[Peetwo]

In the strictest liability -  

Ref: https://auntypru.com/faery-dust-sprinkle...pony-pooh/

Reference: 

From the ABC -

Do not reverse onus of proof for black economy crimes say experts.

This is going to get interesting – let’s see how the great unwashed, long suffering, voting Australian tax payer likes a dose of CASA style ‘strict liability’. Are the nations ‘earners’ going to put up with it? My bet, they won’t realise what’s happening until it’s far too late to change it. I hope someone is paying attention. Guilty until proven innocent – I can see the public just loving the crap out of that. One thing though, whichever party offers to strike out the ‘new’ regulation will win a landslide election.

Toot-toot..

You kids just can’t be trusted....

Interesting article Mr Ferryman, thank you for posting it. It really gets to the heart of one the big issues affecting aviation. From Kharons previous post and the article link;

“Tax experts and business lobbies have hit out against a Treasury proposal to reverse the onus of proof — that is to say that someone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent — as part of a bid to stamp out illegal cash economy activity.”

Our very own Dr Voodoo, having presided over CAsA’s legal department for a long long time and having had a front row seat at the trough for almost 25 years at CAsA is famous (infamous) for saying; “aviators are guilty of something, it’s just that most of them haven’t been caught yet”. Yes, sadly fools like Aleck are conditioned to believe that those who work in aviation are guilty of some form of nefarious criminal activity in which severe punitive actions must be applied, even when proof of no wrong doing has been discerned.

‘Guilty until proven innocent, and even if proven innocent you are still guilty’! Just ask Bruce Rhoades, Paul Phelan, Karen Casey, the late Gerald Repacholi, Shane Urquhart and a host of other operators who have been belted by CAsA and it’s endless bucket of legal money or have had their plight crushed as they try to find justice for the death of their loved ones and loss of their business. Terry, Jonathan and other members of The Golden West Mafia are a testimony to this perverted Government mindset. Ironic considering endless Politicans and senior bureaucrats are constantly getting pinged themselves for being lying, deceitful, despicable shonks. I guess it takes a thief to know a thief, hence their mistrust of us avaition IOS innocents.

Tick Tock

Well caught GD - Choc Frog......P7.

Funny coincidence Gobbles but while doing some trolling on the AusALPA submissions web page - ref: https://ausalpa.org.au/Submissions - I note that even the Sky Gods have some rather large reservations about strict liability and the penalty provisions contained within the draconian Australian aviation safety rule set - as prescribed by Dr A and the CASA Iron Ring: ref -  https://ausalpa.org.au/Portals/5/Documen...130625-767

Strict Liability

AusALPA views the Government’s approach to strict liability in civil aviation law to be an unrealistic and unhelpful use of this type of provision. It represents an overly simplistic approach to compliance that focuses on pilots without sufficient, if any, regard to operational circumstance or safety outcomes. A recent example of this type of unfairness was CASA’s pursuit of the pilot involved in the Westwind ditching off Norfolk Island as distinct from the neutral approach that CASA adopted towards the operator, as revealed by the Senate Inquiry.
We recognise that there is a place for strict liability offences and that the unusually high level of regulation in aviation will likely result in a higher than normal number of such offences.

However, there seems to us to be an increasing propensity to deliberately reduce complex systems to a series of simple isolated factors whose purpose is primarily to support strict liability penalty provisions, rather than to address the real safety outcomes, when those factors are part of a dynamic and interactive operational environment. This “tail wagging the dog” approach to compliance and enforcement often means that few organisational malaises are redressed or even mitigated and those who have the greatest influence and control over corporate culture inevitably escape attention, let alone sanction.

AusALPA has no evidence to date that suggests in any discernible way that CASA, DIRDC or any of the Attorney-General’s portfolio agencies have done any review or reconsideration of the wholesale application of strict liability provision to civil aviation offences.

That situation was, and remains, unacceptable to us.

We have been told that a review has been planned at some future date. We have also been told that the review will be conducted separately from the operational teams developing the rule sets and, most likely, exclusively by legal practitioners from the various Government entities involved in producing civil aviation legislation. AusALPA is strongly opposed to this approach.

Any review of strict liability provisions in civil aviation law must be conducted primarily as an operational activity in the first instance. Secondly, any relevant legal advice should preferably come from external sources such as the Australian Law Reform Commission rather than from the people who may well be motivated to minimise change and to preserve the status quo. In any event, such a review is essential and urgent.

Penalty Provisions

In 1990, when the CAA licensing rules were rewritten to become Part 5 of the CARs, the operational drafters reviewed each provision and applied maximum penalties drawn from the range of 5, 10, 15, 25 and 50 penalty units. Judgement on proportionality was applied very carefully, both to reflect the balance between administrative and safety outcomes as well as to provide guidance to the courts on the relative severity of the offence.

Today, we find that what were once considered to be minor offences, indicated by low range penalties, have morphed into major offences attracting the maximum allowable penalties of 50 penalty units. There are very few, if any, offences that vary from this apparently default level of maximum penalty.

AusALPA can find no public evidence of a formal process that changed the original risk and preservation of evidence assessments to a penalty scheme for which virtually every offence attracts the allowable maximum. The complete lack of transparency of such deliberations can only create distrust among those most affected. This is particularly so when the regulations appear to have adopted a much narrower class of persons committing offences, in many cases removing operators from the spotlight. It is far from clear to us why CASA has chosen to resile from adopting the broadest range of potential offenders, reflective of a true safety systems focus.

Has CASA withdrawn from providing guidance to the Courts on relative severity of offences, leaving the Courts to determine proportionality simply on the basis of the arguments presented in each case? Has the concept of system safety fallen out of favour within CASA in preference to targeting only pilots, many of whom have no real or effective protections whatsoever in preserving their livelihoods when faced with conflict between safety and commercial outcomes?

AusALPA strongly asserts that there must be a transparent process that re-examines all of the penalty provisions in accordance with a publicly available doctrine and that includes relevant stakeholders. Once again, this review process must be an operational review rather than a legal practitioner’s review in the same vein as we set out above for the review of strict liability provisions.

Strict Liability and Penalty Review Timing

AusALPA considers both these reviews to be urgent.

Part of the development of any new rules must be demonstrations of good faith by the regulator that the imposition of penalties, both administrative and criminal, are the outcome of well-considered, systematic and proportionate assessments of the gravity of each offence. It is critical that the reviews are not seen to be self-serving internal processes, since the required collateral outcome is the building of trust in the way that the regulator meets its duty to the Australian public, rather than to itself.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

HAPPY NEW YEAR MINISCULE - L&KS Bruce RHOADES and the IOS...  

Much to be ashamed of minister.

Of all its flaws - and there are many - the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s greatest problem may well lie within its very title.

It was once known as the Civil Aviation Authority but now this regulatory authority has been burdened with the oxymoron of “safety.”

Apart from the confusion it creates in the minds general community because of its branding collision with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau CASA’s title is, quite simply, an absurd contradiction in terms.

CASA’s self-appointed role as a Big R law enforcement agency ensures it actually works to undermine the aspiration of safer skies.

It is clearly a regulatory enforcement agency which has never embraced “safety” as its primary mandate.

I have extracted some excerpts from the Professional Aviation Investigation Network Report 3rd Aug 2017 that expose a hostile and adversarial relationship between the GA industry and the Regulator (CASA). 

---

PAIN Report.

"In general, it must be stated that the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has an unique approach to ICAO compliance, with record number of ‘notified differences’. Many of the notifications may, at face value, seem insignificant."

It is our opinion that the noted differences are structured to support the complex, contradictory, flawed rule set in place.Reform of this rule set has been in train for thirty years, with successive government ministers and directors of civil aviation promising to complete the task ‘within the next three years’.
 
This is an important consideration as it reflects on the operational approach taken to both open reporting of ‘incident’ or event; and, the tangible fear of prosecution.

Australia’s Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) are founded on the ‘criminal code’ and ‘strict liability’; this, standing alone, provides a strong disincentive to openly reporting safety related matters. This attitude is reflected in the government safety bodies approach to ICAO compliance and reporting.

Reference: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ICAO_1.pdf

---

So it is hardly surprising to witness the industry’s adoption of a culture of “never Reporting incidents or accidents” when the obvious option for survival lies with concealment and in-house fixes.

It’s more disturbing than ironic to see CASA has developed a similar culture of not reporting all accidents to ICAO (as required by annexe 13) which might result in a downgrading of Australia’s overall safety approval by ICAO.

The Australian Government has in fact been lying by failing to submit reports to the International Civil Aviation Organisation, as required since 2009.

Over 30 years this has had a major negative impact on aviation safety in this country...

---

https://auntypru.com/and-thus-i-clothe-m...-villainy/ 

....Late start this morning – much to consider and read; mostly to do with Bruce Roades and his run in with at the CASA gristmill. The story begins with tragedy, a failed engine leading to an air accident, ending with a fatality. A raw day for all concerned; services swung into action and did their usual sterling work (thank you – once again); ATSB arrived ‘on-site’ and began the task of ‘investigation’. This is what we have become used to after an accident; the ATSB attempts to define what happened, why and place, when required, some form of advisory or recommendation designed to prevent a reoccurrence. The CASA often buy in, they are quite entitled to run an investigation; there are matters which they need to be across, matters of law and operational well being. So the scene is set...

---

 Oz aviation, safety compromised by political and bureaucratic subterfuge?

http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-167...ml#pid8362

Update 01/01/19 : Bruce Roades' - FINAL BATTLE.

FEDERAL ICAC NOW! 



TICK TOCK MINISCULE - Your days are numbered...

In a kind of follow up/update to the above, the following was shared via the PAIN network...  

Courtesy Dafydd Llewellyn:

What’s wrong with CASA (and the Aviation Industry)?
 
By D. J.  Llewellyn
(See attached resume)
 
General Statement:
 
The recent airing of the accident to VH-WTQ on the 7:30 report of 29/10/2018 exposes issues that have been progressively driving the Australian General Aviation industry into the ground for the past three decades. Our Politicians have been too busy getting themselves re-elected to either understand them, or to do anything useful about them. The only effective constructive step in this time was the initiative of John Sharp, who set in motion the Review of Regulations (i.e. the Australian Civil Aviation Regulations)  in 1996.  CASA has managed to delay anything significantly more than the implementation of Part 21 of the new regulations, which was achieved within the lifetime of the steering committee of the review.
 
There is a very poor overall culture in the relationship between CASA and the aviation industry; the attitudes are adversarial on both sides.  This means that operators will attempt to fix problems in-house, rather than letting CASA know about them, for fear of punitive action; the adverse effects of that on overall safety needs no explanation.  This was not the case when I joined the (then) Dept of Civil Aviation, in 1970.  I have watched the deterioration in the relationship progressively develop from then to the present day, from both sides. 
 
The largest single cause of this deterioration was the formation, 1n 1995 by the Keating Government, of CASA as a corporate entity, which could “sue and be sued in its corporate name”  (S8 (2) © of the Civil Aviation Act 1988).  This is in marked contrast to bodies such as the American Federal Aviation Agency, which is immune from litigation.  As a consequence, CASA employees cannot offer friendly advice, because they could be held liable for the results;  so the industry is deprived of advice from the very people who are best qualified to give it. 
 
The operators of  VH-WTQ had applied for, and received, an Operator’s Certificate, to perform the operation in which the aircraft was engaged when the accident occurred.  I would suggest that a very pertinent question is whether or not a CASA Flight Operations Inspector  actually went on a demonstration flight with the operators of VH-WTQ;  because if one did, I venture to suggest that he might have advised them to move their landing area on the beach a quarter of a mile South, so that in the event of an engine failure, the pilot did not need to turn 180 degrees, but could put the aircraft down straight ahead, on the beach.  I have frequently conducted aircraft performance climb tests* which started from a similar position and height over a beach, but I always had miles of beach ahead of me, for exactly this reason.  Hindsight is always 20/20 of course, but evidently no such advice was given.  It could perhaps have been; but S8(2)© cultivates a closed-mouth attitude amongst CASA staff.
 
