.

Never has Australia’s aviation ecosystem been so disjointed and unworkable than it is today.

CASA have fostered the rise of powerful self-interest which in turn has lobbied for regulatory disparity, arguing a right to maintain advantages, that have corrupted the integrity and impartiality of the regulator and its core function of safety.

No better example can be found than the issue of recreational and private pilot medicals, where CASA have entangled themselves in questionable approvals that benefit some self-administrations, permitting their pilots to fly powered aircraft in Australian airspace on a self-certification medical certificate.

Yet, in the same breath, CASA have outright refused to provide the same privileges to recreational and private pilots under their direct management and regulatory responsibility, citing safety concerns.  A decision that CASA is thoroughly unable to justify or adequately explain to either government or industry.

Where’s the Minister for Transport on all of this?  Either in absentia or conveniently looking the other direction, hoping no one notices him.

Now CASA is seeking to reinforce the segregations and disparity by establishing Part 149 Self Administrations for each sector within our aviation industry, creating powerful monopolies that will own our access to aviation.

Think about that… a Part 149 Self-Administration for model aircraft, one for uav/drones, one for ballooning, one for parachuting, one for gliding, one for rotorcraft, one for recreational, one for sport experimental, one for warbirds and maybe even one for private general aviation.

The possibilities for Part 149, according to CASA, are apparently endless and so will be the bill that aircraft owners and pilots will have to pay to participate.  Just assume that the average annual membership fee to each is $300 – that’s $3,000 per annum just to be a member.

Nowhere in the world would this Part 149 madness be accepted or allowed – and CASA knows this.

Our aviation industry, and the broader Australian public, are already funding CASA to the tune of approximately $300 million per-annum, so why should we pay a second time around?

Importantly, what can’t we do today under the government managed regulatory framework, that under Part 149 Self Administration we suddenly could, that it would justify forever surrendering ourselves to a never-ending world of increasing membership fees, costs and charges?

The answer is that there is nothing to justify a transition to Part 149, but CASA already know that.  Incredibly, so does the industry associations who are right now beating down CASA’s door to become their first approved legislated co-regulators.

CASA is fully aware and cognisant of the fact that Part 149 will create powerful sector monopolies that will drive up the cost of access to aviation, and they simply do not care.  Part 149 is not about industry, it’s about CASA and their desire to offload their costs and liability.

Simply, CASA is helping themselves at our expense.

To drive the transition to Part 149 CASA has now communicated a 2021 deadline, whereby they will withdraw all existing regulatory exemptions that permit the various sport and recreational aviation sectors to exist.

As of this week, six of the industry’s nine sport aviation bodies have expressed significant concerns with Part 149, lamenting that what CASA has delivered is unworkable.

Staggeringly, the actual stakeholders, that is aircraft owners and pilots – have been kept in the dark as to the full impact and scope of Part 149.  If you ask the average aircraft owner or pilot to explain what Part 149 is and how industry will benefit, don’t be shocked by the vague stare and silence that you receive in return.  it’s deafening.

Despite this fact, CASA continues to argue that they have adequately consulted with industry and have relied on the respective industry associations to inform and educate those impacted by the introduction of Part 149, which is a clear conflict of interest.

In fact, in last year’s Senate RRAT inquiry into Dual Medical Standards, CASA defiantly argued that AOPA Australia and others had given them a full endorsement of Part 149, only to be pulled up by the Senators who recognised their misrepresentation of the facts.  Several days later, CASA sought to withdraw their claims, confirming that no such endorsement was ever given and that they had attempted to front a meeting attendance sheet as a signed endorsement agreement.

Over the past five years CASA has invested the majority of their ‘consultative resources’ courting and cajoling industry associations, offering them the opportunity to guarantee their futures and incomes by becoming an approved Part 149 Self-Administering Organisation, a virtual CASA Pty Ltd.  As an approved Part 149, they become responsible for doing CASA’s job, accepting all the liability and risk, and most importantly, they sanctioned by the regulator to demand whatever fees and charges necessary from their customers for access to their respective sectors – pay for play.

Everything that is wrong with CASA is personified in its development and delivery of Part 149, is has been laid bare for all to see.

It is a clear demonstration of the corruption of the regulators integrity, highlighting the powerful forces within CASA that are conspiring against the freedoms and success of our general aviation industry.

