AOPA Australia -

(11-22-2018, 08:24 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  For and on behalf of Ben Morgan and AOPA Oz... Wink

November 21, 2018 By Benjamin Morgan

[Image: Screen-Shot-2018-11-21-at-8.33.48-pm-1170x500.png]

Senate Rural Regional Affairs Transport Committee
19th November 2018 – Oversight of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Click to download a PDF copy of the Hansard Transcript
Click to download a PDF copy of the RRAT Committee Invitation to AOPA Australia

Part 1:  Presentations by Recreational Aviation Australia Limited, Australian Warbirds Association Limited and the Australian Parachute Federation

Part 2:  Presentations by Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, Sport Aircraft Association of Australia, Aircraft Maintenance Repair Overhaul Business Association and the Gliding Federation of Australia

Part 3:  Presentations by Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Benjamin Morgan
Executive Director - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia

Supportive commentary via the AOPA Oz Facebook page Wink

Quote:Nicholas Christie What a load of shit from CASA... the lies and the defence of their beautiful red tape that’s managed to wrap itself around the necks of our industry participants is extraordinary. 

“Do more things if you’re willing to pay extra for it...!” CASA. Very telling indeed.

Sandy Reith You couldn’t make it up, the CASA system is utterly unworkable and has to be changed. But they won’t let up without a fight. They don’t get normal public service rates of pay because they are an independent statutory authority. Look at it this way, Mr.Carmody on about $600,000 pa and doesn’t even know how long RAOz has been in existence. Check the video he thinks “about ten years”. Anyway his disgraceful attempt to denigrate AOPA failed spectacularly, maybe the Senators are getting the message, its about time.

Andrew Hurst (Part 1 - 39:01)
Mr Ferrier... I think you better read your Ops Manual 2.01-5 (15) & (16) ?
I’m sure the senate wouldn’t like being lead down a path thinking everyone is holding hands and smothering each other in rose petals... (Part 3 46:20)
Far from it Mr Ferrier!

[Image: 46514716_1062656090573435_92016010022501...e=5CACEBBA]

Ric Wilson
 Federal royal commission urgently needed into the state of aviation in Australia. AOPA needs to rethink any old guard leadership input lest it divide the members and create a situation where nothing has changed. Talk to the owners and pilots down on the tarmac. In the past the only guy that did that at locations like YMMB was Brian Hannon

Keith Page If they are discovered to be lying, What are the consequences?

Ben Hardy Part 3. 32:26.

Ben Hardy Part 3. 46:00. Even wilder.

Rob Lawrie Ben Hardy this part? 

Ben Hardy Rob Lawrie yep. And Senator Sterle at 46 mins is incandescent

Rob Lawrie Haha suckers.... Oops you guys fact check what we say under oath..

Ian Tucker Well done Senators, keep up the pressure. These self serving bureaucrats are the people responsible for the decline of general aviation in this country. There is no evidence that pilot incapacitation is a significant factor in aviation accidents. Allowing self assessed medical in The GA category will therefore NOT increase the risk. Drain the CASA swamp and save the obscene burden on tax payers.

Sandy Reith I agree totally with Ian Tucker, the 30 year experiment of an independent regulator has failed on every level. Safety has not been served, and there’s been a huge loss of experienced personnel in every area of General Aviation. An industry hamstrung and unable to progress by incorporating enlightened methods or new technology. An industry controlled by fear, unworkable rules that have been inapropriately migrated into the criminal code, with ease of conviction through the legal mechanism of strict liability. 

The Senate Committee hearings reveal the $600,000 pa CEO Mr. Carmody, the fatuously titled ‘Director of Air Safety,’ attempting to denigrate Ben Morgan of AOPA and the other GA representatives. This miserable ploy failed in spectacular fashion causing Senator Sterle to angrily denounce Mr. Carmody’s tactic. What a disgrace, I fervently hope that the Committee comes to understand the enormity of this 30 year failure. The jobs lost, the services forgone, especially crucial for country centres. Conversely there is a great opportunity to regrow Australian aviation if the nettle is grasped.

Richard Talbot Certainly not CASA's finest hour they appear to have confirmed that their consultation framework is entirely ineffective. Seems they don't have any formal signoff for consulation on Part 149 at all!

Simon Bromiley I am sure I heard a statement there that RAAus were complaining that a relaxation of medical requirements would affect their revenue. Is that what was said or do I have to play it again?

Jeff Terry This is a sad situation. It seems that CASA's primary objective is the perceived aspect of non-evidence based safety issues while having a complete and absolute disregard for the need for a sustainable and enjoyable pastime and industry. The best waysto keep the world safe from aviation accidents is to limit the number aeroplanes flying and over-regulation will eventually bring the sector to its knees and there will be nothing for CASA to administer.

Tony Power The moment when Mr Carmody said that if GA pilots were granted self certified medicals subject to the same restrictions as RAAus pilots he would want the excess seats in the aircraft removed was downright insulting to private pilots. He suggested thatotherwise he couldn't assure that private pilots wouldn't take more than 1 passenger, In other words displaying an attitude that unless prevented GA pilots would deliberately break the rules and simply can't be trusted. It's like saying whenever a P-plater drives a car in Victoria that the excess car seats must be removed otherwise how can we ensure they won't have more than one passenger under age 22 in breach of their conditions. What a terrible attitude on behalf of the head of our regulator.

Peter Morgan There should be only one standard, get caught lying to the senate, either be sacked or resign with forfeiture of all entitlements.

David Tennant Wow if i didn't think RAA were a bunch of spin doctors only interested in protecting there own empire and financial situation before i sure do now.

David Tennant and correct my if im wrong but i would have thought making false or misleading statements to a senate hearing would have broken some kind of law. there are quite a few RAA aircraft with retractable gear and variable pitch props. I think the senators are smart enough to see whats going on here. oh well done AWAL and APF.

Peter Denis McTaggart No wonder the senators couldn't work out what the safety issue apropos the Class2 medical is. These blokes wouldn't tell them anything. Spencer Ferrier was a nuisance, there to protect the RAA bloke, Mr King. They both looked bad.

Richard Talbot From my vantage point it seemed that the CASA fans were up first, followed by those intent on representing their member's best interests... I still can't believe in the age of Internet that CASA is unable to conduct consultation directly with every licensed pilot in the country. They seem more interested in forming a cheer squad than receiving constructive criticism.
MTF...P2  Tongue

Beyond the current (CASA enforced) GA Great Divide?  Confused 

 From AOPA member Nicholas Christie, an excellent well articulated big picture view of the current state of affairs of the RAAus dominated General Aviation industry in Australia... Wink 

Quote:[Image: 15894256_953888234742102_324544041238266...e=5C730913]
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia

7 hrs


AOPA Australia - Member Opinion
September 25, 2018 | Nicholas Christie

We uncover the complexities of a new era in Australian aviation and explain how ‘kicking the can down the street’ might simply delay the inevitable for RAAus.

Formerly the Australian Ultralight Federation - and operating under a myriad of exemptions and delegations - the privately operated not-for-profit company has a membership of around 9000, and a board of Directors who are charged with the responsibility of steering the RAAus company towards the vision of ‘SAFE’ Aviation (Safe, Accessible, Fun, Educational).