*Because such tests are normally conducted over water, to avoid turbulent air due to convection over land;  the start point needs to be as close to sea-level as possible.
 
The present structure:
 
Australia is a signatory to the Chicago convention on International Civil Aviation.  CASA is the body charged with  carrying out Australia’s responsibilities as a signatory member of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, which is established in Montreal. 
 
CASA has been responsible for  providing and policing  regulations that  satisfy the requirements of ICAO, and the Civil Aviation Regulations follow (or should follow) from the Articles of that convention, set out in the annexes of the ICAO convention or in ICAO manuals, Chapter 1 of the ICAO document which outlines the safety obligations of the State, contains the words: 



 
Despite this,  the Morris report (“Plane safe”) 1995, concluded that the role for CASA was that of a policeman.   And  the functions of  the CAA were split between CASA and Air Services Australia as a consequence.  But CASA has – apart from the Review of Regulations 1996 , initiated by the then Minister, John Sharp – both drafted regulations, AND enforced them.  This is contrary to the principle that the police enforce laws made by Parliament; they do not create laws.  Yes, it is true that regulations drafted by CASA are “disallowable instruments” and must “lay on the floor” of the Parliament for a period, for anybody in the Parliament to question them – but who in Parliament has the expertise to challenge that sort of thing? So whilst the form of the procedure is followed, the fact is that Parliament rubber-stamps whatever CASA puts forward.
 
So we have the dilemma that ICAO requires both that suitable regulations for Civil Aviation must exist; and they must also be enforced.  The error  in our legislation is that the responsibility for both these functions has been placed on CASA.  The answer is to separate these two functions so that the policeman does not also write the law.  
 
In 1996, the Review of Regulations was guided by the Civil Aviation Legislation amendment bill 1995;  that Bill never passed into law, unfortunately, because it embodied the principle of reducing the number and complexity of the regulations wherever possible.  In particular, it asked the question, “can the purpose of the proposed regulation be achieved instead by education”.  CASA can do one of two things; it can write regulations, and then wait until somebody breaks one, and jump on him. That is the lazy man’s way; but S8(2)© of the Act  leaves CASA no alternative. 
 
Or it can make its presence felt around the industry, by offering helpful advice.  That requires that the various inspectors visit the operators from time to time, and offer friendly advice, based on experience.  On Bankstown airport, many years ago, there was a very experienced airworthiness surveyor, who was well known in the local industry.  When any other airworthiness surveyor strolled around the aerodrome, all the hangar doors were shut; but when this one surveyor took a stroll, they’d remain open. His method was to drop in, and pass the time briefly; and if he spotted something, say something like – “I had that problem a while ago; what worked for me, there, is”  . . . .   or he’s say, “I’ll go and see what I can find on that in our library”.  He was, in terms of safety achieved, more valuable than about seven of the other sort.
 
Of course, the Regional libraries have long since been disposed-of, in the interests of saving costs.
 
This means, CASA needs to attract first-class experienced experts, who do NOT sit in its offices all day every day.  This costs money;  but one must not bind the mouths of the kine who tread the grain.
 
It will be difficult to correct this after all the decades of antagonism; but the antagonistic way has been tried, and it is counter-productive.
 
The current situation can be summarised as follows:
 
1.           CASA is full of Civil Servants who know full well that they can simply delay any proposed modifications to their modus operandi until there is a change of government – and so they have been able to resist almost all attempts to change the way aviation is regulated for the last 30 years, because they have only to delay for three years or so, before they get a new director – who will hardly have time to learn the ropes before he is replaced.  The “Old guard” within CASA can be likened to the political religious right in the LCP;  they “know” what is “right” and resist change to the point of political suicide.  They are able to resist the efforts of the appointed director of CASA – because they can out-stubborn him. The mass of aviation law is very large and complex, and it requires technical expertise as well as legal expertise to understand it; nobody coming in “cold” can expect to do so comprehensively in three years – and this is why successive directors of CASA have such difficulty.
 
Why is the period of appointment so short?  Presumably, because one man alone cannot be given extraordinary power for an extended period.  But one man alone can at least make decisions, whereas a board of directors is likely to spend most of its time arguing, and get nothing done.  We have tried both models, and neither of them has worked.  So what should we do?
 
Firstly, there is no substitute for competence.  And no one man can be fully competent in all facets of aviation. And everybody wants to protect his means of earning a living.  So, unless you can find a few Gods, who are omniscient and do not need to earn a living, no single entity can be put in such a position.  The closest model that works, is the High Court; so set up a panel from which three experts can be drawn to “sit” on each issue.  The size of the panel will depend on the number of issues – and there are plenty in Aviation at present.  The Privy Council (which has no seats – members are required to remain on their feet) might be a suitable precedent to move decisions along.  The members of such a panel need to have, or to have access to, a great depth of  knowledge of both the Regulations, and the technical issues involved.
 
So this is step 1:  Create a panel of technical advisers to make the decisions, and  include on it the Director of Aviation Safety, who should have the power of accountable veto;  and make the Director of Aviation Safety responsibility for carrying out those decisions.
 
         
2       When there is a cause for prosecution, CASA briefs the Crown Prosecutor; however I have been called as an expert witness on several occasions where it was obvious that CASA had managed to get the case heard by a stipendiary magistrate who was favourably disposed to the official viewpoint.  I have also experienced two cases where the CASA Flight Operations Inspector concerned was clearly out of his depth with the technical issues.  There is really no excuse for such incompetence.  It seems that FOIs may be promoted on the basis of the number of successful prosecutions they record, and the FOIs are not always even-handed in their presentation of the “facts”.
 
These cozy arrangements have resulted in a number of rogue operators being hunted out of aviation; but they have also resulted in questionable practices leading to persecution of otherwise harmless operators. The net outcome has been a substantial number of people deciding that aviation is no longer a viable area for business. 
 
We see this in action in the case of the operators of VH-WTQ;  the CASA FOIs cancelled the operator’s certificate and withdrew the pilot licences, on the grounds that the pilot performed unauthorised aerobatics – which cannot have had any effect whatever on the subsequent engine failure – and it is questionable whether what is shown in the film from the on-board camera of the manoeuvres concerned in any way exceeded what one might encounter in a more usual flight in turbulent conditions;  and because they alleged that the pilot should have landed straight ahead in the water, rather than attempt a turn.  That, in a fixed-undercarriage aircraft, would result in a somersault of the aircraft, which would end up inverted in the water; it is doubtful whether any of the occupants would survive that.
 
         So step 2 is to re-direct or re-train the FOIs so they steer operators towards safe practices, rather than waiting for them to put a foot wrong, and then seeking to prosecute them.  Obviously, there will be “rogue” operators from time to time, and the FOIs have a public expectation that they will prevent rogue operators from placing the public at risk.  This is tempered by the recognition, in law, that some aspects of aviation constitute “Hazardous recreational activities” and accordingly, people who elect to engage in them are electing to accept the risk. 
 
         The introduction, in 1998, of the Experimental purposes for which an aircraft may be allowed to fly, was a major change in philosophy;  prior to this, CASA took the position that it was “my brother’s keeper” in regard to all aviation activities.  Its introduction necessitated  that CASA be given an immunity from liability for the safety of persons on board such aircraft.  This principle may need to be extended to some other classes of operation; arguably, landing on a beach is a somewhat hazardous operation – at least, by comparison with landing on the prepared surface of an airfield.
 
         One cannot help wondering whether CASA’s efforts are being spent in the most effective way;  the point made by Mr. Bruce Rhoades that the Cessna 172 – because the first model of the type was certificated to a 1948 standard, and subsequent models have been “grandfathered” to a major extent, did not have upper body restraint for the rear seat occupants – begs a question:  The original standard provided only seat belts, for all seats.  The danger of this became very obvious at least thirty years ago.  Australia issued an Airworthiness Directive in about 1968, requiring upper body restraint for the front seat occupants only, of all aircraft certificated to this early standard – I recall this, because I was given the task of designing the anchor points for the upper body restraint on the Beech 35 model aircraft.   I suppose it seemed “a good idea at the time” – but automotive standards have long since gone way past this.  Why has there been no “catch up” ?  The efforts of the FOIs in hunting small operators of essentially hazardous recreational activities would seem trivial by comparison.
       

1. D.J.  Llewellyn
   

DJ Llewellyn submissions: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...iation.doc & https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...oncern.doc


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AF embuggerance update: 14 Feb '19 - 'In a nutshell'. 

Ref:

...Note the way Fort Fumble carefully manipulate the stats to make it appear that industry dissension is from an irrelevant minority...     

C.9 Consultation process

17 (8%) respondents commented on the perception that CASA had failed to follow its
consultation process.

The following are examples of comments from respondents:

Changing regulations without proper regulatory process by the CEO of CASA without
Parliamentary scrutiny thereby curtailing the rights of pilots to exercise the full
privileges of their licenses. (ANON-Z7UJ-QXZT-7)

---

The Authority has deliberately bypassed proper processes and in effect, is seeking to
add a new licence category, and a new maintenance category, for private flights and
private/CPL and ATPL pilots. This is occurring without adhering to settled and wellpublished procedures – all of which were designed to ensure proper industry consultation: and all of which CASA has, on many occasions, championed. (ANONZ7UJ-QXE7-N)

---

I object to the fact that no proper consultation took place with either the industry and I
see the proposal as an attempt to bypass the NPRM process by seeking to implement
a direction and not amending the relevant regulations AFTER DUE PROCESS. CASA
did in this case not complied with the to the 2015 Statement of Expectations publicised
by the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which includes a requirement for
CASA to consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the
community in the development and finalisation of new or amended regulatory
changes.(which also includes proposed directives like th e present one) CASA has
also not complied in my view with their obligation to adopt a proper, fair and
transparent process, by publishing proposed Directions immediately upon the rising of
Parliament, with the closing date set prior to the resumption of Parliament. In this case
CASA also failed in my view to adhere to the proper regulatory processes, whereby
long-standing Regulations, which confer fundamental rights on pilots and aircraft
owners (being the rights to exercise the full privileges of their licences and aircraft use)
are sought to be changed by the direction of CASA. This in my view is an attempt not
to make the proposals subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny as would be the case if they
were tabled as proposed Regulations. (ANON-Z7UJ-QXEA-Y)

---

Given that CASA has now deemed CSF’s to be a ‘sector’ worthy of specific and unique directions, which impact significantly upon the rights of pilots and owners to fly and operate their machines according to current regulatory requirements, then it is incumbent upon the Authority to heed its own recommendations before publishing a set of directions without industry or ‘sector’ consultation. It is insufficient that it has written the directions without consultation nor proper analytical process, to now stand behind the one month ‘consultation’ feedback process (which has no statutory mandate in terms of changing the directives pursuant to the consultation), or that it may now be embarking on a data analysis or risk analysis subsequent to the issuance of the proposed directions. (ANON-Z7UJ-QXEC-1)

---

It is not reasonable for this proposal to be the first action the regulator takes in relation to CSFs, when it hasn’t even bothered measuring the effectiveness of the lessintrusive and less-disruptive alternatives required by Regulatory Philosophy principle 9. (ANON-Z7UJ-QXES-H)

See responses here: https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulat...descending

Started the arduous task of reading many of the public submissions/comments and already I am beginning to see much more dissension to the Angel Flight embuggerance than CASA would have us believe.

But then I guess much like the Colmar Brunton industry survey - see http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-37-...ml#pid9588 + https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...45#pid9745 - it is very easy to write a weasel word confection to deceive the average punter reading that purely by association the overall majority of respondents were supportive of the CASA embugerance of AF...