In broad daylight, CASA have breached the trust of those they regulate and have abused their powers so manifestly in manipulating the introduction of regulations, that clearly are instrument of privatisation that seek to gift material financial gain to private business, at the cost and to the detriment of the rights of Australians to hold an aviation medical, a pilot license and aircraft registration.

Just as we now look back at the destruction caused by airport privatisation on our general aviation industry, we too will look back in the years to come at the moment in time that saw Part 149 introduced with great shame and deep regret.

The only winners will be CASA and the businesses who will own your rights, and for everyone else we will simply have empty pockets.

Much MTF me thinks??...P2 

Ps 

[Kharon]

Hear, Hear:

AOPA - "During the past 20 years of CASA’s management of our aviation industry we have all watched on as they have slowly divided us into competing interest groups, and today we now have multiple pilot training and licensing standards, multiple aircraft registration standards, multiple medical standards and a host of other dual-standards that have nothing to do with safety, but instead on how much money you are paying to whom."


AOPA - "No better example can be found than the issue of recreational and private pilot medicals, where CASA have entangled themselves in questionable approvals that benefit some self-administrations, permitting their pilots to fly powered aircraft in Australian airspace on a self-certification medical certificate.


AOPA - "Yet, in the same breath, CASA have outright refused to provide the same privileges to recreational and private pilots under their direct management and regulatory responsibility, citing safety concerns.  A decision that CASA is thoroughly unable to justify or adequately explain to either government or industry.

Morgan only writes on the concerns of one small sector of the industry, which is fair enough and reasonable. It is good to see and read someone calling it out for what it is, with the support of the thinking part of his particular area of involvement. But where are the rest of the aviation ‘spokesmen ? Charter operators and flight schools are already groaning under the paper mountain which costs an extraordinary amount of money to support; money which could be better used to improve real safety standards. Things like that extra couple of flights which a HOTAC could slot in with a new start pilot instead of meeting the minimum standards and spending time making sure that safety from audit was met. Tick a box ain’t conducive to good operations; it costs time and money to train a line pilot, lots of: particularly when they have been pumped out of a sausage factory – qualified on paper – but little else. Minimum to meet the requirements; tick the box and job done. Not only grossly unfair to the pilot, but perhaps one day to the passengers. Money spent on great admin and paperwork may, to an auditor be heaven sent; but perhaps that money could have been better spent ensuring there is enough ‘fat’ and time in the system to provide the polish and finish on aircraft and pilot.

Morgan’s battle is but a small skirmish in a much bigger conflict – trouble is he’s standing alone while the rest all hide behind their redoubts in silence, hoping they don’t get spotted. Making sure their pants are clean lest CASA soils it’s boots during an arse kicking event. Gutless pandering I’d call it.

Toot – toot.

[P7_TOM]

Duck Squadrons – Rouges gallery #149.



Not that it’s a thing I’d ever do; however, I wonder just how I’d get along strolling into an RAAUS operation wanting to rent an aircraft for an hour or so with a perfectly valid Australian pilot licence – of any stripe, under the proposed Duck-up 149?

Say I needed to do a few night circuits: as it stands I can ring the local school, rent a VH PA 28 or similar, provided my medical is valid – off I go; no fee except the usual. Routine – another day at the office. I fail to understand why I’d need a membership and licence to operate any other aircraft belong another tribe; learn a new set of rules and have to remember a new system.

Morgan – “From my perspective, I honestly do not understand why any sector of our industry would desire Part 149, which simply duplicates the costs of aviation regulation, creating dual-standards that will only serve to add complexity, confusion and ultimately higher costs to the end user.

Renting a balloon would be a different thing (and interesting); borrowing a glider a different kettle of fish altogether and the very notion of going crop dusting would be out of the question – I simply do not have the ratings. BUT – should I choose to acquire those ratings then those options would be available on my Oz ticket; so why Oh why do I need a special rigmarole to rent Tupperware of even a ‘sports aircraft’ whatever they may be?

Morgan – “During the past 20 years of CASA’s management of our aviation industry we have all watched on as they have slowly divided us into competing interest groups, and today we now have multiple pilot training and licensing standards, multiple aircraft registration standards, multiple medical standards and a host of other dual-standards that have nothing to do with safety, but instead on how much money you are paying to whom.