The board is elected and its role is to direct the organisation to achieve its stated aims while working on serving the interests of its membership. While Section 6 of the company’s own constitution doesn’t mention its members, its strategic plan does state that everything RAAus does should be ‘member-centric’. So it would be reasonable to conclude that it has consulted widely on the opinions of the membership as it has pushed through the regulatory red-tape they say is holding Australian aviation back from the brink, over the last few years. Or have they?

Corporate spin or effective management?

While we can’t definitively answer that question, what seems clear is that the ‘PR machine’ powering the organisation has its ‘Rotax’ at full ‘noise’. Michael Monck, (the ‘other’ Michael on the board who holds the position of Chairman, as opposed to Michael Linke, it’s CEO) regularly peddles a notion that RAAus is a “major player” in Aviation in Australia. Many contest that as simply a matter of opinion, and, frankly a whole lot of corporate-style spin. Others disagree and accept Mike’s claim that because “RAAus makes up 7% of all general and commercial flying” in this country, it has a right to call itself a “major player” and therefore should push hard to get what it wants from CASA, quickly (before, they say, the Aviation world as we know it ceases to exist).

The fact remains that whether the nay-sayers like it or not, the RAAus organisation is pushing forward with reforms and has the ear of CASA. Moreover, CASA seems to be peddling the notion that the organisation should take on the responsibilities (and costs) that CASA itself used to reluctantly muddle through in times gone by. In other words, what’s actually happened is that CASA has given RAAus – many would argue with a level of glee – the right to run and administer Recreational Aviation in Australia and, in time, bear both all the responsibilities and associated costs.

The current regulatory situation

While we find that CAO 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55 effectively provides the authority for members to operate their aircraft under the RAAus rules, CASA still maintains the authority to direct that amendments be made to the RAAus Operations and technical manuals. And importantly, CASA has authority over ALL recreational aircraft under the requirements of the CAA, CAR’s, CAO’s and CASR’s.

The RAAus company has made waves in the industry, and spectacularly negotiated its way through ‘self-governance’ in being accepted by CASA under the current regime. It has increased its membership (fixed it’s financial problems) and recently spent a whole heap of member’s money on IT systems that it says pave the way forward.

But now that it has CASA’s ear, many argue that RAAus seems permanently entangled in a sticky web that the CASA has weaved to either guarantee a way to better control RAAus and its member's activities, or - if one was to take a more cynical view - to plot RAA’s ultimate demise. Any other option seems too unrealistic to be feasible.

The RAAus shopping list: CTA, Weight increase & Part 149

In the August edition of Sport Pilot, the controversial ex-RSPCA boss (and now current RAus CEO), Michaal Linke, boldly declared that RAAus “need(s) to further progress our push for CTA”. He also said that the company “needs to push for increased weight” (and) that it further “needs to transition to a part 149 organisation”.

To explain from where Michael’s ambitions are derived, one needs to perhaps to look closely at why he’s pushing the organisation down this path. Some implications could have members very concerned, if not for themselves, for the RAAus organisation as it currently exists – perhaps not in the short term, but down the track a few months, and years. From a short term perspective, while the current board sits, the view is good, the books are black and the membership is growing. But the plans for more and more, might just be the strategy that leads to the RAAus company’s ultimate demise.

CTA Restrictions lifted

Currently, if you hold a current CASA issued License and medical with appropriate endorsement, you can fly an approved RAAus aircraft into and out of controlled airspace. But if you have a CTA endorsement from an RAAus approved flying school, you can fly into CTA under direct supervision. Not great if you want to go directly to where you need to go – and find yourself navigating around those big blue lines to get there.

RAAus is pushing to change this so that RAAus members can fly approved, appropriately equipped aircraft in and out of controlled airspace, provided they have the RAAus endorsement in their logbook. Sounds logical and should be a blessing to many without too much administrative burden on the company.

Weight Restrictions increased

Now we start getting into more sticky territory. Because the RAAus MTOW restriction currently stands at 600kg for aircraft registered and administered through RAAus, the RAAus board has initiated an agreement in principle with CASA to begin increasing this weight towards 1500kg, in two or three stages.

It’s likely the first stage will be 760kg (or similar) which will bring the likes of the Victa Airtourer, Grumman AA1, Cessna 150, and Van's RV-6 into the bosom of the RAAus company.

But, the downside of opening the ‘administrative umbrella’ too wide is potentially significant, if not immediately clear to the membership right now. And it comes in the form of the increased administrative and regulatory burden that will be placed on RAAus when all those new aircraft come in to ‘play’. At 760kg or so, it’s probably manageable with an incremental increase in staff and administrative capability (all other things being equal), but at 850kg and then over 1000kg, owners of other Cessna, Beechcraft and a heap of other types, old and new (the list is very long) will be ‘rushing’ to take advantage of the reduced medical and other fees – and before the board knows it, they’re spending more than the membership fees to administer, record, investigate, support and sanction members, aircraft and flight schools around the country.

If it doesn’t bring the RAAus organisation down financially, some argue that it will potentially bring membership and registration fees up quickly, and simultaneously create an unsustainable burden on its capabilities; the result of which will be increased CASA scrutiny and an atrophic cycle that may eventually render the organisation either defunct or far less relevant.

Applying for Part 149

Here’s the real show stopper. It’s important to all members to try and understand Part 149, and it's doubtful that even CASA and the board at RAAus truly do. We still don't have all the details to provide a full commentary but we will do our best with what we know (now’s the time for a cup of tea if you’re ready to take it on board).

CASR Part 149 refers to an authorisation that Sport Aircraft Organisations (SAO’s) need to apply for in order to make them ‘co-regulators’ alongside CASA.

It means that the board of RAAus (and the management of any other SAO taking on Part 149) will have to put in place the proper instruments and capabilities to deal with issues relating to administration, complaints, accidents & incidents and (often complex) regulatory issues that might arise along the way. Essentially, the obligation shifts squarely over to RAAus to act effectively when investigating all suspected and reported regulatory breaches and to establish a robust system of sanction management, similar to that you might expect in a tribunal, for instance.

But whereas now RAAus has an internal member process for administration, incident reporting and sanctions, (like any privately run club or organisation), the organisation will be forced to comply with a Part 149 ‘co-regulation’ regime that would effectively mandate it to investigate and report incidents, accidents and other breaches to CASA, where CASA will determine the outcome, or advise on a course of action.

Where the internal regulatory regime is deemed inadequate by CASA or where there are complex issues to deal with or challenges to defend, the real risk is that those organisations would probably have to employ the services of expensive legal teams, consultants and experts to fix them or run them in a way that's deemed to satisfy CASA.

Part 149 is something that’s happening because CASA is effectively imposing it on the industry, and perhaps more importantly, because the industry, in turn, is accepting it as inevitable.

If RAAus rejects Part 149 as unacceptable (not their current trajectory), CASA will likely remove the exemptions that the company operates within currently and allow only Part 149 approved organisations to operate instead of it. That means that RAAus (and possibly other organisations, such as the Australian Warbirds Association) could cease to exist, at least in their current form.