17 (8%) respondents commented on the perception that CASA had failed to follow its consultation process.

 
However in reality, going through the individual comments, it does not take long to get a general picture that industry and Angel Flight users are totally aghast and disgusted at the underhanded tactics by CASA, over the Xmas/New Year holiday period to ram home a 30 day consultation process - example:

 
Allen - My daughter has been assisted by Angel Flight in over 100 flights. Any proposal that threatens the survival of such organizations is completely unacceptable. Angel Flight has been tremendously informative in regard to information in relation to safe travel in small aircraft. Every pilot (and there have been many) has been courteous, well informed and VERY experienced. There have been times when flights have been cancelled due to concerns in relation to weather conditions. this has been at the instigation of the pilot or in some instances where we have been unsure of the weather by myself. It is time for CASA to stop hiding behind its title and put a real name of the PERSON who is behind this underhanded approach to regulation change so that they can be counselled in regard to the ramifications of these outrageous and unnecessary changes that are being proposed . Whoever it is should try living in an area remote from major services and experience the exhaustion and tears that accompany long road or rail trips , and the difference that air transport can make to someones life. This is especially so for those with medical conditions. I should point out that Angel Flight is also extremely clear in its requirements with regard to passenger suitability and the restrictions small aircraft provide. Angel Flight also prefers a support person travel with the person to assist wherever necessary. It is also made very clear that this is not a Medical flight service but rather a helping hand to get where you need to go. This assistance is provided FREE OF CHARGE to those like my daughter who need it. Where we live there is NO RAIL anyway so that argument as an alternative is bogus .Where we are is minimum of three and a half hours drive to Canberra and six and a half hours to Sydney. These are straight through times and do not allow for the necessary regular stops due to pain and discomfort. CASA is well aware of the time difference air travel makes. Thank you for your consideration of this information Yours FaithfullyRedacted text Allen

  
However putting aside the highly charged emotive reactions and comments, IMO for a true in a nutshell appraisal (so far) you cannot go past the excellent 'big picture' submission from Associate Professor Chris Andrews : 

---

SUBMISSION REGARDING ANGEL FLIGHT PROPOSALS.
Assoc Prof Andrews
BE MBBS MEngSc PhD JD GDLP DipCSc EDIC ACCAM
FACLM MACS SMIREE SMIEEE
Holder – CPL SECIR

I wish to make the following points regarding the operation of Angel Flight.

Preliminary

Angel Flight makes a positive and humanitarian input to the benefit of Australian people. I speak from the perspective of a pilot, and consider that this proposal (which is not a consultation, but a notification) takes aircraft operations down a very dangerous administrative path, with implications far beyond Angel Flight operations. CASA needs to consider very carefully taking administrative regulations down this path for reasons outlined below. In a supposed climate of consultation, removal of administrative burden, and fair transparent rule making, this proposal entirely negates this, and ought to fill pilots with dread. It is a dangerous precedent for further CASA action “justified” on similar principles. The most dangerous are … the regulating of flights based not on pilot qualification; the restriction on fully qualified pilots on exercising the functions that they are fully licenced for, based only on passenger characteristics; and the danger of setting CASA up for potential legal action with such unwise actions.

I have read the submission of the Angel Flight organisation. I have no personal knowledge of the discussions between CASA and Angel Flight, so I do not enter that conversation. If what is stated is correct, that is the lack of fulfilment of procedural requirements for new regulations, then CASA must immediately withdraw this proposal and re-enter under proper procedures.

Much of what Angel Flight’s submission states echoes my own feelings, and I will only highlight my own specific points. I support the Angel Flight submission, and look forward to it getting full examination, supported by many such as myself.

1. A major concern

A major item that stands out – like the proverbial sore thumb (!) – is the lack of discussion justifying this proposal, and in particular the lack of data in support of any change. Indeed, no data at all. And the lack of any data that changes will in fact achieve what is purported.
I make a point below that the CASA attitude is “if it moves, regulate it”. An important requirement for CASA is to know when NOT to regulate something, and this is one of those occasions. CASA has a very bad name for interference, to no good purpose other than to increase administrative, financial, and curtailment burdens. This is a case where CASA’s best compliance with fair open and transparent processes is to do nothing, and in particular, because there is no need to do anything.

In particular, CASA gives no indication of:

a. Why Angel Flight requires any regulation. i. What is it in the operation that allegedly falls short? I cannot find anything.
ii. What are the figures supporting i above? What is the water tight data, reliably collected and stated, that justifies the interference?
iii. What supports any safety examination of Angel Flight? I believe it to be an enviable record.
b. What are the tight figures comparing Angel Flight with other community service activities here and overseas?
c. How, specifically, do the proposed regulations address each of these, if they exist – tightly argued and justified and supported by hard data?
d. What are the figures justifying the claim that the proposed protocols improve the operation of Angel Flight, and aviation in general, beyond further destruction of GA?
e. What is the justification, in tight argued terms, that these propositions further CASA’s gazetted aims?

As these proposals are presently presented, they smack of ill consideration, unjustified beyond a gut feeling that someone somewhere thinks it might be a good idea. No argument beyond subjective opinion has been forthcoming.

The implications of this proposal go far beyond Angel Flight alone, as stated below, probably unwittingly. There are particular precedential consequences for discrimination, licencing, the validity of licencing, the paradigm shift in characterising flights by their passengers rather than their pilots, maintenance, as well as the more general rolling of the eyes at another needless foray of CASA to regulate something which should not be regulated.
 
2. A safe operation

Angel Flight conditions of carriage are well known, and well communicated. They are well known to passengers, and well accepted by pilots. There is no need for their restatement in any additional form.

The safety of Angel Flight is very well established. There have been far fewer mishaps on Angel Flights than in general in GA. Far Fewer. The commitment and responsibility of Angel Flight pilots are legion and contribute to this. Angel Flight pilots, in fact, self-select into a safer and more responsible population than the general pilot population.

Angel Flight qualifications and standards are clearly stated and rigorously complied with. It is a self-regulating operation with an enviable record and there is no reason to interfere with this. And particularly in this way with so many wider implications.

This proposal smacks of the CASA attitude of “if it moves, regulate it”. There is no justification for interference, and there is absolutely no argument that any new regulation will improve a close to perfect safety record or any other record.

Item 1 – If figures exist to the contrary of that just stated, CASA must transparently submit them, and open then to wide scrutiny.

Until the need, and justification for “improvement”, can be clearly demonstrated, CASA has no reason for involvement, and interference under these circumstances is resented, as killing a fine operation.

Item 2 – CASA needs to justify why any regulation at all is needed, and justify why any proposed regulation will improve any safety criteria.

Item 3 – CASA needs to divest itself of the worrying propensity to interfere in things working well under their own regulation, and to recognise when a working item should be left alone.

3. Licence by passenger rather than pilot

This proposal concerns pilots operating, and specifically required to be operating, and agreeing mandatorily to operate, within the terms of their licences. Pilots are carrying out operations entirely within the terms of their licences. Do bus licencing authorities impose conditions on bus licensees after they have been issued with a bus licence?

CASA is now adding conditions on top of existing licences. This may be actionable in law. In particular, if an Angel Flight passenger is carried, then certain requirements have to be met altering an existing licence which is exercised entirely within its proper terms.

This is an entire paradigm shift in licencing. While aimed at ostensibly Angel Flight, it is a true thin end of a wedge that will fill any pilot with dread.

This has the precedential possibility of changing licence conditions pilot-wide without appropriate canvassing and implementation. It, too, may be actionable. There is danger in singling out Angel Flight passengers, and also may be actionable on discrimination grounds. One fears that if CASA might succeed in this area, it will have its sights set on arenas which are more truly what it is aiming at. For this reason, it is important to put one’s foot down now.

Item 4 – CASA must reject the notion that pilot operations depend on passenger characteristics rather than pilot qualifications beyond the current position – e.g. with regard to fare paying and RPT requirements, none of which is relevant to Angel Flight.

Item 5 – CASA must declare what other operations it will apply provisions to, other than Angel Flight

Given the idea that operations are proposed to depend on passenger rather than pilot qualifications, the door is open by precedent to interfere in other operations, perhaps like:

a. I decide to go to a church weekend away in my private plane, and offer a lift to my friends.
b. Me as a pilot taking my work mates sightseeing
c. Me travelling to a work engagement in my private plane, rather than drive, and offering a lift to my friends.
d. In a similar way,me offering a lift to friends from point A to point B as I personally am happening to fly my aircraft in lieu of my driving or using other transport.

And so on, to name just a few examples. All these are under the legitimate terms of my licence, and able to be characterised by a passenger population rather than a pilot qualification. It is obvious how ludicrous a situation this leads to, but CASA is leaving this door wide open.
Is a CPL or ATPL holder going to have to characterise his flight on whether he is carrying his football team, or his musician friends, or film stars, and so on, rather than any other group of passengers.

4. Licence conditions

The Angel Flight operation is carried out strictly in terms of a pilot’s licence, legally and stringently obtained. Angel Flight adheres to this rigidly, and even limits operations within the given licence structure (experience requirements, day vs night requirements, instrument vs visual requirements, and so on). This further says that self-regulation is stringent and shows excellent results. Exams and flight tests have had to be passed, and operational activities are dictated by the terms of a licence.

With this proposal, CASA is tacitly saying that a given licence is inadequate. It is tacitly saying that for a long time that it has ignored establishing and promulgating inadequate licensing. Angel Flight pilots operate strictly within the terms of their licences, and now find that CASA does not trust the licence that CASA itself has issued.

Given that CASA considers its licence to be inadequate, it needs to come into the open. The fix is to rework the licence requirements, not to impose requirements on single operation activities and thereby patchwork over the inadequacies.

Item 6. CASA must look at the basic implications of the proposal and not to restrict individual activities, when it is tacitly saying any problem is deeper. If the existing licence is inadequate, given pilots operate scrupulously within the terms of their licence, then CASA must look at licence qualification process. However, if existing licensing is indeed adequate, then CASA has no business making this sort of proposal.

I have heard it said that some instructors, CFIs, etc, are worried that a particular individual, though licenced, is such a bad pilot that they wouldn’t trust them to carry any passenger, let alone an Angel Flight passenger. This is a matter for examining the licencing process and certainly not for the restriction of Angel Flight. CASA needs to look at the root problem and not concentrate on “symptoms” by restricting Angel Flight, and if it tries to catch this problem in this way, is entirely missing the proper focus.

5. Maintenance

It is agreed, also by CASA, that the maintenance burden on GA is part of the burden killing GA. CASA has recommended new classifications and requirements for maintenance. Angel Flight pilots and owners, if undertaking activities other than Angel Flight, are perfectly entitled to take advantage of these new requirements.

But by undertaking Angel Flight, CASA forces pilots and owners out of the categories available to them, and forces them into the higher charter category maintenance.

This is a case of:

a. Inadequate thought given to a patchup proposal, and the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, given the much wider implications, and
b. A case of maintenance compliance being driven by a passenger class, and not a pilot/owner entitlement, when it should be driven by aircraft need, with no aircraft being superior or inferior to another as far as care is concerned, regardless of passenger group.

Item 7 - CASA must resolve the clash with other regulations so that pilots and owners are not denied their natural rights available in other provisions

Denial of natural rights also may well be actionable.

6. Conclusion

I support the terms of the Angel Flight organisation submission, and it should be read in addition, adding a further voice to it.
CASA has been pursuing Angel Flight for some time. It tried to enter a proposal in the past. It was withdrawn. It is time CASA recognised that this is not a sphere in which it ought to be involved. If it is serious about supporting and enhancing GA activities, it should recognise where action is not required. And action is not required where
 
a. increased administrative burden limits laudable activities – to no good end in safety or otherwise;
b. regulation diminishes the properly licenced rights of individual pilots;
c. a demonstrably safe activity will not lead to enhanced safety if this proposal is implemented;
d. proposals impose extra conditions on pilots/owners outside their existing licences, thus modifying their licence conditions surreptitiously.