Another intriguing angle is that of ‘medical certification’. CASA has a graded system of medical standard – one is either ‘fit to fly’ or one is not. An annual or even bi-annual trip to the vet cannot be too bad a thing; it gives one a platform to work from when self certifying being fit for duty – within the scope of limitations applied on sound medical advice; leaving aside the ‘applied standards’. Those may be wrong, indeed many argue they are a little OTT. Even so - they should apply across the board and if a little OTT then lobby to have ‘em changed – and good luck with that.

Morgan – “Yet, in the same breath, CASA have outright refused to provide the same privileges to recreational and private pilots under their direct management and regulatory responsibility, citing safety concerns.  A decision that CASA is thoroughly unable to justify or adequately explain to either government or industry.


So – CASA reduce their operating and administrative costs, not to mention their liability  - Bravo. Will we see a significant reduction in their annual budget now? Silly bloody question ain’t it. Will the insurance industry benefit from selling more personal liability and etc. to those running their piss ant empires – course they will.

Mark my words – if Duck 149 gets up and running the notion of private operation will once again become the plaything of the very rich – until they get bored with it and discover drones, or some other mindless diversion.

When a large portion of the cost is down to ‘administration’ and ‘compliance’ why are the private/ sport/ recreational crew screaming blue murder? What happened to the Wagga solidarity? Where is the loud long NO !?

Arrggh – Duck it all, my Ale is here – and the idea of flying for ‘fun’ is an alien concept anyway; so having said my say – I’ll shut up and watch the implosion of grass roots GA from the bar.

[Peetwo]

KC on Scomo's RTR plans??   

Via AOPA Oz:

RED TAPE REDUCTION: WHY IT FAILS IN AVIATION

July 31, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan

AOPA Australia's Aircraft Maintenance & Engineering Contributor KEN CANNANE provide his opinion on why red-tape reduction is failing in aviation.



Recently, we have seen some great news headlines and quotes from Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who has declared he is at war with red-tape, determined to clean out government agencies and departments to make them more efficient and accountable.

For example; “The Morrison government’s plan to cut red tape will boost business investment, increase wages, and remove bureaucratic constraints on Australians reaching their potential.” and “Red tape costs Australian businesses, families, and individuals $176 billion each year, which makes red tape Australia’s biggest industry. This cost represents all of the businesses which are never started, the jobs never created, and the dreams never fulfilled due to red tape.”

However, where industry would like to be in the future can be different to where bureaucracy envisages;



Unless Government sets policy then the direction of government departments and agencies can often be biased and not supportive of business growth to meet Morrison’s red tape reduction policies.

The biggest single hurdle to overcome in aviation is the different impressions for the future between what the bureaucracy wants, what industry wants and what will provide proper growth leading to jobs.

Government must make decisions:

• Are aviation regulations and requirements subject to government policy to create jobs?
  
• Are aviation regulations and requirements subject to government policy to reduce red tape?
  
• What is the change vision and strategy to achieve jobs and red tape reduction?
  
• When will government clarify how the future will be different from the past, and how government and its agencies can make it happen?
  

The majority in industry are uncertain of the future as there is no defined government policy for the future that will provide jobs with reduced red tape.

Industry impression of the future includes many jobs being created post major red tape reduction to aviation requirements as has the USA red tape reduction program achieved. This can be achieved by delegating more responsibility to industry to reduce government costs as the USA aviation system been doing over the last couple of decades.

Industry impression is that CASA will create licencing/certificate & personnel standards for pilots like the Canadians have done and maintenance engineers standards like the Europeans have done. In all cases, remaining compliant with the standards promulgated to the ratified treaty, Convention on International Aviation.

To enable this to happen, government must remove as many barriers as possible so that those that want to make the Morrison’s vision a reality, can do so.

However, past government achievements in the 1990s have already been eroded over time by the bureaucracy. How does the government propose to make changes permanent for participants and the community?
Why isn’t government sorting out these different impressions of the future?

Plus from Shawn Kelly:

FOR BUREAUCRACY’S SAKE: KNOW THINE ENEMY
July 31, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan

AOPA Australia Director Shawn Kelly provides an insight into the strangling of Australian general aviation.