One school of thought on Part 149 is that RAAus has been over-zealous in their ambition of late, and perhaps less focussed on thoughtful consideration of what's best for the members that are “central” to everything they do. They may have pushed the throttles forward towards a legislative nightmare; one that sees CASA demand to take over the proverbial controls while they 'threaten' to fly that aircraft into the ground, if RAAus dares to touch them.

To accept Part 149, therefore, may be to step into a minefield of red tape, cost blow-outs and lack of sustainability for RAAus. To reject it, is to potentially lose RAAus as an organisation altogether while any number of other groups take the 'big umbrella' and apply to CASA for it instead.

So, the decision to either 'reject' or 'accept' Part 149 becomes, in real terms, a choice between the lesser of two “evils” for the board at RAAus. It's a difficult choice - and perhaps worryingly for many - one it appears they have already made.

But there is another way.

Perhaps now is the time for the board to start consulting closely with important industry players like AOPA, SAAA, AWAL, HGFA and work together, towards an industry-wide rejection of Part 149 to 'knock it on the head', given that there's still some months before the deadline.

That's right - hand it back to CASA, with a “sorry, not sorry” note and a bouquet of supermarket flowers signed by the two Mike's, Ben Morgan (AOPA), the SAAA and the others that really matter in the Australian General Aviation industry.

Just maybe, the thousands of members of these organisations will instead petition our Honourable members in Canberra to change the Civil Aviation Act and finally bring back a sense of sustainability (not just a focus on safety) to the industry? Many would argue that this would be the best way forward, rather than RAAus and the others pursuing Part 149.
While the risk is that other groups might come along one day and snuggle up to CASA’s 149 project, it may be in the interests of aviation in Australia that RAAus stands up now with everyone else - and says no. To do nothing and simply accept Part 149 could be a case of kicking a problem ‘down the street’, just to trip over it later - and fall face down in a deep, muddy puddle.

If RAAus continues their current strategy of industry dominance through division, it won’t work, say their detractors. And there’s more detractors now, all paid up and speaking ever louder. The question for these members is whether RAAus is listening to the membership sufficiently to give a damn about the future of Aviation in Australia.

AOPA FB comments:

Quote:Andrew Campbell Lol. Omg.. The industry jealousy is thick isn’t it. Ffs. Together we stand dudes... this us and them needs to be done with.

Benjamin Morgan Andrew, AOPA Australia couldn’t agree with you more, which is why we are fighting for universal and equal medical rights, regardless of the association the pilot belongs to. The industry does need to stand together, however, how can this happen whilst CASA discriminates and promotes a difference between ‘recreational’ and ‘private’, aren’t they both the same?

Andrew Campbell Yes. They should be !

Jirik Haselgrove Not really no. A PPL holder can fly a PC12 under private ops. Are you proposing RAAus regulate them as private?

Damien Sparky Nott Jirik Haselgrove what's the equivalent organisation in the US? Or the UK? There isn't one, yet they have self-certification medicals with similar restrictions to ours.

Benjamin Morgan Damien Sparky Nott there are limitations placed on pilots operating with ‘private drivers licence’ ???????’s that preclude such operations.

Damien Sparky Nott Exactly my point, Ben...they all have the same licence, the limitations are on the medicals.

Jirik Haselgrove I'm not certain, as I fly commercially here in Aus. I'm not saying the self-certification medicals are a bad idea, I'm saying that Private is not the same as Recreational and comparing regulation of private ops and private licenses (which can include operating something like a Kingair if you've got the money) and regulation of Recreational operations, is like comparing a smart car to F1.

Benjamin Morgan Jirik Haselgrove what makes something ‘recreational’ versus ‘private’?

Jirik Haselgrove The question I've answered is the reverse. What makes something private rather than recreational. 

Open limits to weight, complexity, configuration etc. if you hold the appropriate ratings/licenses. And, rather critically, maintenance. Surely you're not proposing RAAus regulate high performance turbo-props under private ops?

Benjamin Morgan Jirik Haselgrove AOPA Australia is not advocating for that.

Jirik Haselgrove Ok, that settles the confusion. To be clear, I'm not saying for a second that I disagree with standardizing medical standards across the board, or a raft of other equalising measures for RAAus and the like. But I do think the division between Private and Recreational flying is quite clear cut, in that Recreational flying is restricted to certain weights/complexity etc. Private ops is not, therefore it is a much much much larger beast.

Jirik Haselgrove And increase of the weight to include types commonly used for more recreational style flying i.e. weekend warriors, $100 hamburgers etc. like 172's doesn't seem like a bad idea. But private ops covers a lot more than 172's.

Sandy Reith There’s no “clear cut” between recreational and private flying. Think about your definitions. We want increased freedom and sensible, minimal and proven regulation just as we have on the roads. We don’t want government, or through them, special interest groups conjuring up regulations that suit themselves and the make work regulator.

Carl Eksteen Gawd CASA doesn't have to shut down private aviation, the children squabbling amongst themselves will do it all for them. Sickening!

Benjamin Morgan Carl, I disagree. Open and fearless discussion regarding issues that impact communities, are the very foundations of democracy and free speech. There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about respectful debate regarding aviation industry concerns - regardless of how sensitive the topic is.

Carl Eksteen Key word; "respectful", I'm seeing very little of that in the commentary, which in most cases defaults to a them and us attitude and sniping from behind the barricades. I don't have much time for the way RAAus have conducted themselves of late, but I would have hoped that somewhere in the mess a "bigger man" would have shown up and I'm not seeing that.

Benjamin Morgan Carl Eksteen which is exactly why the unnecessary dual standards must end. Unity has never been achieved, by one group seeking to disadvantage another.

Sandy Reith Well thought and written Ben. The real problem with CASA’s scheme of separating segments of aviation and have a high degree of self management through a private company setup is that they are creating divisions that should not exist. Already it seems RAOz is not happy with VH pilots getting the same reduced medical standards. In truth we should have a single government set of simple rules graduated to the aircraft and pilot qualities. This creates a fair and rational environment for all types of aviation, not artificial barriers and several monopoly administrations with paid CEOs vying for influence and position with CASA and causing divisive competition. Here’s my take on the overall picture

[Image: Ds5o1hLUwAAIxcP.jpg]