It is my view that if this proposal was implemented it would be easy to mount legal action on the basis of:

a. Discrimination legislation
b. Adding non-agreed conditions to existing licences
c. Limiting options otherwise allowed by right, and even recommended, by CASA, to pilots and owners

CASA must be extremely cautious with what it is proposing, as the implications are likely to be actionable, and extend far wider than Angel Flight. This probably comes from a poorly considered patch-up attempt to address “symptoms” rather than a root cause.

I strongly recommend that this proposal not be proceeded with.

Associate Professor Andrews
Brisbane
CPL and CIR holder.

---

It is interesting to note that Associate Professor Chris Andrews is also a medical doctor and a 15 year CASA approved DAME, who also made this excellent submission to the CASA Avmed review in 2017: https://www.casa.gov.au/file/183326/down...n=93f8YY0Y



MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight embuggerance update: 15/02/19

In the HoR yesterday the Angel Flight Embuggerance legislative instrument was finally tabled:

Title - Civil Aviation Act 1988—Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights - Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019—CASA 09/19—F2019L00134

Source - House of Reps

Date - 14-02-2019

Parliament No.45

Tabled in House of Reps - 14-02-2019

Ref: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Instrument link: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F.../Html/Text

; & Explanatory Statement: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F...ement/Text

Purpose

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has assessed that community service flight operations have a higher risk of an accident or incident due to the existence of risk factors that are not usually present in baseline private operations. The purpose of the instrument is to mitigate this risk by placing conditions on flight crew licence holders conducting such operations that relate to requirements on the pilot (licence requirements, aeronautical experience, recency and medical fitness), operational and notification requirements and aircraft maintenance requirements.

Legislation

Section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) empowers the Governor-General to make regulations for the Act and in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Relevantly, the Governor-General has made the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) and Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).

Regulation 11.068 of CASR allows CASA, for subsection 98 (5A) of the Act, to issue a legislative instrument that imposes a condition relating to a matter mentioned in that subsection on a specified class of authorisations. Authorisations include flight crew licences, ratings and endorsements.

Overview of instrument

The main object of the Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.

Community service flights are non-emergency flights that primarily transport people to specialist medical treatment and are coordinated, arranged or facilitated by an entity for a charitable purpose or community service purpose. These flights are conducted by volunteer pilots under conditions that can be challenging. Pilots can operate from a variety of unfamiliar locations in varying weather conditions with no organisational oversight or safety support from a certificated air operator. Pilots conducting such operations might become subject to self-induced pressure to start or complete a flight because of a passenger’s medical condition.

The lack of organisational safety risk mitigators and the reliance on individual pilot assessments regarding a pilot’s acceptance of a volunteer flight, and the flight’s commencement or continuance, results in an increased need for pilots in command to be experienced and operationally recent. CASA has assessed that persons travelling on aircraft conducting community service flights are subject to flight operations of increased risk compared to charter or regular public transport flights. Although such persons are informed that these flights are not charter or regular passenger transport flights, there remains doubt regarding whether a non-aviation professional adequately understands the specific risks posed by this kind of operation.

Since 2011, community service flight accidents have resulted in 6 fatalities. To take account of the elevated risks, CASA considers it is appropriate to establish a regulatory baseline that provides clarity regarding an appropriate minimum safety standard. The instrument is intended to introduce reasonable and proportionate additional safety measures.

The instrument places conditions on the licences of flight crew members that conduct community service flights. The conditions introduce safety measures in relation to pilot licensing, medical fitness, and aeronautical experience. Operational requirements include that community service flights at night must be conducted using instrument instead of visual procedures. A community service flight can only be conducted in an aeroplane, and aeroplanes with a lower standard of airworthiness are excluded. There are also enhanced maintenance requirements for some aircraft.

Via the Shame or Fame for McCormack thread:

CAsA NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE MINISTERS STATEMENT OF EXPECTATIONS

The CAsA v Angel Flight issue can no longer be swept under the carpet. The CAsA DAS and Board have failed to deliver on the Ministers SOE, a very serious and legal non-compliance.

I have copied this directly from Miniscule Chester, his Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the Period 27 March 2017 to 30 June 2019, and  I am highlighting these sections;

1. “I also expect the Board to facilitate effective interaction between CASA and the industry”. As Ben Morgan succinctly pointed out - FAIL
2. “CASA consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new or amended regulatory changes”  - FAIL
3. “CASA undertake effective and ongoing engagement with the aviation industry to create a collaborative relationship between CASA and industry based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect” - FAIL

The CAsA DAS, Board Chair and current Minister for Infrastructure must be removed immediately!!!!!

Via the AOPA Oz thread:

Via the ABC News yesterday: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-13/s...e/10799654

...Disallowance still possible in Federal Parliament

Today's announcement is not a change of regulation.

CASA said it was a "licence condition" of the sort for pilots volunteering to fly medical patients.

The changes will come into effect on March 19 but must also follow an approval process through both houses of Federal Parliament.

If any MP raises a motion of disallowance against it, a debate and vote will be brought on which would decide whether the new conditions would continue.

So far, Queensland MPs Bob Katter and Lachlan Millar have voiced their concerns over the new standards...

This brings me to the possibility of there being a disallowance motion; or being legally challenged through the Parliamentary processes - ref: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/...dure/No_19

---

The disallowance process


The Act provides the framework for the standard disallowance regime, which is reflected in the standing orders. The key features are as follows:

• within 15 sitting days after tabling a senator or member of the House of Representatives [but in practice usually the former] may give notice of a motion to disallow the instrument (in whole or in part) (s42);
  
• if the motion is agreed to, the instrument is disallowed and it then ceases to have effect;
  
• if a notice of motion to disallow the instrument has not been resolved or withdrawn within 15 sitting days after having been given, the instrument is deemed to have been disallowed and it ceases to have effect;
  
• disallowance has the effect of repealing the instrument – if the instrument repealed all or part of an earlier instrument then disallowance also has the effect of reviving that part of the earlier instrument;
  
• an instrument 'the same in substance' cannot be made again (s46–48):
  

• • within 7 days after tabling (or, if the instrument has not been tabled, within 7 days after the last day on which it could have been tabled) (unless both Houses approve);
    
  • while it is subject to an unresolved notice of disallowance; and
    
  • within 6 months after being disallowed (without the approval of the House that disallowed the regulation).
    

Figure 1: Usual disallowance system

---

Also of interest from the above Parliamentary reference link are these sections:

---

4. Regulations and Ordinances Committee


This committee, established in 1932, scrutinises all instruments of delegated legislation to ensure that they:

• are made in accordance with the enabling Act, the Legislation Act and other applicable Acts;
  
• do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties;
  
• do not make rights and liberties of citizens unduly dependent on administrative decisions that are not subject to independent merits review;
  
• do not contain matter more appropriate for an Act of Parliament.
  

For further information about the committee, see chapter 15 of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, or the committee's web pages.

5. Human Rights Committee

Statements of compatibility with human rights must be included in the explanatory statements for legislative instruments (s15J). The Joint Committee on Human Rights examines all instruments against seven specified international human rights conventions and reports its findings to both Houses. For further information, see the committee's web pages.

---

From the explanatory statement this is the blurb on the Human Rights (s15J) requirements:

---

[b]Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights[/b]


Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
 
[b]CASA 09/19 — Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019 [/b]
 
This legislative instrument is compatible with the human rights and freedoms
recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
 
[b]Overview of the legislative instrument[/b]

A community service flight is defined in the instrument as one that transports a person (the patient) for the purpose of receiving non-emergency medical treatment. There is no charge to a patient or persons accompanying the patient to provide support or assistance. The flights are coordinated, arranged or facilitated by an entity for a charitable or community service purpose.
 
Community service flights are conducted by volunteer pilots under conditions that can be challenging. Pilots can operate from a variety of unfamiliar locations in varying weather conditions with no organisational oversight or safety support from a certificated air operator.
 
CASA has assessed that community service flight operations have a higher risk of an accident or incident due to the existence of risk factors that are not usually present in baseline private operations. The purpose of the instrument is to mitigate this risk by placing conditions on flight crew licence holders that relate to requirements on the pilot (licence requirements, aeronautical experience, recency and medical fitness), operational and notification requirements and aircraft maintenance requirements.
 
In essence, the conditions introduce safety measures in relation to pilot licensing and medical fitness, aeronautical experience and recency of experience. The conditions also impose operational requirements and enhanced aircraft maintenance requirements for certain aircraft. Among other things, a pilot of a community service flight is required to submit a flight notification to Airservices Australia.

Human rights implications


The instrument engages the right to protection against arbitrary and unlawful interference with privacy in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

 
Right to protection against arbitrary and unlawful interference with privacy

Article 17 of the ICCPR provides that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to unlawful attacks on honour and reputation. It further provides that everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
 
Section 10 makes it a condition on a flight crew licence that the pilot must not pilot an aeroplane operated for a community service flight unless the pilot submits a flight notification that identifies the flight as a community service flight. A flight notification involves the provision to AA of the name of the pilot. Flight notification information is required for safety regulatory purposes so that the pilot of an aircraft can be identified if necessary. Flight notification information is also used for search and rescue and recovery operations in the event of an incident, and to investigate incidents.

Reasonableness, necessity and proportionality

The requirement to submit a flight notification involves activities of one or more of the collecting, recording and storing of personal information. This is reasonable as it relates to data and information that is required to promote the safety of persons on a community service flight for search and rescue purposes in the event of an incident. The flight notification requirement also upholds the integrity of the safety regulatory scheme that protects the individuals on a flight by ensuring that information is available about who is performing activities affecting safety and demonstrating that they are appropriately authorised.

There are no other sources of the information available that will adequately and efficiently serve the regulatory purposes.
The requirements are also proportionate as they operate to ensure the fulfilment of safety objectives which are required to ensure the protection and safety of the individuals on the flight, and seek only the minimum information to identify persons with safety-related responsibilities.
The protections afforded by the Privacy Act 1988 continue to apply.

To the extent that the instrument limits the privacy-related rights in Article 17 of the ICCPR, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate for safety purposes, consistent with the objects of the Act.

Conclusion

This legislative instrument is compatible with human rights and, to the extent that it may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate to ensure the safety of aviation operations and to promote the integrity of the aviation safety system.
 
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

---

Not so sure about compliance with the Human Rights requirements, the CASA statement does seem somewhat contrived and cherry picked to suit a (their) purpose?? However the section under'Regulations and Ordinance Committee' I would of thought is of interest from a legal perspective?? Especially when you consider the bollocks and misleading statement under the sub-heading of 'consultation':

Consultation

CASA published a Discussion Paper in December 2014 that sought responses from the aviation community and public to assist CASA in its consideration of non-regulatory and regulatory options for enhancing the safety of community service flights. CASA did not proceed to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at that time, but decided to continue to monitor the operation of community service flights.


Formal consultations on a draft of the instrument were conducted by CASA from 18 December 2018 through to 31 January 2019. CASA received 233 responses from this consultation. All comments were read and assessed to determine areas of agreement and disagreement with the draft proposal, and the justifications provided for changes to the draft. This feedback highlighted that the proposal as consulted did not in all cases reflect requirements that were necessary, proportionate and cost-effective to mitigate the risks presented by the conduct of community service flights as private operations.