As an experienced seaplane pilot, warbird owner and adventure flight operator in Queensland, I am currently in the process of trying to obtain permits to operate my seaplane on the Pumicestone Passage, located on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland.  What at first appeared to be a relatively simple application process, has evolved into a glaring example of what’s actually killing aviation across Australia.

Currently, I operate from the Maroochy River, which is located in the same Council area as the Pumicestone Passage and is covered by the same office of Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ).  My thinking was, that since I have safely operated for five years within these jurisdictions without incident, accident or complaint, that it would be relatively easy to obtain permits to operate in an additional area.

But alas, my application was rejected, and again on appeal was rejected again – so why?

The application and rejection process has revealed some interesting insights into the devious Australian bureaucratic mind, and I thought that my experience provides an important lesson that might be helpful in our industry’s larger battle with senseless bureaucracy and over regulation – know thine enemy!

One of the main objections to granting my approval was a concern that the Pumicestone Passage is too crowded, which is an interesting argument, because the waterway is anything but. Take a look at the photo below, which was taken at 13:30 on a Saturday;




With the above photograph in mind, think about how it would compare to say Rose Bay on Sydney Harbour, where there is a strong mixture of ferries, commercial charter boats, private motor and sail boats, along with yacht racing fleets from the CYCA and RSYS – all intermixing with the operations of Sydney Seaplanes.

However, rather than nit-picking whether or not a waterway was actually crowded, I thought it best to demonstrate that seaplanes can safely operate on crowded waterways and that such activities are not in any manner unusual or abnormal.
So with the above in mind, I provided a video of a seaplane landing on Lake Union in Washington State in the the United States of America.  Take a look at the YouTube video below and compare that to the photograph of the Pumicestone Passage;

In my application I explained that there are over 35,000 seaplane operations per year on Lake Union, which equates to about 100 seaplane movements per day, and that seaplanes have been safely operating there for 85 years without a single accident.  More importantly, pilots in Australia are trained to a high standard and everything we do in aviation is undertaken in direct support of safety.

This is the response I received:

52.  I am not satisfied that safety concerns should be deemed unfounded or negligible because of the absence of past accidents and incidents. Indeed, it is only by appropriately managing such safety risks and concerns that the occurrence of accidents and incidents can be prevented;
63.  The Applicant submits that there have been no collisions between seaplanes and vessels that have caused serious injuries or death in Australia in the past 60 years, or on Lake Union in Washington, USA for 85 years.
64.  I am not satisfied that safety records on Lake Union have particular relevance to seaplane operation in the northern area of the Pumicestone Passage. In any event, I am not satisfied that the absence of past accidents and incidents on Lake Union, in itself, is conclusive in demonstrating that all congested waterways are appropriate for seaplane operation.

A stunning response – no doubt – as yet again our aviation industry learns that in the minds of our government bureaucrats our air is so different in Australia as compared to the US (or any other country for that matter) that it demands entirely unique and overly restrictive rules to prevent aviators from harming ourselves or anyone else!

More outrageous is the manner in which the bureaucrats argue that in order to prevent potential accidents or safety issues, the acceptable course of action is to simply to prevent the activity from happening!

The response communicates that the bureaucrats first and only priority is to themselves, with their decisions always seeking to cover their backsides against any perceived liability.

The response from Maritime Safety Queensland raises more questions than it provides answers, such as;  who is the assessing officer and do they hold any formal aviation qualifications?  do they have any relevant aviation experience?  what was the methodology that was used to assess the waterway as congested?  what evidence do they have to suggest that the request was unsafe?  Simply, where are the facts?

It’s absurd that decisions are being made devoid of genuine facts and hard data.  Since when are the opinions of bureaucrats an acceptable form of evidence?

Disappointingly, to challenge this determination will now require that I personally fund an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, footing the bill to ultimately educate Maritime Safety Queensland and its staff on aviation safety matters.
Should I refuse to challenge the decision it will deny my business the opportunity to grow, denies me the opportunity to employ more staff and denies the international tourists that I take flying the opportunity of depositing their hard earned money in Australia – to which we all benefit.

Ultimately, this is just one example that reinforces my view that only through immense public media exposure and political pressure will our industry see any relief in the medium to long term.