Rob Matthews The only noise we want to be hearing is the sound of our engine.
Do you ever wonder what the perspective of a young person is of the Australian aviation industry? 
I am here to tell you, as a 20-year-old who is highly motivated by aviation, the aviation industry in Australia is a mess. We are not hearing the engine – we are hearing the discord and political infighting. 
Some of you may be unaware that the younger generation take notice of this discord, which is unfortunately evident in today’s Australian aviation industry. 
In a world of social media, where things are instantly and widely communicated in any industry, it is not very hard to miss word on this. 
With the decline of aviation, not only in Australia but worldwide, I am baffled as to why the discord and political infighting even occurs. Is there true care and passion for the next generation wishing to get involved in the industry? 
As someone who inspires to gain a commercial pilot licence I often sit back and wonder if the time, money and effort are even worth it. However personally, instead of “chucking it in the bag”, I am determined to plead for change.
It disappoints me greatly to hear stories of people, particularly young people, who have walked away from aviation, not because of regulations but simply due to the politics. This is a grave time. 
Aviation should not be about politics. It is about getting together as one in the sky, flying, sharing stories and inspiring one another, especially future generations of aviators. 
Sometimes it is hard to remember but it will be people like myself, it will be people in my generation that will be in the decision-making roles as advocates in organisations and companies in the not so distant future. Would you feel comfortable leaving it now the way it is? I hope not. 
What can we do to unite as one? 
What can pilots and members do as one to ensure positivity, growth and enthusiasm occurs in Australian aviation? 
Australian aviation has endless possibilities. Unity is strength, where there is teamwork and collaboration, wonderful things can be achieved. 
Speak up about your ambitions within aviation, get behind the organisation or club, whatever it may be, and speak with them about change and how they plan on working within the aviation industry to implement this. 
Remember not one organisation is doing a “perfect” job – there is always room for improvement. 
I recommend everyone write in or make a comment with your feedback whether it be negative or positive. 
The potential is endless; everyone needs to start respecting one another, engaging with one another and most importantly sharing the sky, stories and successes with one another. 
Together as one and united I hope we soon stand, together as one there is still a chance.
Robert Matthews

Richard Talbot Your argument seems to be that everyone must be in harmonious agreement but I challenge you to find a single productive industry where there is no competition. The issue here is we have a government regulator that is deliberately allowing unfair competition and for as long as that continues what you wish for cannot take place.

MTF...P2  Cool

Now, I’m puzzled.

I notice we are all (myself included) falling into a habit of using the words ‘recreational’ and ‘private’ as separate entities; when, they are not.

Partly (IMO) this due to the long standing buggers muddle known as ‘operational classification’ as a subject of much confusion and a playground for the legal fraternity. It has been, for a long while now, a subject the ‘grown-ups’ of commercial operation have agonised over. The rest of the major aviation ‘authorities’ seem to have it fairly well sorted; alas, the Australian version seems to revel in the confusion and, typically, use the existing rules as a malleable yardstick to create ‘problems’ for selected operators. I digress, that is a subject for another day, when we get some clear air to discuss the finer points of the bloody awful regulations.  

Back to the artificial debate of ‘recreational’ v ‘private’ operation. When I first kicked off, I had a job as the weekend ‘hanger rat’, got paid in flight hours, rather than money. I was a good deal for me and I enjoyed the work. I had in my tender care some lovely, ‘private’ aircraft. The owners would call up and request their aircraft to be ‘on-line’ at such and such a time, ready to depart. Carefully I’d extricate the aircraft from the full hanger, park it on the marks, give it a once over (tyres, windscreen, oil, etc.) and be there to meet ‘em when they showed up – add oil and fuel as requested. Sometimes, they would turn up with a full load – off to the races at Kickinatinalong for the weekend ( me, offering prayers to pagan gods for bad weather on the Sunday – I got to do the retrieval if they left the aircraft behind); or, for just a guest for a quick stooge about the CBD; whatever. These were ‘private’ operations; as in not commercial, they could be called recreational, but why split a hair? Not for hire or reward i.e. private.

Whether it be the humble C150 or the mighty Aztec (drool) the folk who owned and paid for their aeronautical pleasures operated in a ‘private’ capacity. Some, probably many, belonged to the AOPA or similar, an equal number did not – so what? It simply did not matter whether they did or did not; they were ‘private’ in the true sense of the word and if they could see a benefit in belonging to a tribe, they joined up – or not; as pleased them.

Thinking back to some of the ‘owners’ I dealt with (the good, the bad and the ugly) I wonder what they would have thought of the notion that now you must join and pay for the simple pleasure of taking the expensive aircraft on a Sunday morning sortie or a weekend away – with restrictions. All of this because some unacceptable ‘medical’ condition precluded them from their normal pursuit. Particularly when you consider the advances modern medical treatments have made to control some of the ailments which, in the past, prevented medical approval.

It begs the question – if you have a condition and a ‘specialist’ prognosis deems that the condition is controlled and unlikely to incapacitate, particularly during the short periods of life spent airborne – then why do the CASA medical guru’s feel the need to override this opinion? Then you must ask why a 'separate’ commercial outfit is allowed to utilise the CASA decision against to segregate and limit ‘private’ operations. A man is either fit enough to fly for an hour on Saturday; or, three hours on Sunday or he is not. What he flies, (privately) where and when has no bearing on the outcome; particularly if a known medical condition is ‘controlled’.

The existing structure is logically flawed; the EASA, UK and USA have managed, very nicely, to provided as much latitude and flexibility to their private operations as is possible – even then, they have (wisely) probably erred on the side of acceptable caution and risk mitigation.

So WTD is Australia playing at; apart from a deep game of silly buggers?

Toot – toot.

Via Ben Morgan AOPAA 3/12/18:

Quote:Monday, 3rd December 2018

Mr Shane Carmody
Director of Aviation Safety, CASA

GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

Mr Tony Mathews
Chairman – CASA Board of Directors

PO BOX 6100
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia.

Mr Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia

Dr Jane Thompson
RRAT Committee Secretary

PO BOX 6100
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia.

AOPA Australia continues the call for self-certification medicals for RPL/PPL holders

Mr Carmody,

I refer to your letter dated 30th November 2018 (CASA Ref: F18/2267 attached) in which CASA now concedes that there is no valid safety case against the use of self-certification medicals for RPL/PPL holders.  However, now shifting the foundation of your refusal to enact such reforms to a concern that doing so would introduce ‘regulatory complexity’.  Furthermore, you express a concern that CASA would be responsible for administering (a self-certification medical standard) and ensuring compliance, stating that such a reform is an “unrequired additional pathway”.

AOPA Australia highlights the following points:

CASA is on the record as stating that a self-certification medical standard is safe for pilots operating outside of controlled airspace, with one passenger, in aircraft with an MTOW of 600kgs. The regulator has not presented any published safety-case or risk-assessment to industry or government that is contrary to the above statement.

The industry’s call for the introduction of a self-certification medical standard for CASA-regulated RPL/PPL holders is based on a recognition that it is safe and that there is a need to achieve regulatory efficiency and red-tape reduction within the CASA regulated system that would create cost savings for both the regulator and the pilot community.
That the introduction of a self-certification medical standard does not represent an increase in regulatory complexity, nor does it burden CASA’s regulatory administration or compliance surveillance.

AOPA Australia proposes that:

A self-certification medical standard could be efficiently created by way of simply amending CASR 67.180 (2) by adding a new subsection (g), that prescribes;

(g)   the pilot holds a current Ausroads Private Drivers licence, operates outside of controlled airspace with a maximum of one passenger in an Australian registered aircraft that has an MTOW of up to 600kgs.

This simple amendment can be immediately implemented by the Director of Aviation Safety and would enable CASA to commence issuing Class 2 medical certificates, with statutory conditions that permit the holder to operates outside of controlled airspace with a maximum of one passenger in an Australian registered aircraft that has an MTOW of up to 600kgs, on the basis of being supplied a declaration form from the pilot applicant.