In response to the feedback CASA made significant modifications to its proposal in relation to the kinds of aeroplanes that may be used to conduct a community service flight, multi‑engine aeroplane pilot experience requirements and aircraft maintenance requirements. With respect to the latter, the proposal that aeroplane engines must be maintained in accordance with the standards applicable in commercial charter operations was removed. Other changes intended to improve and clarify the intent of the instrument were also made. CASA has also published a Summary of Consultation document that identifies and categorises the comments received, and how CASA has responded to these.

Rumour is that there is a small but growing conga line of concerned HoR independent pollies that are prepared to submit a motion for disallowance in next week's sitting of the House of Reps, so I guess there will be much MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight Embuggerance update: 19/03/19 

The CASA Iron Ring endorsed 'Mystique of Aviation Safety' strikes once again:

---

---

Via Oz Flying:

Federal Court rules against Angel Flight
19 March 2019
    
The Federal Court has dismissed an application from Angel Flight to stay the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's new regulations around community service flights (CSF).

In a hearing in the Victorian District of the Federal Court on Friday and Monday, Justice Anastassiou heard arguments from both sides, eventually ruling in favour of CASA and awarding costs against Angel Flight.

Although the Federal Court is yet to make its reasons public, witnesses in the court room said the application was struck out because the court believed that CASA would not have made the ruling unless there was a safety issue.

Angel Flight is believed to have disputed the data on which CASA has based its justification for the new regulations, but the court also declined to make a ruling based on the data.

The issue is now with parliament. The Centre Alliance has already moved a Motion of Disallowance in the House of Representatives and Senator Rex Patrick has indicated he will do the same in the Senate when it sits again in April.

In the last session of Senate Estimates, Senator Patrick asked CASA to table the statistics that show Angel Flight operations are four-to-five times more likely to have an incident or accident that a regular GA private flight. The question was taken on notice.

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

  
Hmm...no comment - 


MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

“witnesses in the court room said the application was struck out because the court believed that CASA would not have made the ruling unless there was a safety issue”.

A foolish Court that has its head stuck up its ass and wouldn’t know shit from clay. To trust CAsA over an organisation like Angel Flight shows just how stupid the so-called justice system is. Wankers.

[Sandy Reith]

[i][b]“witnesses in the court room said the application was struck out because the court believed that CASA would not have made the ruling unless there was a safety issue

This is very disappointing, and giving costs just compounds the lack of respect that we can have for this judgment. If the Court has not had a chance to consider the evidence that Senator Patrick has asked for, then how can Ángel Flight feel about this judgement? This smacks of “its a government decision and should not be questioned.” An all too familiar scenario that reeks of government employees closing ranks.

[Kharon]

The (Ills of Society) IOS indaba.

Two great shouts of BOLLOCKS erupted from the assembled IOS this evening.

Stunned disbelief preceded the first for a moment – then; from what began as a growling noise – the shout emerged. I called ‘em all to order and, when they returned from the bar, I asked, quietly, could someone elaborate. Eventually one of the Bar Room Barristers (BRB) stepped out; (they tend to cross refer) and made a simple, but succinct statement. “On what grounds does the court believe that CASA would not have made rules, if there was not a safety case?” “On what tangible evidence was the decision made?"  “Certainly not factual evidence’ for non was provided”. “Is the threat of ‘the blood on your hands’ enough to even influence a judgement on a point of law?"

Consensus - Angel Flight may not have proven their argument; but CASA has not provided the Senate Committee with the empirical data – BRB seconded the IOS ‘BOLLOCKS’ motion. So the motion was carried - . Once again CASA above the basics of law – failing to provide the data and working within the rule system they have developed to ensure any and all legal challenges become nugatory.

About this time P7 strolled in; I called a brief adjournment and took the offered glass with some relief – ‘can you do the rest?” “OK” was the reply – ‘they’re a handful when roused ain’t they though”. So I sat back to observe ‘round two’.

“Order, order – gentlemen please – Order” said TOM; and they did settle down. “ I want to read you two short paragraphs from the ‘Horse- pooh’ first; then call for a group opinion”. – Then he read out the following:-

Hatch – “Pilots and aviation experts have expressed alarm that proposals to force Australia's aviation regulator to consider the financial interests of industry operators could compromise the country's air safety regime.

Hatch – “The role of aviation safety regulators has been in the spotlight following the fatal crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 last Sunday, with the US Federal Aviation Administration facing questions about whether it gives too much weight to the US aviation industry's profits.

BOLLOCKS – came the second great shout. As the ‘IOS chronicler’ it falls to me to translate the reasons why; so, I begin.

“Pilots and aviation experts have expressed alarm that proposals to force Australia's aviation regulator to consider the financial interests of industry operators could compromise the country's air safety regime”.

Opinion (i) There is no proposal which even vaguely suggests that the ‘financial well-being’ of operators or business interests should take any sort of precedent in the changes to ‘the Act’. This is pure fantasy. CASA is being asked to consider the financial impact their regulations are having on industry – in comparison to the NZ, UK and the USA systems. The Act as it stands allows CASA a free reign to do pretty much whatever they like, unchallenged, in the name of ‘safety’ - whatever that is. The paragraph in the SMH is ‘misleading’ to the point of being disingenuous. Many ( a great many)  of the CASA ‘regulations’ impose great cost, much of it not remotely associated with anything other than ‘safe conviction’ and allocation of blame – to the benefit of the big insurance companies. It begs the question – who gains financially from the CASA edicts? Not the industry, such as it is; nor those involved in 'accident' that is for certain sure.

“The role of aviation safety regulators has been in the spotlight following the fatal crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 last Sunday, with the US Federal Aviation Administration facing questions about whether it gives too much weight to the US aviation industry's profits.

(ii) This statement begs two questions. I say this is a cynical, self promoting, headline grabbing, politically beneficial, ultra safe gambit to impress on the public and hapless politicians; how the great con game works. I pose only one simple question M'lud – had Qantas, Jetstar, Tiger and Virgin been operating the 737 Max variant – how fast do you think ATSB and CASA would have been to scream ‘safety’ and ground ‘em. You all know the answer as well as I do. Hypocrisy and Hubris don’t quite cover it – but they will do for now.

And so; when P7 called for the vote – I joined in the last great shout of the evening #3 – BOLLOCKS, as loud and as hard as I could. I will add there was real venom in that shout. Impervious and protected is one thing, exposed to daylight is another. Game on I’d say. Let’s see what ‘Hatch, Match and Dispatch’ can do with a reality fix; one without  Gibson faery tales; or, even Casa financial leverage over the AFAP. That will be fun -



Toot – Toot

[P7_TOM]

One of many who should speak out, with the courage and integrity shown by Glen Buckley – HERE. If you have the patience to read the responses – note the number of ‘best wishes’ and compare those to the number of supporting submissions offered to make his argument stick. A sad indictment on the GA industry IMO.  

Good afternoon, my name is Glen Buckley, the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance. I live at 36 Essex Road in Mount Waverley,and absolutely stand 100% behind everything I will shortly be writing on here. My story is long and detailed, but it is the correct forum. What I am writing will be in the public interest. I will return over this weekend, and commence outlining my situation.

I have written to the CASA Board on multiple occasions, and those appeals have been completely ignored, so here I am.

I have written to the CASA Board and advised them of the following

To the Board of Directors of CASA, my name is Glen Buckley, the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance ARN 759217. I am obliged to formally advise you that as the CASA Approved CEO of APTA I have lost all trust and confidence in CASA. I do not take the decision lightly and it is a well-considered decision. I appreciate that operational matters such as this, are outside your remit, but the reasons for this decision must be bought to the attention of the Board. Could you please advise Mr Shane Carmody, so that he can arrange for guidance on the procedure to be followed in such matters.

I have made repeated attempts to contact the Board and discuss my concerns. Those appeals to the Board have been completely ignored, hence my options for an internal resolution are fading quickly. With the recent Royal Banking Commission inquiry, we know what happens once a Board loses control over the ethics and good governance of an organisation. I will clearly demonstrate how CASA bought harm to me, my Business, my valued and highly professional staff, and Members. CASA actions were never based on safety concerns, and there were no regulatory breaches.

Personnel such as Mr xxx, Mr xxxx, And Mr xxxxx have been complicit in this behaviour, and it extends to

A blatant disregard for CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy.

A blatant disregard for the PGPA Act, and gross wasting of taxpayer funds and resources.

Breaches of CASA's own Enforcement Manual.

Technical incompetence on behalf of those personnel mentioned previously.

Motivations by certain personnel within CASA that are not based on safety or regulatory compliance
False audit results/blatant untruths etc My assertions are well documented and supported.

The sending of this email coincides with me mounting a significant and very public campaign to highlight the culture that exists within the Organisation. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the Minister, the Honourable Mr McCormack, and it is in fact he, who is ultimately accountable, and will be held accountable publicly.

Multiple attempts to contact him over a protracted period have also been completely ignored. I am advising that I will be forwarding a copy of this document to him, and also to the Honourable Mr Barnaby Joyce who has the confidence and trust of the Aviation sector generally. I am able to meet with any two Members of the Board at the same time at any location in Australia over the next 7 days, if required. At that meeting I would require 90 minutes to present the facts to you. Respectfully

Glen Buckley.

Glen - FWIW; you may find that history does repeat and nothing, absolutely nothing changes. The following from Aunt Pru may assist, it went nowhere seven years ago - but brush the dust off and it's still valid. You know where to find us.

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight embuggerance update: 24 April '19

Courtesy LMH, via the Yaffa:

Angel Flight confirms Court Action
24 April 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    
Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani has confirmed the organisation will proceed with legal action against the Civil Aviation Safety Authority over the new community service flight (CSF) regulations.

The regulations, which came into force on 19 March, place new standards on private pilots and aeroplanes conducting CSF missions.

Angel Flight believes that CASA has no power to enforce such standards, and will proceed with legal action on the basis of ultra vires, which states that the regulator has exceeded the power of their authority.

In their submission to CASA following the release of the regulations, Angel Flight stated that they believed the regulator was trying to restrict the types of missions that private pilots were qualified to fly.

"Rather than seek to improve training, education or any other matter related to general aviation safety, prior to issuing licences, the authority seeks to arbitrarily and selectively restrict the use to which licences can be put.

"CASA is seeking, by administrative direction, to curtail the rights of pilots to fly pursuant to the licences which CASA has granted, and similarly, curtail the rights of aircraft owners to fly their machines in the private category depending upon the health and residential location of their passengers."

Australian Flying believes the basis of the ultra vires argument is that CASA has no power to tell private pilots who they can and can't carry as passengers if the flight is not commercial.

Pagani told Australian Flying that Angel Flight will also argue that CASA has denied the organisation natural justice.

Pleadings are thought to be finalised by 31 May.

In March, Angel Flight was unsuccessful in having the Federal Court stay the new regulations, and Motions of Disallowance in both the House of Representatives and the Senate expired when the 45th parliament was dissolved earlier this month.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...JH5eveM.99

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight embuggerance update: 24 April '19

Courtesy LMH, via the Yaffa:

Angel Flight confirms Court Action
24 April 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    
Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani has confirmed the organisation will proceed with legal action against the Civil Aviation Safety Authority over the new community service flight (CSF) regulations.

The regulations, which came into force on 19 March, place new standards on private pilots and aeroplanes conducting CSF missions.

Angel Flight believes that CASA has no power to enforce such standards, and will proceed with legal action on the basis of ultra vires, which states that the regulator has exceeded the power of their authority.

In their submission to CASA following the release of the regulations, Angel Flight stated that they believed the regulator was trying to restrict the types of missions that private pilots were qualified to fly.

"Rather than seek to improve training, education or any other matter related to general aviation safety, prior to issuing licences, the authority seeks to arbitrarily and selectively restrict the use to which licences can be put.

"CASA is seeking, by administrative direction, to curtail the rights of pilots to fly pursuant to the licences which CASA has granted, and similarly, curtail the rights of aircraft owners to fly their machines in the private category depending upon the health and residential location of their passengers."