If left in the hands of bureaucrats our industry is guaranteed to be grounded and put out of existence.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CASA rules on Gong stack; & well said MB! - 

Via the LMH:

It's very hard to look at Oshkosh every year and yearn for something of this nature in Australia. Sadly, over here an event of these proportions would be totally impossible to stage; our industry is fractured and getting more fractured every year. Oshkosh's greatest display is its unity and community spirit. What we have over here is an us-verses-them attitude that is sadly perpetual by both us and them. To be blatant, whilst AOPA Australia and RAAus are standing and flinging mud pies at each other the situation will continue. Of course, both sides are keen to promote unity within GA as long as it is done on their grounds, when the reality is that any form of healing is going to need concessions on behalf of both sides of the wound. We even have two national fly-ins held within 30 days and of each other and only 103 km apart. Many fliers, including me, will be forced to choose one or the other, which only adds to the divide. There will be some that go to both events, but I believe they will be very rare beasts indeed. In the meantime, Oshkosh rolls on taunting us with what could be if the rift in Australian GA ever healed.

the premises it is founded on are shaky at best.

Whilst aviation's political wind vane has been pointing towards the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, the Air Services Amendment Bill has snuck back onto the Senate agenda. Like all legislation, it lapsed with the end of the last parliament and had to be re-listed. This is the bill that will require Airservices to review any flight path into any airport at the request of any single person and contains a special clause to prevent flights over Melbourne CBD below 6000 feet and within 2.7 nm of the city centre. First touted by Greens MP Adam Bandt in 2016 and introduced to the Senate by Greens Senator Janet Rice, proponents of the bill are saying that it is necessary because of "acute circumstance of high intensity flights of small aircraft in uncontrolled air space." In December 2016, I wrote that I expected this "mutt" legislation was likely to be killed dead in the Senate, but it doesn't seem to want to die. It's a mutt because the premises it is founded on are shaky at best and nefarious at worst. Aircraft noise in Melbourne CBD? I guess they don't want to have it cut across their enjoyment of the sound of road traffic.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...hyDE3ad.99

IMO Mike Borgelt nails his chocfrog comment in reply to the red bold - 

Mike Borgelt • 4 days ago

Steve, you have the wrong target about "AOPA and RAAus flinging mud pies at each other".

It is CASA that is the problem. RAAus, GFA, ASRA etc only exist because CASA is too bone idle to do its job properly. Write some simple regs to allow under 600Kg aircraft (can make it some higher number without impacting safety) and gliders to operate on owner maintenance and a private driver's licence medical standard and the need for private organisations having the powers of the state, go away. See Ben Morgan's excellent article of July 11, 2019 here:
https://aopa.com.au/part-149-a-corruptio...integrity/

The idea of multiple "self administering" general aviation organisations may have had some merit when the GFA was formed 70 years ago when gliding was a few eccentrics flying around the circuit (on a good day)but it has long outlived its usefulness and to cement this in place with Part 149 is one of the more demented, brain dead ideas, ever, from a regulator renowned for them.

It is time that ALL recreational GA activities joined the mainstream. We have an RPL, lets use it with different ratings for the different aspects of GA with no compulsion to pay protection money to rapacious employees of private businesses with no accountability. This would encourage cross flow between the various activities with consequent benefits to the activities including safety (spin training for ultralights, anyone?) and the ability for maintenance people to work on various types of aircraft by getting the appropriate CASA rating instead of being forced to join multiple organisations to do so, which amounts to compulsory unionism of MULTIPLE unions.

Next CASA knocks back support for Illawarra gas plume danger area:

CASA Safety Assessment blocks Illawarra Gas Plume
6 August 2019
    
CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) has said it will not support a Danger Area over an Open Cycle Gas Turbine (OCGT) proposed for the circuit area at Illawarra Regional Airport because it did not sufficiently mitigate the risks to aviation safety.

The move comes after a meeting of the NSW Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) in May voted to reject an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) that would place a Danger Area over the Tallawarra B power station, and to oppose the establishment of the power station itself.

Approval for the Energy Australia project was dependent on the power station not having an impact on aviation safety, which was thought to be accounted for by placing a Danger Area over the gas plume.

The task of assessing the impact on aviation fell to the OAR, which ultimately found the Danger Area was not sufficient.

"CASA has concluded that the proposed Danger Area may not fully mitigate the risk to aviation, and that the establishment of a Danger Area at this site would nevertheless generate additional risks to aviation safety," CASA Manager Industry Relations Matthew Bouttell told NSW RAPAC.