Any pilot issued with the proposed self-certification medical, will of course remain obliged to comply with the act and regulations thereunder.  This simple amendment eliminates the need for CASA to create a full and separate medical standard that would result in creating unnecessary regulatory complexity and cost.

Alternatively, CASA could issue a Civil Aviation Order to the same effect.

The proposed amendment is consistent with Section 3A being the main objective of the act, it is consistent with Section 9A in that the proposal is considered safe by CASA, it is also consistent with CASA’s regulatory philosophy in that CASA is required to carry out its regulatory functions in an efficient manner consistent with air safety.

We again call on CASA to immediately implement the proposed reform without delay.  If you could please confirm with AOPA Australia of your intentions it would be appreciated.

Thank you for your time and I await your reply.

Yours Sincerely,

Executive Director

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA Australia)

Hangar 600, Prentice Street, Bankstown Airport NSW 2200 Australia.
PO BOX 26, Georges Hall NSW 2198 Australia.

Also ffwd to 01:13 minutes of the following AP Youtube video where BM nails it  -  Wink  

(Ps A big thank you to Bruce Rhoades for providing the MP 4 uplink for that video)

Finally off Hitch's CASA propaganda fluff piece - - Ben Wyndham responds 

Quote:Ben Wyndham • 4 days ago

Three AOPA member companies have been targetted by CASA in this little Jihad, and every one of them has rejected the CASA letter.

Each one of them has worked WITH CASA at every step of the way, and has had CASA cooperation and approval and survived multiple CASA audits of their present arrangements.

This month's Holy War against this new "evil" is another example of CASA shifting the goalposts and making it ever harder for GA operators to survive.

No longer satisfied with persecuting dying men like Bruce Rhoades, they are now resorting to entrapment of A-list GA operators!

...and Australian Flying is publishing CASA's media releases like an arm of their publicity machine, not questioning the facts or checking with the targets but repeating the CASA Propaganda verbatim.

Very dissapointing for a magazine that claims to be an industry "specialist" publication.

Plus in response to the LMH:

 Ben Wyndham • 4 days ago

None of the operators targetted by CASA in November believes they were "cheating the system".

Perhaps you need to get both sides of the story before weighing in?

MTF...P2  Tongue


“Australian Flying is publishing CASA's media releases like an arm of their publicity machine, not questioning the facts or checking with the targets but repeating the CASA Propaganda verbatim”

That’s because it is an extension of CAsA when you have people like Steve ‘Lick Ministers Hole LMH’ Hitchen writing CAsA positive piffle, folly and waffle. The Hitchens of the world are Presstitutes for CAsA. Best thing is to ignore anything with his name attached to it. Just like Steve Creepy and that fool from W.A who has a face on him that looks like a Goldfish drowning - Geoffrey Thomas. All wankers and not worthy of acknowledgment.


Via the UP -  Rolleyes

Horatio Leafblower said:

Quote:Rule 7. Pay your contract LAMEs so they can eat as well.

All boats rise on the tide. If we can get CASA to recognise that "Systems" management as they envisage it (from Bullshit castle in CBR) is simply not practical for small family businesses, we might be OK.

Otherwise we're all stuffed.

Quote:Get together. The smaller charter folk are underrepresented. Someone step up, and form a small organisation of half a dozen of you to work together on the implementation and reviewing the Regulation Impact Statement. Someone like Ben from Airspeed Aviation should put his hand up. I think he even lives in Barnaby Joyces electorate.

Ben from Airspeed is also Ben from AOPA and is AOPA's Charter Industry convenor & Spokesman. You may have seen him taking on RAAA recently over their sleight-of-hand as they pretend they represent our end of the industry.

Make no mistake, RAAA and their members (Rex, Chartair, Corporate, FlyPelican, Altitude Aviation, Hardys, Skippers) all stand to gain from Part 135 because ANYONE WHO IS NOT A RPT OPERATOR NOW WILL NOT SURVIVE THE PART 135 TRANSITION. If you do somehow survive the 135 Transition, you will be killed off by the new maintenance rules (Class A Maintenance for all CHTR aircraft?) and/or the new fatigue rules.

You might be able to train your dog to be the Safety Manager under Part 135 but even your dog will want to go fly for Virgin/QF soon and then you will have to replace your dog with a pilot trained AND CASA Approved as a safety manager.

Then they leave and you have to replace them and train another.

The you get a new FOI who decides that as a Sfety manager you need an Auditors course and a SMS Awareness course so there's a week out of the office for each course (and a week out of the air) and a $5,000 to Southpac Aerospace - TWICE - and two weeks worth of wages and two weeks worth of meals and accommodation and in six months THEY leave you too.

Then the new FOI fresh from CASA C*** school decides (as happened to Par Avion/AoT recently) that because you need a safety manager under the terms of your RPT, AND under the terms of your Part 145 Maintenance, AND under the terms of your Part 142 school, you need to fill out THREE lots of Risk assessments and THREE Change management processes, one for each category of permission.

...because small business can afford that.

...and that's BEFORE Part 15 is introduced!..... and before we know what the maintenance rules will be!

I urge all GA CHTR operators to join AOPA. Yes I know it will rankle with a lot of you. They need more support and they really, truly are making a difference (Who got the Port Phillip Bay stupidity reversed?)

You have an Industry convenor in Ben Wyndham - according to AOPA's facebook page his email is

He has organised meetings in Parliament House for other members, and attended to help. Yes, they will help you too.

MTF...P2  Tongue

Via Ben Morgan AOPAA 08/01/19:

Quote:January 8, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan


[Image: MaxTruscott-800x500.jpg]

In December 2018, the AOPA Australia Executive Director, Benjamin Morgan, took part in a podcast interview with renown US Aviation News Talk podcaster Max Truscott, discussing the state of general aviation in Australia, the decline in private pilot numbers and the initiatives and programs AOPA Australia is running to inspire youth interest and uptake.

The interview covered a broad range of topics, including; members coach, flight simulators and aircraft restorations, along with discussing how Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulatory challenges impacting on general aviation today and into the future.

The podcast interview runs for approx 1 hour.  Take some time to visit the Aviation News Talk podcast website at:

Tomorrow AM, via ABC Radio... Wink  

Via AOPA Oz: 

Quote:[Image: DyEcCyyV4AEVoc3.jpg]

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia



AOPA Australia Executive Director, Benjamin Morgan, will speak with ABC Mornings host Jacquie Mackay live on radio, Wedneday 30th Jan, to discuss CASA's proposed changes to community service flights, and how these changes are a direct attack on Angel Flight and the invaluable service they provide to regional Australians.


Mornings with Jacquie Mackay

7:15am QLD / 8:15am NSW - Wednesday 30th Jan 2019
Log-in to listen at:…/programs/ca...breakfast/

[Image: 50797009_1468573496606904_25726229228248...e=5CC488D5]
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia
Travel & Transportation

MTF...P2  Tongue


January 30, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-01-30-at-1.09.07-pm-938x500.png]

AOPA Australia Executive Director, Benjamin Morgan, spoke with ABC Mornings host Jacquie Mackay live on radio, Wednesday 30th Jan, to discuss CASA’s proposed changes to community service flights, and how these changes are a direct attack on Angel Flight and the invaluable service they provide to regional Australians.