Australian Flying believes the basis of the ultra vires argument is that CASA has no power to tell private pilots who they can and can't carry as passengers if the flight is not commercial.

Pagani told Australian Flying that Angel Flight will also argue that CASA has denied the organisation natural justice.

Pleadings are thought to be finalised by 31 May.

In March, Angel Flight was unsuccessful in having the Federal Court stay the new regulations, and Motions of Disallowance in both the House of Representatives and the Senate expired when the 45th parliament was dissolved earlier this month.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...JH5eveM.99

Addendum: 26/04/19
The White Rabbit tables Federal Court Angel Flight denied stay application...  

Mr Graeme M. Crawford, Acting Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety, Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Response from CASA to Senator Patrick's request for a copy of the Federal Court judgement regarding an application from Angel Flight. - 11 April 2019 (PDF 4,444KB)

 
This is the bit that should raise the hackles of any bona fide IOS member and/or industry stakeholder:

Safety of air travel

34 I turn now to a further matter which self-evidently is of utmost significance to the balance of
convenience, namely the safety risk associated with any stay of the instrument. CASA is
charged with the responsibility of regulating air safety in Australia, stating its purpose
generally. Its objectives are set out in section 3A of the Act. That section provides:

3A Main object of this Act

The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining,

enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on

preventing aviation accidents and incidents.

35 In section 9A, CASA’s function is described as follows:

9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the
safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.

 
Once again the mystique of aviation safety strikes - then ably backed up by this kind of weasel worded confection : 

36 The terms of the instrument recite CASA’s purpose as one directed to enhancing safety of air
travel. In the explanatory statement to the instrument, CASA states as follows, under the
heading Purpose:

[CASA] has assessed that community service flight operations have a higher risk of
an accident or incident due to the existence of risk factors that are not usually present
in baseline private operations. The purpose of the instrument is to mitigate this risk
by placing conditions on flight crew licence holders conducting such operations that
relate to requirements on the pilot (licence requirements, aeronautical experience,
recency and medical fitness), operational and notification requirements and aircraft
maintenance requirements.

37 The stated purpose of the instrument is repeated in the first affidavit of Mr Agnew in which

he deposes that he was informed by Mr Shane Patrick Carmody, the Chief Executive Officer
of CASA, that the instrument was a culmination of an initiative to raise safety standards in
the community service flight sector following fatal accidents in 2011 and 2017.

Then note the disconnection and distraction by firing up the 'he said she said' argument:

38 In her first affidavit, Ms Pagani confirmed these accidents had occurred, though states that
there is no statistically significant difference between the safety of Angel Flight co-ordinated
flights and private flights:

Systems are in place to ensure that all aspects of Angel Flight operations comply with
applicable CASA requirements. Angel Flight coordinated flights have been involved
in 2 accidents in approximately 46,000 flights over 16 years. Expert statistician
analysis carried out on behalf of Angel Flight concludes that there is no statistical
difference in the rate of serious accidents between flights coordinated by Angel
Flight and those of private flight, [sic] when data between 2005 and 2017 is analysed.
There was no digital data available for the period 2003-2005. However, there were
no coordinated volunteer flight accidents known to Angel Flight in those two years.

39 During the hearing on 15 March, I asked senior counsel for Angel Flight whether there was
any report from the expert statistician referred to in the extract above. As a result, after the
luncheon adjournment, a third affidavit was provided by Ms Pagani, sworn 15 March, in
which she explains the expert was Ms Miranda Mortlock, an accredited statistician, and states
further that:

I nominated Dr Owen Crees, PhD in Chemistry, including analytics, and long-serving
volunteer pilot with Angel Flight, volunteering in excess of 400 flights, to be the
point of contact with the expert in order to assist in preparation of the report. For that
purpose, he has collated accident data from publicly available sources, including the
Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Dr Crees regularly updates me on the progress
of the report. On or about 9 March 2019, Dr Crees called me to advise that he had
received the following information from Ms Mortlock:

(a) The report would conclude that there is no indication that Angel
Flight is more unsafe compared with other flights in the private
category.
(b) On a per-flight basis, there was no statistically significant difference

between Angel Flight flights and other flights in the private category.
© The report is not yet finalised because there is ongoing research
being undertaken in relation to minor incidences or occurrences and
a comparison of Angel Flight statistics in that regard with other
flights in the private category.

We expect to receive the written report when all the relevant data has been obtained
and analysed and the above matters have been attended to. I am expecting to receive
the written report within a month.

40 This evidence is in stark contrast to the evidence of CASA concerning the incidence of

accidents involved in the community service flight sector. In his first affidavit, Mr Agnew
says that he is informed by Mr Carmody that:

As Australia’s aviation safety regulator, CASA has conducted its own safety analysis
into safety trends within the community service flight sector. CASA drew on data
from Australia’s multi-modal accident investigation organisation, the Australian
Transport Safety Bureau and the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional
Economics for the period 2008 to 2017. CASA compared data from
private/business/sport aviation (excluding gliding) with the accident and fatal
accident rates for community service flights.

Before signing the instrument, [Mr Carmody] was satisfied that the incident and
accident rates within the community service flight sector were significantly higher
than the private flying sector. CASA’s analysis of the data reveals the following
accident and fatal accident rates:

(a) the fatal accident rate per 10,000 hours is approximately five times higher for
community service sector flights than it is for private/business/sport flights.
(b) the annual average [Australian Transport Safety Bureau] fatal accident rate
per million hours is 112.7 for community service flights and 20.86 for
private/business/sport flights.

41 It is not feasible in the context of an urgent interlocutory application, brought only a few days
before the instrument comes into effect, to resolve in any meaningful way the contest on the
evidence concerning the relative incidence of accidents involving aircraft engaged in the
community service flight sector, on the one hand, and the private/business/sport sector, on the
other. As I understand it, the community service flight sector is a subset of what might be
described as the broader private sector. Having regard to CASA’s evidence concerning the
incidence of serious or fatal accidents involving aircraft engaged in the community service
sector, as well as the stated impetus for CASA’s introduction of the instrument, and that
CASA is the body charged with responsibility for supervising and regulating the safety of air
travel in Australia, in my opinion, the court cannot in the context of this application prefer the
evidence of Angel Flight to that of CASA in respect of this important issue.

 
Hmm...no comment required, I'll leave that to Marcus Hone off the Yaffa - 

Martin Hone  Jacko Powers • 7 days ago

Given CASA's misinterpretation of the stats, I cannot see how anyone could agree with it. There was no problem to fix. so what was CASA thinking ?

http://disq.us/p/2193373

All this bogus crap about the safety of Angel Flight and yet there the DFO still sits...

Ref - https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...5#pid10225 & https://www.theage.com.au/national/victo...uhi6j.html

..Helen van den Berg was spokeswoman for a campaign to close Essendon Airport for 13 years – but the group wound itself up two years ago after realising the fight was pointless.

"Why argue when nobody will act? You saw today, the premier shut down the argument about closing so quickly because commerce takes precedence over people," she said.

Labor's 1996 federal election campaign promised to shut the airport and turn it into film studios.

Ms van den Berg, who lives in Niddrie, said air safety bureaucrats had warned at that time that Essendon needed a far bigger buffer around its runways...

...Ms van den Berg said the aircraft in Tuesday's accident might have had more chance of reducing the crash severity if there had been open space around it.

"If I buy a ticket for Tullamarine, I know there is a buffer of green space around it. At Essendon, there's nothing."

...But Essendon Fields residents on Tuesday voiced their concerns about the height of buildings close to the airport.

Stephen Moore saw the aftermath of the plane crashing into the shopping centre. He was surprised "a building of that height that close to an airport" had been allowed...


...Brian, who did not want to give his last name, called the height of the apartments "ridiculous". The 55-year-old has lived most of his life in Essendon and said if the plane had missed the DFO, it would have hit the apartments.

"I don't know how they got away with building it that high that close to the airport. It's silly. When I was a kid, we were told off for flying kites."

---

Ref - https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/essendon-airport-dfo-plans-call-safety-planning-into-question-20190115-p50re4.html

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Of the right and of the wrong of it.

The words mostly associated with any discussion of the AF imbroglio are ‘Smoke Screen” which, in the opinion of many is the ‘right’ of it. What the BRB couldn’t fathom was the ‘why’ of it.

P2 and I spent an hour yesterday kicking the subject around, there is some substantive evidence worthy of serious consideration, for discussion next BRB indaba. When he get’s a chance P2 will post the history and details we thought were worth considering. The proposition is a simple one: - the ‘smoke and mirrors show’ CASA have mounted, using AF as their foil has little to do with the half baked ‘safety’ case are running with; but everything to do with decade old ‘stuff’ which should have been addressed after ICAO audit.

Angel Flight (Australia) is a fairly soft target – and a highly emotive one; a sure fire winner for the media, making perfect top cover for the escape from potential audit embarrassment. This theory could be supported by the fact that the NTSB and AF (USA) sorted out their ‘system’ a long while ago – Australian AF followed suite. That should have been the end of the story – but no.

I don’t have my notes with me; but EO&E (P2 will correct - ) there were grave concerns a decade ago, raised at audit regarding our two top killers – Night Visual Flight (NVMC) and Visual Flight Rules qualified pilots entering Instrument Flight conditions  and loosing control of the aircraft – VFR into IMC. There were some associated factors mentioned – but the point is none of these matters have been fully and completely addressed. The safety loop has not been closed; despite CASA being gifted a substantial, additional sum to rectify the noted deficiencies in their system. For example: the lack of technical expertise and experience within the ‘coal face’ body and a shortage of manpower. It begs the question – why – suddenly – is “Bulk” employment being boomed?

I can assure you; when P2 gets it all sorted it will be a long read, lots of dots and many dashes. But worth the time. Whether it will do the slightest bit of good remains to be seen. Much will depend on how the new government minister views 'the facts'.

One fact is inescapable – CASA need to be reformed; top to bottom, as they stand today they are a liability to not only ‘safety’ (whatever that may be) but to government. A ‘fair dinkum’ FAA audit could and probably should down grade Australia – just for sheer incompetence alone, without even mentioning the vast areas of non compliant compliance produced related to almost every annex of the ICAO.

Anyway – we shall try to get the research data up; soon.

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

Australian campaign of O&O of ICAO NCNs - 1999-2019?  


P9 -"..When he get’s a chance P2 will post the history and details we thought were worth considering...I don’t have my notes with me; but EO&E (P2 will correct -  ) ...I can assure you; when P2 gets it all sorted it will be a long read, lots of dots and many dashes...Anyway – we shall try to get the research data up; soon..." 

To be honest "K" sometimes I'd like to get that pointy hat of yours and...(fill in the blank) - 

However it just so happens that I've been a given a perfect example of the evidence of which "K" mentions in his above post. But first some background for the 2008 ICAO audit connection - 2019 CofFEE report reference (note points in bold and/or underlined): 

..Australia received an audit from the ICAO in 2008, under the old system, at which time it

received an Effective Implementation (EI) score of 82.63 per cent. At this time Australia filed

a difference with the ICAO to reflect their regulatory system varied from the SARPs. This

resulted in Australia providing a corrective action plan to address the Findings and

Recommendation (F&Rs), where Australia committed to considering the issue as part of a

review (ICAO, 2009).


Australia agreed to a second safety oversight audit in 2012, which was carried out in 2017. As

part of this, Australia participated in an ICAO Coordinated Validation Mission (ICVM). The

ICVM is one of the activities prescribed under the CMA framework. This involved a team of

experts visiting Australia and working with Australian regulators and operators to measure and

improve compliance with ICAO Standards. Much of the work was on improving Australia’s

response to USOAP F&Rs from previous audits.