"On the basis that the risk to aviation resulting from the location of the Danger Area cannot be mitigated to achieve an acceptable level of safety for all airspace users the OAR has determined that the ACP is not supported."

Without CASA's approval, the project appears not to meet the safety condition, but the regulator told Australian Flying that their assessment is not about the power station, just the impact on safety of the proposed Danger Area.

"CASA is not the approving authority for the power station," a spokesperson said, "that is NSW Planning, who has requested CASA assess whether it poses a risk to aviation. Now that CASA/OAR has provided it’s advice the decision whether to proceed or not remains with NSW Planning."

When the original approval for Tallawarra B was issued in 2010, it was dependent on CASA agreeing that there was no risk to aviation safety.

"Nothing in this approval permits the construction and operation of an open cycle gas turbine plant, unless the Proponent has submitted a report to the Secretary which demonstrates that operation of an open cycle gas turbine plant will not have an adverse impact on aviation safety," the approval states.

"This report must be prepared in consultation with Shellharbour City Council, and its conclusions and recommendations must have been agreed to by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority."

Without CASA's blessing, the gas plume appears to have been stopped for the time being.

The Illawarra aviation community, supported by AOPA Australia, presented the RAPAC meeting with several objections to the proposal, including:

• moderate turbulence expected from the power station equated to severe turbulence for RAAus aircraft and LSAs
  
• traffic in the Wollongong circuit was significantly different to that used in the proponent's modeling
  
• an EFATO incident in one of the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society's large twins would place it in the gas plume
  
• student pilots would often need to hold over Lake Illawarra close to the gas plume
  
• examples of other airports with nearby gas plumes were not relevant to the Wollongong situation
  

Shellharbour Council also noted that a Closed Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) would meet existing approvals.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...PtpbWmJ.99

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Latest from Nick Christie and AOPA Oz online...

From David Pilkington, via NC:

HAS CASA LIED? FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS BEWARE!

August 7, 2019 By Nicholas Christie

CASA approved Flight Examiner & AOPA Australia Flight Training Contributor DAVID PILKINGTON examines how a little-known CASA instrument may have compromised instructor rights and invalidated endorsements issued, post 'Part 61'



My guess is that very few instructors would be aware that exercising some instructor rights could be deemed illegal after the transition to Part 61, unless that instructor had conducted additional proficiency testing. With the validity of thousands of student endorsements now put into question, the requirement appears to be at odds with CASA’s own assurances that Flight Crew would retain their privileges when Part 61 came into effect in 2014.

While “old” instructors, including myself, transitioned to the new Part 61 licence and were given appropriate training endorsements for flight activities based on our older training approvals, Part 61. CASA 07/17 – Conditions on authorisations — flight crew licences and aircraft endorsements (Edition 2) – requires instructors to undertake additional expensive tests before continuing to exercise some of their existing training approvals.

CASA INSTRUMENT 

Quite rightly, CASA has recognised that “old” instructors may not be current nor competent in the new Part 61 standards but has tackled that with a crude, blunt instrument: CASA 07/17 – Conditions on authorisations — flight crew licences and aircraft endorsements (Edition 2) which may be viewed online at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L00085. 

The relevant paragraph is:

7.          Condition on an instructor rating
                 It is a condition on an instructor rating that the holder of an instructor rating with a training endorsement may only conduct training for a flight activity endorsement if:
(a)   the holder has demonstrated competency in doing so to a person authorised to conduct a flight test for the relevant training endorsement; and
(b)   the person authorised to conduct the flight test mentioned in paragraph (a) holds the flight activity endorsement.

I only became aware of this instrument when I attended a CASA Flight Instructor Safety Seminar in 2018 – none of the other instructors who were present knew about it either. I can only assume that any instructor who has not been to one of those seminars would also be unaware of it.

For this article, I’ll limit the discussion to spinning and formation flying as those two flight activity endorsements are commonly gained by pilots and illustrate the issues involved with this CASA instrument. Prior to Part 61 these training approvals were granted by another instructor and written in the logbook.

SPIN TRAINING ENDORSEMENT 

Standards for spin training were included in the old Day VFR Syllabus so nothing has changed with Part 61. Furthermore, CASA’s CAAP 155-1 which was issued in 2007 provided further guidance on spinning.