Mornings with Jacquie Mackay
7:15am QLD / 8:15am NSW – Wednesday 30th Jan 2019


(01-31-2019, 08:04 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(01-30-2019, 05:46 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Fill in the blank - "It's un-Australian to ____?"

I noted the following tweet from our NFI Miniscule McDo'Naught... Dodgy 

Quote:[Image: GDSe6Laq_bigger.jpg]
Michael McCormack


Recent reports show human error contributes to more than 90% of all road accidents so concentrate on your own journey, keep an eye out for others & potential danger & always remember it's un-Australian to ignore road safety.

Read this week’s Op-Ed here[Image: 1f447.png]

[Image: dsc09457-3hy9qdz86p3xinewor2_fct2272x127...60x651.JPG]
Ignoring road safety is un-Australian -

Never one to miss an A-Grade opportunity, this was my reply... Tongue 

Quote:@M_McCormackMP ignoring and not warning public safety risk around airports while ignorantly allowing your aviation safety agencies to unfairly pin all blame on the hapless dead pilot is also Un-Australian -  Ref:

[Image: Dx3pvI0VAAUZQvD.jpg] 

YMEN DFO accident - Hooded Canary cover-ups & libelous disconnections? & A duty of care. - Part II via @Aunty_Pru @pwhatch @smh @theage @tom_cowie + #auspol

This got me thinking that perhaps we could create an archive of examples of where this particular useless Miniscule has been typically un-Australian and inept in his duty of care to we the Australian people and essential industries like aviation -  Rolleyes

So to kick it off...Dear Miniscule you are un-Australian for not sticking it to CASA on their un-democratic attempted embuggerance of community service flight charity Angel Flight - reference Ben Morgan today on ABC QLD Radio:   


January 30, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-01-30-at-1.09.07-pm-938x500.png]

AOPA Australia Executive Director, Benjamin Morgan, spoke with ABC Mornings host Jacquie Mackay live on radio, Wednesday 30th Jan, to discuss CASA’s proposed changes to community service flights, and how these changes are a direct attack on Angel Flight and the invaluable service they provide to regional Australians.


Mornings with Jacquie Mackay
7:15am QLD / 8:15am NSW – Wednesday 30th Jan 2019


Via WIN News Central Queensland FB page: 

Angel Flight Anger

Outrage tonight as plans to introduce stricter regulations for private pilots threatens to cripple Angel Flight.

Proposed changes to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority standards have caught the beloved bush charity by surprise, and are expected to ground eighty per cent of Angel Flight's volunteer fleet.


Safety First!!!!! In, 3....2....1

Wait for it, the manure peddling Miniscule and his footstool Big Ears Carmody will very shortly retort (through the bearded bullshit artist Peter Gob’full’of’shite) with winsome sayings such as ‘it’s all about safety’, ‘safety is the Guvmints number one priority’, ‘public safety is our driving focus’, blah blah blah.

Too bad if one day either Mr Carmody or Miniscule Mc’Do’nothing has a family member out bush who gets bitten by an Eastern Brown or has a John Deere roll over them and they die because of the Guvmints warped and amoral complete display of a lack of understanding of risk, safety and regulations which has resulted in no more pilots, no more angel flight, no more aviation.

Complete and utter Can’tberra bubble occupiers living in fantasy land. Get out from under your mahogany desks you overpaid/under skilled trough dwelling wankers.


Bob's back and taking no prisoners on CASA embuggerance of Angel Flight -  Rolleyes

Via Twitter:

Quote:[Image: VHunytTd_bigger.jpg] AOPA Benjamin Morgan


From Sally Cripps, via QLD Country Life... Wink 


Quote:Angel Flight, Aircraft Owners Assn fighting CASA regulation plan

Sally Cripps

31 Jan 2019, 8 p.m.News

[Image: r0_14_2048_1165_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]

Baby Lotus and her mother Sarah ready for their flight in Angel Flight board chairman, Bill Bristow's Pilatus jet. Picture - Geoff Marsh.

Rural communities around Australia are outraged at a proposal by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to introduce a new minimum safety standard for community service flights that have the potential to ground Angel Flight Australia.

The charity coordinates non-emergency flights to assist country people to access specialist medical treatment that would otherwise be unavailable because of vast distance and high travel costs, utilising volunteer pilots.

Angel Flight’s CEO, Marjorie Pagani, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, Queensland’s opposition spokesman for volunteers, Lachlan Millar, and Kennedy MP, Bob Katter, have all condemned the proposal, which they say is a gross discrimination against rural people.

All have demanded that the federal government intervene to prevent the new standards from coming into being.

“What CASA is saying is that I can fly you to Toowoomba any day of the week to go shopping but as soon as you say you’re going there for medical purposes, I’m not qualified to fly you,” Ms Pagani said. “It defies belief.”

She said the proposal, which related to licensing requirements, minimum pilot experience and maintenance-related enhancements, showed CASA had lost confidence in its own licencing system, under which the charity’s pilots and aircraft operated.

“Why else would they place these restrictions on lawfully licenced pilots,” she said.

“The long and short of it is, why are we suddenly unsafe if we want to help a rural person?

“There is no nation in the world that restricts a pilot’s licence according to the needs of their passengers.”

Further unleashing her dismay at the potential the changes would have on what has become an essential service, conducting 4000 trips a year, Ms Pagani was critical of the way CASA had apparently circumvented the usual regulatory process, and what she said was the “invention” of a community service flight category.

She described the standards as a “grab bag” of restrictions that were unrelated to the two fatal accidents, in 2011 and 2017, that are understood to be at the crux of the changes.

She said any improvement to the service would come from safety education, which she had been working with CASA on for 18 months, not aircraft standards.

[Image: r0_0_472_709_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]

One of the changes proposed would increase minimum pilot hour requirements, which would preclude some of the volunteers with lower hours.

Another requires aircraft engines to be maintained to commercial charter standards, which could cost $85,000 or more.

In outlining its need for consultation, CASA said a regulatory baseline would provide clarity regarding an appropriate minimum safety standard.

It anticipated most pilots currently conducting community safety flights would meet the proposed new standards.

While CASA said Angel Flight pilots didn’t operate under the safety umbrella of an Air Operator’s Certificate, which commercial operators work under, Ms Pagani said users were comprehensively briefed on procedures and made aware of all aspects, including watching a video, before they were introduced to a pilot.

Benjamin Morgan, the executive director of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, accused CASA of highlighting two tragic accidents, both found to have been the result of pilot error, from over 46,000 successful flights, to manipulate public perception of the service.

“The elephant in the room is aviation safety, which should be addressed by communication, collaboration and education, not by ramming enforcement regulations through that only cover the backside of a bureaucrat if something happens,” he said. “We have to not overreact to a situation in a way that means we can no longer provide a service.”

Calls for intervention

Mr Morgan called on every Australian to contact their local MP and demand they oppose the changes, saying the next group to be affected could be private individuals transporting people to doctor’s appointments in their cars.

“Will they demand they have motor car engine overhauls or a higher degree of driver training?”