Prior to the ICVM, an off-site validation activity was performed in 2016, at which time

Australia’s overall Effective Implementation (EI) was 85.27 per cent. This would place

Australia 48th out of Member States, on today’s rankings. Prior to the ICVM in 2017, Australia
had received 125 Protocol Questions (PQs), indicating those areas that were not satisfactory...

Now an extract pic from page nine of the Mount NCN thread:



P2 - Note the 45 days for submission of CAPs

Okay with the above in mind the following is an extract from the latest Fort Fumble weasel worded missive...  

Risk profile for maintenance of charter operations

CASA is developing a safety risk profile for the maintenance of charter operations. To assist in the development of the risk profile a survey of relevant maintenance organisations will be conducted in May 2019 and CASA is encouraging participation. The survey will collect valuable data to accurately inform risk analysis and should only take 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Sector risk profiles are an important tool in understanding the safety challenges and issues for different segments of the aviation community. They present a picture of the current key safety risks facing a sector and assist in developing a deeper understanding of the effects of these risks. The profiles look at how the level of risks can be reduced and managed by the participants in each sector and CASA, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of risk treatments through a set of safety performance indicators. CASA is also reviewing previous safety risk profiles for aerial mustering and aerodromes, with updated reports to be issued later in 2019.

Read sector risk profile reports.

Now let's rewind to the Appendix 1 of the 2008 ICAO Audit report:


& the CAP:


Plus App 3-3-03:



& the CAP:



Now remember that these two significant ICAO F&Rs, along with the infamous Chambers report, was what contributed to Albo and the Rudd Labor Government putting in place an additional fuel levy to provide $89.9 million to help CASA increase the number and expertise in the AWI & FOI ranks.

Now fast forward to the 2017 ICAO ICVM final report under the high priority list:

High Priorities:

LEG:

1) Review the processes, procedures and/or arrangements in place to ensure that all relevant State safety oversight and investigation authorities (particularly with respect to Annexes 3, 12 and 13 to the Chicago Convention) are involved, in a coordinated manner, in the processing of adopted Annex amendments, with a view to: a) identifying all differences between the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and the State’s regulations and practices; and b) determining any need to amend the State’s legislation.
2) Ensure a timely and consistent update of national regulations whenever amendments to Annexes 1, 6 and 18 are received.
3) Ensure a consistent, thorough and documented review of the State’s enabling airworthiness-related regulations and national standards subsequent to an Annex amendment or an amendment by the originating State/organization, if applicable, to decide on the next course of action.
4) Establish requirements regarding the documents to be carried on board, to include the journey logbook.
5) Establish requirements, based on scientific principles, knowledge and operational experience, for flight time, flight duty period, duty period and rest period limitations applicable for cabin crew.
6) Establish requirements for human factors principles to be observed in the design and application of maintenance programmes.
7) Amend the State’s legislation to require the re-opening of an investigation if new and significant evidence becomes available.

ORG:
1) Include all required training in the training programmes established for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)’s airworthiness inspectors and engineers, and ensure the effective implementation of such training, in particular during the on-the-job training (OJT).
2) Finalize the recruitment and training of additional investigators to ensure that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) can meet its national and international obligations with respect to aircraft accident and incident investigations. 

Hmm...yet here we are nearly one year and at least 45 days after the ICAO ICVM FR was published and still no sign of a CAP?


MTF? - Definitely...P2 

ps For additional reading on this disturbing tale of ICAO O&O go to this Mount NCN post: Three decades of Australia taking the piss out of ICAO  - 

[Peetwo]

APTA (Glen B) embuggerance update - 4/06/19

A job of work.

Serious, mind numbing, tedious, heart breaking grind; alas, if the Australian Flight School industry wants to survive, it has to be done – and soon.

There are ‘other’ sensible solutions, which could avoid the head and heart ache. This however would involve CASA taking a long, hard constructive look at the ‘type’ of people they employ and the ‘power’ gifted to those people. I am of course referring to the Glen Buckley saga and the incredible tangle CASA have landed both themselves and APTA in. What an unholy mess.

But, before asking you to get a handle on the copious amounts of ‘paper’, the incredible ‘word count’ and the confused action; to consider one small, but, IMO essential element of the saga.

In the beginning APTA elected to go whole hog on a transition to Part 142 operations. This, without considering the hidden, heavy burden Parts 61./141/142 would place on any operation and the confused, overreach this legislation, in conjunction with other confused, unclear ‘rules’ would produce was their first mistake. 61/141/142 should have been rejected, out of hand by industry and it probably would have been, had industry had time, money and a care for the future. Industry simply went along to get along, hoping for the best, never expecting or considering the worst of how that same legislation could be used against them. But I digress; start again. Click – restart.

In the beginning APTA elected to go whole hog on a transition to Part 142 operations. In good faith, they invested their time, money and effort in the project. They worked hard and consulted often with a highly professional team of CASA’s best. It was an enormous, expensive team effort, clearly demonstrating how effectively industry and CASA could work together to achieve a better outcome – 600 ‘line items’ all addressed to the satisfaction of the operator and the CASA ‘A’ team. Good to go; congratulations all round. Bravo.

Pretty much ‘out-of-the-blue’ APTA had a change of oversight team. A reasonable person could assume that – give or take a bit – the same level of support and consultation would be available from the new CASA crew and their ‘manager’. Remember; a small mountain of time, money and effort had been invested – by both CASA and APTA achieving ‘compliance’ with what is arguably the worlds worst rule set, encompassed in Parts 61/141/142.

In a heartbeat – a great example of industry and CASA cooperation to unravel the mysteries of this dreadful legislation had disappeared. The upshot is contained in the writings and pleas for common sense and for reasonable sanity provided by APTA, rejected through the artful use of carefully selected ‘rules’ by one man. Faith, hope, confidence in the regulator, money and time; lost, and gone forever. Have CASA no shame?

We have all witnessed this event on several occasions, this is not the first nor is it likely to be the last – unless there is a concerted effort, from industry – from Big Q down to the humblest one man show to put a full stop to the CASA saga of whimsical embuggerance. 

Not that it will happen; we will need a lot more than a minister with a backbone. NZ sets the bench mark – a Royal commission may help; but nothing short of a united government effort to right the wrongs and build a reliable regulatory authority, we can be proud of will change the dreadful damage CASA, some of it’s sociopaths and hedonists have served up; for far too long.

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”


One director, one board, one minister could, with a little effort and backbone, sort the shambles out. They know it’s wrong; the world and it’s wife know it’s wrong.

Aye well: (sigh) - I know – dream on – back in my box -

Toot – toot.

&..

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...




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 scared, too 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.  

Having now read some of the vast volumes of meticulously recorded information (i.e documents email chains etc.) from glenb, on the despicable case of embuggerance of AFTA, I am starting to join the dots and form a picture of the level of conceit and sheer bastardry being deployed by the current crop of self-serving/self-preserving Iron Ring acolytes.

Much like with the Angel Flight imbroglio, the biggest question with the APTA case of embuggerance is why?  

---

---

With a great concept with smaller Flying Schools acting together in an alliance to help minimise the forbidding costs of setting up and remaining compliant with CASR Part 142. Working together proactively with the CASA Southern Regional manager and the assigned CMT (Certificate Management Team) things were going along swimmingly until this:  

Five months later some obscure, NFI AWI/CTM (Chamberpot look-a-like) from the FNQ region was inexplicably placed in the Acting Regional manager role (Southern Region); and almost immediately issued this to the totally blind-sided APTA management team: 

---

---

Next remember this?

Now in the shady book of coincidences this suspected (above) CASA IR acolyte just so happened to be also in an Acting role - i.e the Acting Executive Manager, Regulatory Services &. Surveillance. This meant that not only was he more than likely to be responsible for the (Chambers lookalike) David Jones temporary assignment as Ag (Southern) Regional Manager but also he would have been at least CC'd, if not helped instigate the action against APTA...

Finally as another passing strange coincidence, if you visit the CM LinkedIn page (see HERE) under 'Skills and Endorsements' it says:

Change Management

See 1 endorsement for Change Management1

Graeme M. Crawford has given an endorsement for this skill

Hmm...MTF - MUCH! P2  

[Kharon]

The reasoned question – Why?

A ramble…

P2 – “Much like with the Angel Flight imbroglio, the biggest question with the APTA case of embuggerance is why?”

It is a fair question; one which demands an answer. Perhaps it could be asked as a lead up to an inquiry into a whole series of ‘events’ similar in pattern and execution to the APTA affair. When one begins to puzzle out the why’s there is a small, dim light, hidden in a corner which, for me at least, has just come on. I may ramble on a bit here – it’s a new notion and as yet untested. It begins with a conversation I had one evening with a fairly heavy duty, retired ex law enforcement type, as close to being a mate as you can get with folk who ‘work’ in that area, without being ‘one of them’ – i.e. an outsider. First class bloke – but there is a barrier and a unique ‘way’ of thinking and viewing the world at large which is not easily broken down - each to his own. No quarrel.

The discussion was about something -  nothing – I thought there may be another way of ‘dealing’ with the subject. Then my mate explained it, carefully and thoroughly – from a ‘policing’ perspective. In short, while we could see each others point of view – we were miles apart in approach. Intrigued, I cited an aviation matter and asked his opinion on how best it could be managed. It was then that my small, dim bulb began to flicker. Bear with me, I’ll get there.

As an aviation type; the solution to me clear as clear as crystal – legal and honest. To him; the ‘fix’ was in the future after a ‘case’ had been built; his involvement would begin and end focused on the ‘allegation’. Perspective. I asked why and he growled ‘bloody lawyers’ and then it was my turn to go to the bar. Change subject and enjoy the evening. I’d almost forgotten it, until we got interested in GlenB and APTA.

All P2’s fault. We decided to do a bit of dust bin digging; see who was who and what they were before CASA. When you join up the dots in the ‘people’ map and ignore the ‘event’ map a very clear picture emerges; which IMO is alarming. Not ‘sinister’ but a matter of great concern.

P9 – “In the beginning APTA elected to go whole hog on a transition to Part 142 operations. In good faith, they invested their time, money and effort in the project. They worked hard and consulted often with a highly professional team of CASA’s best. It was an enormous, expensive team effort, clearly demonstrating how effectively industry and CASA could work together to achieve a better outcome – 600 ‘line items’ all addressed to the satisfaction of the operator and the CASA ‘A’ team. Good to go; congratulations all round. Bravo.”

The absolute best case scenario – aviation types from the regulator and industry working together to bring about a good result – despite the ‘bad’ law. The regulator team seeing things as aviation folk do and dealing with the roadblocks and hurdles in a sensible, practical, law abiding way.

P9 – “Pretty much ‘out-of-the-blue’ APTA had a change of oversight team. A reasonable person could assume that – give or take a bit – the same level of support and consultation would be available from the new CASA crew and their ‘manager’. Remember; a small mountain of time, money and effort had been invested – by both CASA and APTA achieving ‘compliance’ with what is arguably the worlds worst rule set, encompassed in Parts 61/141/142.”

The answer may be gleaned from the resume’s and past actions of the second team APTA was to work with; and, those who manage such teams. ‘Enforcement’ – CASA is obsessed with ‘enforcement’. Don’t just believe me; get weaving and check out how many ‘Spook’ and ‘Investigative’ types infest the halls of doom. There are a lot. Probably all decent blokes in their own way – but nonetheless – they take a ‘Coppers’ view and their thought patterns and processes are vastly different to those who puzzle out the riddles of aviation law and try to stay ‘legal’. The mere fact that an operator has to deal with an enforcement mind set, rather than an aeronautical mind set is enough to worry a stone idol. Yet, they seem to be in the ascendency.

All this in an attempt to answer P2’s question – “Why?” Which begs many other questions.