What problem did CASA identify to warrant this validation of the instructor training approval? Part 61 commenced on 1st September 2014 and CASA had been continually saying to us that we would retain our flying privileges so all took that as fact and continued to operate accordingly.

What problem did CASA identify which warranted this immediate test requirement despite there being a transition period of four years for Part 61? There was a lot of new information for flight instructors and many were unaware of this instrument which initially commenced on 1st September 2014.

At a CASA Flight Instructor Safety Seminar that I attended in 2018 the speaker said that it was to “baseline everyone”.
The idea that “old” instructors would be unfamiliar with the standards in the Part 61 MOS is clearly not valid as they have existed for many years. That instructor was considered competent as determined by a Grade 1 instructor such as myself.

At the CASA seminar that I attended the speaker said that “old” instructors would probably not be current so there was a need for this. Well, there are two things wrong with that argument:

1. Many of us “old” instructors were indeed current up through the transition to Part 61.
   
   
2. What about the new instructors who gained their spin training endorsements under the Part 61 rules? If they don’t exercise it they will also lose currency too however an Instructor Proficiency Check having nought to do with spin training allows them to exercise their spin training endorsement in future.
   

FORMATION TRAINING ENDORSEMENT 

There were no training standards, knowledge requirements or CASA guidance for formation flying prior to Part 61.
Consider my own formation training endorsement. I was current (even in formation aerobatics) prior to Part 61 and had updated my formation training syllabus to conform to the new Part 61 MOS.

Why would CASA grant me a formation flying training endorsement and require me to effectively do a test with an examiner before I could exercise it?

If they didn’t trust me to update my training syllabus then couldn’t that have been done by a simple online course by CASA?
To demonstrate my competency to a flight examiner I would have to rent two aeroplanes and another pilot to fly with. Flight examiner time is not cheap. I wouldn’t do it without prior practice with that other pilot so there is that additional cost. Altogether the whole exercise was going to be very expensive so I chose not to do it consequently I don’t teach formation flying any more.

DOING THE DEMO 

Some “old” instructors would meet the requirement of this instrument through the routine proficiency check system as I have done. e.g. spinning for one check, aerobatics for the next one two years further on etc. However that would be abnormal for a typical flight instructor as the examiner would probably choose other elements from the suite of competencies to test. In addition, just doing that competency check as a routine proficiency check would introduce a big gap in earning capacity as one must wait two, four or six years before being permitted to teach those flight activities.

A busy flight instructor would want to maintain continuity by knocking off those demonstrations ASAP and that involves significant expense and effort which may not be viable to recover through subsequent training income.

INSTRUCTOR SURVEY 

I did a survey of 23 “old” instructors and found that:

• Some had become aware of the requirement by attending a CASA seminar in 2018 or been told about it. None were aware of it prior to that. One flying school mandated the examiner demonstration for their flight instructors and paid for their instructors to do it. (13%)
  
  
• One instructor did one activity at a proficiency check and ignored the requirement for other activities. (4%)
  
  
• 17% had taken no action.
  
  
• Many did not respond to me indicating that either they were unaware of the requirement and/or were ignoring it.
  

ACTU secretary Sally McManus has argued that unions breaking unjust laws is the “only moral path to fairness” and it seems that there are many instructors who are taking that line and ignoring the requirement of the CASA instrument.

I wonder what the outcome of that will be for them and their students. For those instructors who do not ignore it there is significant additional expense with no reason given. Since Part 61 it is much more difficult and expensive for experienced flight activity instructors to remain in the business.

CASA ADVICE TO PILOTS 

Does anyone recall CASA stating this:

“All flight crew will retain their current flying privileges throughout and following the 1 September 2014 transition. For most people, the only noticeable change is that they will be issued a licence in a slightly different format”

Has CASA lied to our flight instructor community?

STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY 

For students – check the MOS yourself, ask to see the syllabus and evidence of instructor qualifications. The CASA instrument is very clear that “old” instructors must not conduct training in that flight activity until they have demonstrated their competency to an examiner – ask to see evidence of it. Remember that you own endorsement is not valid if the instructor is not qualified.

---

FB comment nails IMO...

Steve Fenech Shouldn't the question really be, how often has CASA lied?

 
Hmm...another one for the miniscule's aviation safety shitlist, labelled under Piss Weeke's revenge on the flight training community...  


MTF...P2