One politician who has called on the federal government, particularly transport minister Michael McCormack. to intervene is Queensland opposition spokesman on emergency services and volunteers, Lachlan Millar.

“I am outraged that an unelected bureaucrat can ground the charity, Angel Flight, with a flick of a pen and no federal parliamentary scrutiny,” he said.

“The Civil Aviation Authority’s plan will ground 80 per cent of the volunteer pilots who take rural and remote patients for non-emergency treatments such as dialysis.

“This plan will cause real pain to rural people. Angel Flight pilots are everyday heroes. They make a major difference and actually help governments by reducing the cost of delivering health care in the bush.

“I am publicly asking the deputy Prime Minister and federal transport minister, Michael McCormack, to intervene and fix this.”

He was joined by KAP leader and federal Member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, in calling out the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for what he called their latest show of incompetence, which he said could kill Angel Flight.

“One of Dick Smith’s finest moments was his attack upon CASA; CASA has downed more planes than the Red Baron,” Mr Katter said, adding the authority had repeatedly displayed its ineptitude.

“To take Angel Flight out of the skies is to remove the mantle of safety put there by Reverend John Flynn and his Royal Flying Doctor Service, and I speak with great passion because both my father and his brother died at the hands of that Australian tyrant – the tyranny of distance.

“When you protect your precious statistics, that conciliatory is costing us lives.

“It is quite clear to me these very generous self-sacrificing pilot-owners cannot afford to take the risks of CASA prosecutions – the safety Nazis – and we will lose this wonderful service.”

Mr Katter said he had contacted the minister for transport and demanded his immediate intervention and asked rural chambers of commerce, flyers, clubs and councils to join the fight on this issue.

The public consultation period, launched after federal parliament rose in December, closed on Thursday.

CASA and transport minister, Michael McCormack, were contacted for comment.

MTF...P2  Cool

A little bit of scratching around the web revealed some interesting Data.

Angel flights or their equivalents seems to be a worldwide phenomena, more so in the USA and Canada.

I guess that would only to be expected considering their GA industries have not been regulated out of business by rapacious regulators. The ethos in the USA and Canada being foster and promote, educate and consult backed with sensible easy to comprehend regulations, rather than the regulate and prosecute approach which applies in Australia.

In Canada over 12,500 Angel flights are conducted every year, so far without incident. Considering the atrocious weather conditions they have to contend with, a remarkable achievement.

In the USA there are various charities throughout the country that conduct Angel Flight type operations.

Angel Flight being by far the biggest organisation.

Angel Flight USA and its affiliates conduct over 34,000 flights every year, all over the country.

Wikipedia list only six accidents worldwide of Angel Flight aircraft, two of those in Australia.

These statistics would suggest to me that there are some fundamental flaws in CAsA's risk analysis processes. Either that or there are some serious issues with the standard of todays private pilots, which I don't believe.

By its reaction is CAsA admitting they have no confidence in the standards they set? or perhaps an admission their oversight of those standards is deficient?

A link to a video which perhaps illustrates how undervalued and under-utilised general aviation is in the Australian psyche.


From the AOPA Australia FB page..


The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia is calling on all Australians to take affirmative action in sending a clear message to the Deputy Prime Minister, rejecting CASA's proposed changes to Community Service Flights, by calling the Deputy Prime Minister's Riverina Electorate office to register your objection to CASA's proposed changes.


The Hon Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure,Transport and Regional Development
Leader of the Nationals
Federal Member for the Riverina
Telephone: (02) 6921 4600


Join today:

AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly


Can we have Mc’D’Nothings postal address too? It would be nice to mail him a giant steaming turd to go with his already shitty profile.

More from Ben Morgan..


AOPA Australia Executive Director Benjamin Morgan sat down with the Studio 10 panel today to discuss CASA’s proposed changes to community service flights that will negatively impact on Angel Flight, leaving families in the bush without access to essential medical care.

AOPA Australia has called on all Australians to oppose these unnecessary changes by calling the Deputy Prime Minister, registering your opposition with his electorate office.

Take 5 mins from your day today to stand with AOPA Australia, AngelFlight and all volunteer pilots in calling for CASA to;


The Hon Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure,Transport and Regional Development
Leader of the Nationals
Federal Member for the Riverina
Telephone: (02) 6921 4600


A little perspective then tell me CAsA's actions are anything but knee jerk.

Unfortunately, human factors in every activity that humans are involved with plays a major role in loss of life, a small but sombre reminder that aviation is not alone. Whilst it may make a few within CASA feel good that they have been seen to be doing something, or someone has paid them a great deal of money. The reality is that only through communication, collaboration and education will we come close to helping solve the issue. No measure of strict regulation and excessive rules will prevent people from making mistakes.

There have been six deaths in six years on Angel flights, that's one per year average.

LADDER DEATHS: Every year, on average, three Victorians are killed falling off ladders - and they have almost exclusively been men aged over 55 who have fallen while doing odd jobs at home, according to research by The Alfred hospital that was recently published in the Injury journal - Feb 2016

If CAsA was in charge of ladders they would enact regulations requiring a ladder operating licence.
Training for a ladder operating licence can only be conducted by a LCR142 (ladder climbing regulations) certificate holder. The LCR 142 Certificate allows training on basic ladders such as step ladders, more advanced ladders require a LCR 145 Integrated certificate. That would require an operating manual of least a thousand pages and the full time employment of at least two Safety Officers a Chief Ladder Climber, and a head of ladder climbing training. If People wonder why there are so many cranes about the place its because ladders have become too expensive to use.

DROWNING AT BEACHES: The newly released Royal Life Saving National Drowning Report 2017 shows 291 people died as a result of drowning in Australia in the 2016/17 financial year. This is a 3% increase on the 282 drowning deaths in 2015/16.Sep 12, 2017

Now if CAsA was in charge the regulations regarding standards for surf boards and floatation devices would make their cost unaffordable for all but the wealthy.

CONSTRUCTION WORK DEATHS: In the 14 years from 2003 to 2016, 3,414 workers lost their lives in work-related incidents. In 2016, there were 182 worker fatalities, equating to a fatality rate of 1.5 fatalities per 100,000 workers—the lowest rate since the series began in 2003 (Figure 1).Sep 20, 2018

Now if CAsA was in charge thousands more OH&S would be enacted making the cost of compliance so expensive that the building industry in Australia would collapse.

MEDICAL ERROR DEATH: Shockingly, 18,000 to 54,000 Australians are killed each year by their medical treatment —official description “iatrogenic death”. According to Medical Errors Action Group Australia.

Good grief....if CAsA were in charge there would be so many restrictions and regulations enacted that major hospitals would be shifting their surgery to overseas suppliers.

JET SKI DEATHS: Between 1st July 2000†and 31th December 2012, there were 20 deaths reported to an Australian Coroner (as identified on the NCIS database) associated with jetskis where the coronial investigation was completed.

With CAsA in charge expect a mass exodus of recreational skiing to New Zealand.