Why was the CMT changed? – Why was a Roger Chambers lookalike completion winner (a known ‘killer’ of aviation business) dragged out of Cairns and sent to the other end of the country to bugger up the APTA tea party? Why was the original team leader sent away on ‘leave’ or whatever? And many other questions.

But, for me I’m left wondering whether we are not over regulated but overly ‘enforced’ and why? It is a hellish weapon to place in the hands of a man like Crawford – Angel Flight, Bruce Rhodes and now APTA.  But the big question is not will the DoIT get a rope on this bunch – but can they? Clearly something has to be done to clean out the ‘enforcement’ and return matters aeronautical to the folk who understand it. Plenty of ‘other’ enforcement agencies out there. So, do we really need another in the ‘private’ hands of an aviation regulator/administrator which is already beyond the law and ministerial control? I think not.

Toot – toot.

[P7_TOM]

He, He - Heave ho.

And, over the side with the Gash

GlenB has published a letter he wrote to the CASA board – requesting an audience. – HERE -. Silence has been their stern, collective reply – not even a positive NO. It seems that while St Commode is operating on a part time basis (at $600,000 + p.a.) this Crawford chap has the CASA board bully ragged into silence. Interesting little How-de-do that, ain’t it……Borderline unbelievable; Crawford growls, the board cowers and sit all a quiver, silent, in abject terror.

"Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as the Manager of the Aviation Group intervened and wrote to me advising he would not permit the meeting with the Board."

I'll repeat that for the deaf, dumb, blind and hard of hearing:-

"Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as the Manager of the Aviation Group intervened and wrote to me advising he would not permit the meeting with the Board."

How would you like to be to be stood at a bar and overhearing the Tony Mathews response to that?

What does Gash mean in Scottish? Gash may refer to: Wound, a type of injury. Colloquial term for the vulva. British military slang (specifically from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines) for rubbish (garbage), or for something that is considered useless, broken or otherwise of little value.

Being a ‘Gent’ and a fine fellahin to boot; I doubt Mathews would  use the word GASH, which,  in all it’s connotations fit the Crawford persona to a T’. We will though; and other words to boot. “K” has begun a ‘colourful’ alphabetical descriptive list – “Unacceptable” voted the most popular by far and wide.

[Peetwo]

So who hired the Git??

For a classic example of the sheer mendacity, arrogance and willful ignorance of the Scots Git go no further than the following (note the body language from St Commode and M&M):

Next from the glenb embuggerance file I can confirm the email correspondence from the Git:

3. I have made four submissions to the CASA Board, and they were totally ignored. I did not receive an acknowledgement from the Board, or a response. The Acting CEO of CASA did write back on 04/01/19 with the following email;


“Dear Mr Buckley,
For clarity, we will not be arranging a meeting with APTA and the CASA Board and whilst I appreciate you may not like that outcome, I kindly request you accept that is CASA’s position.”

04/01/19? So while St Commode was recovering from Xmas pud and a few too many NYE Champers, the 'Git' was busy pretending to be the legitimate Saint of aviation safety and sitting Board member writing up notices of embuggerance to the likes of Angel Flight and APTA,,,now why does that modus operandi sound so familiar? 

TBC...P2 

[thorn bird]

So from what we gather, the Scottish Git has forbidden the board from having any interaction with Industry.

If the board is only permitted to see material CAsA approves of, how on earth could the board have any influence at all on the governance of CAsA? Isn't a board supposed to direct management, their title is after all "Board of DIRECTORS"?

I always imagined thats what a board was supposed to do, direct management. I cannot imagine they can operate effectively in the dark, completely detached from any industry input.

I have no idea what CAsA board members get paid, but it can't be insubstantial. Therefore if the board CAsA is powerless to have any influence on management what is the point of having a board? other than for political payback for services rendered.

We all welcomed the appointment of Geoff Boyd to the CAsA board. We all saw him as one of our own and that he would be a catalyst for true reform. In the end the CAsA iron ring castrated him with a blunt paring knife, leaving him to serve out his tenure in silence,(Take the money son and keep your mouth shut!) as all the CAsA board is required to do. Be subservient to management.

Given CAsA's contention that what they do is vital, apparently for national security, therefore Top Secret, forget about FOI requests, whatever they do is closed to scrutiny by the minister, the parliament, the industry and especially the public.

I would contend there is no point to CAsA having a board, the money could be spent in other areas.

[Kharon]

Old fashioned washing machines.

If you can remember – always offered you a tangled load of wet washing which you needed to unscramble – it was a pain; socks inside shirt sleeves etc. This what the GlenB story is becoming – a tangled mess. IMO; it’s about time our first class Senate crew had questions to ask which demand direct answers – there are just a few.

You see; I get all confused when I can’t quiet join up a series of dots – or see a clear picture. For instance – did GlenB get an acknowledgement from the CASA board that his missive had (a) been received and (b) did any of the bored members actually read the thing? That is a simple question – the answer – whatever it may be, potentially, leads us down one of several paths. Established dots:-

Dot 1 - GlenB sends a polite request for a meeting; no reply. More notes follow and again, silence. I cannot see why a short note could not have been returned – even if it simply explained that ‘the Board’ does not have a remit for such discussions. It would be a reasonable thing to say; can’t convene a board meeting every time the dunny gets blocked. Perhaps the ‘request’ could be handed off to someone else – a placebo meeting – to at least promote the notion that CASA cares and will listen to reason. But who?

Dot 2 – After several attempts to ‘talk’ to someone GlenB receives a letter from Gash Crawford which says- “For clarity, we will not be arranging a meeting with APTA and the CASA Board and whilst I appreciate you may not like that outcome, I kindly request you accept that is CASA’s position.”

This response is brusque; borderline rude; but, we only have one end of the correspondence chain. GlenB states that Gash Crawford “would not permit” such a thing. You could translate the “I kindly request you accept” bit implies that this is a ‘CASA’ decision; but is it the Board’s decision? If it is, then why? If it is Gash’s homespun decision – enforced on the board; then it leaves too many socks tangled with the jocks: so to speak.

It can all be parlayed pretty much anyway you choose. You can also pick a point of view; from a ‘Coppers’ perspective it is an investigation; from an Aviation specialist angle it’s a travesty; from a purely regulatory stance it’s the chickens coming home to roost; for a business investment it is nothing more than a raving, screaming nightmare. It all demonstrates just how totally buggered up the system is; how out of control CASA are and why light to medium aviation in Australia is a basket case. One thing does stand out, like the proverbial dog’s whatsits is the ‘shift’ from aviation folk working within the system to ‘enforcement’ types. Gash Crawford has a veritable private police/spook force at his beck and call. The stark difference between a sensible ‘ Operations Inspector’ looking to make things safer and better; and a smart Bobby seeking to trip a suspect on a minor fudge around a silly part of a law is marked. Is this a reflection of a paranoid megalomaniac, lost in some bizarre theory; or simply an indicator that CASA has been bereft of ‘proper’ leadership and guidance for so long now, that it simply lost in swamps and Briars of Sleepy Hollow? I don’t know; but take the latest farcical event as an indication of the left hand having no idea what the right hand is doing and the ‘brain’ controlling those hands has NDI about what’s being done.  For instance:-

Things like this Monahan character driving through an AIP change requiring gliders to be on area frequency – who’s bright idea was that? How could such a thing slide though? Happily, industry has been spared that fight – ASA have told him, in no uncertain terms to bugger off and take his idiot suggestions back to the village that has lost him.

Then we have the tangle of St Commode and Gash Crawford. WTD is really going on – and more to the point who is actually running the joint? Then we must ask why ‘soft’ targets like AF, Rhodes and GlenB must be under threat - qui bono? We seem to have a really big, divided ‘ex enforcement’ crew operating with impunity – at loggerheads internally; milling about the place like Crawford’s private army – the other side batting for only the gods know who – WTD? Who is stirring the pot and why? Is it some ‘cunning plan’ to internally destroy CASA and start again; or is it simply an ogre, so far beyond control that no man dare tackle the thing? I don’t know; but, one thing is for certain sure, whatever the duck is going on is damaging this industry to the point of being unrepairable. More ‘White’ hats needed methinks. Aye well:

‘We’ will – in due course, get the questions at least in some sort of order and deliver them directly; but I have to say, there is some very serious head scratching going on. This sorry saga is a real tangle; it is drawing heavily on the public purse, it is affecting aviation investment, progress and investor security. This, all before anyone has seriously considered or tested the effect of ‘new’ regulations and CASA approach to ‘enforcement’ on ‘real’ brass tacks operational safety.

We have an ASA which is not only fiscally stretched to the dizzy limit paying Halfwits bonuses while paying for the almost redundant One Sky embarrassment. An ATSB which is more like a PR – top cover agency; for hire to them as needs it (when will they start selling advertising space in the accident reports?). And, a CASA regulator which is not only tearing itself apart internally, lost to reason, but having a serious negative affect on all facets of aviation.

Sorry to say it Senators – but, if you blokes don’t get your fingers out, get interested and get busy – Dick Smith, presently sitting alone in the aviation hall of doom will have lots and lots of company – real soon. It is a bloody shambles. ripping off the tax paying public, making a mockery of the Senate committee and placing a complete fool in charge -  in the shape of yet another non too bright, badly advised, captive, disinterested ‘minister’ leading the band.

Sorry fellah’s – “back on your heads”.  That - from my grandpa’s favourite joke

To wit (–A first class ride to Hell for a pack of real bad un’s. Given the grand tour and allowed to pick their preferred purgatory. Shown into a beautifully appointed, air conditioned chamber, with lots of folk sitting on rocks in a sea of shit, having a smoke and looking incredibly happy. “We’ll stay here” says the top dog – “looks great”. So, they move in, find a rock and light up. “Not too bad is it” say’s the boss. Then a bell tolls and the guards walk back in – “OK you lot; tea break over – back on your heads” as the whips crack. Yuk, Yuk, Yak……….

Toot – discombobulated – toot.

[P7_TOM]

Grist for the Mill.

Not isolated, not unique: just one of the many ignored tales; never addressed. From the keyboard of the inestimable ‘Lead Sled’ a part of one such tale. It begs the question – how much longer can this industry pretend all is well; when, clearly it ain’t and has not been ‘well’ for a very long time now. Yet the majority stay silent not realising that their exemptions’ and ‘good relations’ with CASA are not only an illusion; but a mill-stone about their silent necks…

Clare Prop,

That's not quite really what happened, is it.

And I speak from being closely involved. Perhaps you would like to comment on the following:

CFI gives one month's notice of resignation. In arrears, CASA decrees that the resignation is effective immediately (not in one month) therefor as of the date of the notification resignation of the CFI the school was without a CFI, and the allegations was that all flying from the date of the NOTICE of resignation until the following week's shutdown constituted one breach per flight. Therefor the school has committed some hundreds of breeches of law,and is therefor a threat to aviation safety. An "administrative" decision ostensibly created hundreds of offense.

And so began a long fight, dragged out by CASA, who (as all too often happens) finally dropped all charges on the steps of the court. The CASA allegations were without legal basis.

There was a lot more to it than that, including CASA activity shredding a lot of WA Government plans (you do remember the masterplan for the aviation industry in WA, do you) CSWAFC being sold by China Southern, a planned and announced US$750,000,000 ( almost a billion AU) investment in expansion was cancelled --- most of that money went to Canada.

And another major planned aviation training development of a similar magnitude moved to NZ. The Asian (not China) backers decided the CASA behaviour made the sovereign risk of such investment too great

And CASA caused diplomatic mayhem in Beijing, by attempting to subpoena a Government Minister, who was a director of CSWAFC, without even telling DOTARS, let alone Foreign Affairs and our embassy in Beijing.

In my opinion, your comment is naive in the extreme.

My sources, my being on the spot, including spending an average of two days a week at the CASA Moore St. HO.

Tootle pip!!