FARM DEATHS: There was a rise in the annual number of on‐farm injury deaths in 2017 compared to the previous year, according to research by the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety (University of Sydney). Overall, there were 68 deaths reported in the Australian media last year, according to centre director Dr Tony Lower. Tractors (13) and quad bikes (11) were the leading causes of death, making up over 40 per cent of the total. Tragically, 9 of the fatal cases (13 per cent) involved children aged under 15 years, with the involvement of quads accounting for one‐third (3) of these incidents.

With CAsA in charge, all farms in Australia would be in Chinese hands operating under Chinese rules. All produce would be required to be exported, then re-imported before retail sale in Australia. No real affect on cost as its pretty much what happens now.

DEATH BY FOOD POISONING: A 2005 report found that approximately 120 people die from food-borne illnesses in Australia every year. A British survey found that 82% of people, and particularly the elderly (87%), think they're unlikely to get food poisoning from food at home.

Oh my god I can't imagine what CAsA would do about this. Would eating food have to move underground?

BICYCLE DEATHS: Since the 1990s, cyclist deaths in road crashes have constituted on average between 2 and 3 per cent of the total deaths in road crashes in Australia. In the 1990s, the number of cyclist deaths ranged from 40 to 80 per year. In the 2000s so far (2000 to 2005), the range has been from 26 to 46 per year.

If CAsA was in charge they would ban cars

DANCE PARTY/MUSIC FESTIVAL DEATHS: At least nine people have died from suspected drug overdoses at Australian music festivals in the last five years, according to media reports. At least five people died while attending dance parties in 2015, with one of the deaths occuring at Defqon. A year earlier, a 19-year-old died from a suspected drug overdose at Sydney's Harbourlife music festival. Another person died at Defqon festival in 2013.

This is an Easy one. If CAsA was in charge they could enact regulations that require everyone in Australia to convert to a particular religion that bans music and dancing. Their FOI's could then be inducted as religious police to enforce regulations banning music and dancing.

DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION: Whilst an average of 20 people died each year nationally due to unintentional electrocution (between 2001 and 2008, being years where most cases have been closed), this is less than levels of a few decades ago3. Despite this, it is likely that most of these deaths are still preventable.

If CAsA was in charge we'd all be using kerosine lanterns and candles.


Death – by the numbers.

1) Death by building. The DFO at Essendon has a similar ‘Kill ratio’ to AF, five dead in roughly the same time period. Why is CASA not mandating that no more tall building be allowed in active runway OCS areas and why FDS is that building still standing?

2) Death of Democracy CASA style.

Pagani .."But I think the real focus is on how they are attempting to bypass proper democratic and legislative processes ( quite apart from lack of consultation with AF and industry). To take away rights or impose restrictions on licence holders, with the stroke of the CEO pen, is dictatorial and an abuse of process"...

3) Death of Business. Part 61 went a long way to delivering the fatal wound; but 135 will be the Coup de grâce. What happened to government encouraging ‘small’ business anyway?

4) Death of ministerial credibility. Was there too much heat generated by the Essendon DFO fireball? Too much toxicity around the PFAS horror story? Too much noise over the ‘drones’? Too many questions about CASA’s petulant incompetence? Was a ‘distraction’ needed? Was AF an ideal, easy target?

Re point 4 – a stretch, probably a bit fanciful, but even so, one could be forgiven for beginning to think that way. To declare the Essendon DFO an ‘acceptable’ risk and declare Angel Flight as ‘dangerous’ beggars the imagination. I must do some homework – it is said that the insurance industry have incredibly good ‘risk’ assessment tools, which makes good sense – considering. Have they upped their premiums on Angel Flight aircraft I wonder. If the Insurers believed there was an increased risk because a sick Kiddie was on board, I reckon they’d increase their fee’s in proportion to the perceived risk in a heartbeat. But they haven’t. Hmmm.

While in a wondering frame of mind; I wonder why the other charity flight organisation are not screaming to the high heavens about the CASA edicts? That ‘Little Wings’ outfit for instance – dead silence from them. Aye well, ‘tis done and cannot be undone without a top level punch-up; not that the minister will get in the ring. Carmody has told McDoNaught to bugger off and 6G Darren has obliged. Stellar.

Toot – toot.

(02-05-2019, 07:41 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Death – by the numbers.

1) Death by building. The DFO at Essendon has a similar ‘Kill ratio’ to AF, five dead in roughly the same time period. Why is CASA not mandating that no more tall building be allowed in active runway OCS areas and why FDS is that building still standing?

2) Death of Democracy CASA style.

Pagani .."But I think the real focus is on how they are attempting to bypass proper democratic and legislative processes ( quite apart from lack of consultation with AF and industry). To take away rights or impose restrictions on licence holders, with the stroke of the CEO pen, is dictatorial and an abuse of process"...

3) Death of Business. Part 61 went a long way to delivering the fatal wound; but 135 will be the Coup de grâce. What happened to government encouraging ‘small’ business anyway?

4) Death of ministerial credibility. Was there too much heat generated by the Essendon DFO fireball? Too much toxicity around the PFAS horror story? Too much noise over the ‘drones’? Too many questions about CASA’s petulant incompetence? Was a ‘distraction’ needed? Was AF an ideal, easy target?

Re point 4 – a stretch, probably a bit fanciful, but even so, one could be forgiven for beginning to think that way. To declare the Essendon DFO an ‘acceptable’ risk and declare Angel Flight as ‘dangerous’ beggars the imagination. I must do some homework – it is said that the insurance industry have incredibly good ‘risk’ assessment tools, which makes good sense – considering. Have they upped their premiums on Angel Flight aircraft I wonder. If the Insurers believed there was an increased risk because a sick Kiddie was on board, I reckon they’d increase their fee’s in proportion to the perceived risk in a heartbeat. But they haven’t. Hmmm.

While in a wondering frame of mind; I wonder why the other charity flight organisation are not screaming to the high heavens about the CASA edicts? That ‘Little Wings’ outfit for instance – dead silence from them. Aye well, ‘tis done and cannot be undone without a top level punch-up; not that the minister will get in the ring. Carmody has told McDoNaught to bugger off and 6G Darren has obliged. Stellar.

Toot – toot.'s a response to the AF imbroglio and this week's SBG blog post from former Captain Robert J Boser off Christine Negroni's FB Flying Lessons Group page that definitely fits in here -  Rolleyes

Quote:Robert J. Boser This article, illustrates again and again WHY no Nation should be ruled by UN-elected Bureaucrats who are given the power to make their own laws -- complete with criminal penalties for non-compliance -- Without the voting approval of each and every word in any proposed LAW -- by their duly-elected Legislators.

The LAWS, which are the substance of the "RULE OF LAW" concept of Western Civilization, can only be created and enforced by duly ELECTED representatives of the citizens of any Republic.

"Laws" which are made by one or more Diktators, amount to nothing more that outright TYRANNY. They are not legitimate laws at all. 

To the contrary, according the the most brilliantly reasoned document in Human History (The American Declaration of Independence, circa 1776) such Diktator "laws" are grounds to throw off the offending Govt:

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Chocfrog to Captain Boser... Wink 

"We are fast approaching
the stage of the ultimate

The stage where the government is free
to do anything it pleases, while the citizens
may act only by permission."


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)