Can you make change for a nine dollar note?
“Sure” say’s the CASA advisor – “three’s OK?” That children is a short version of what happens when anyone challenges CASA on a point of law. No matter what you offer, there is always a wriggle room and change in the tin. The only real ‘safety’ concern of CASA is that their edicts and their whimsy become part of an unchallengeable, home spun rule set, which always ensures they win -.
Take airports for an example – under the regulations they can approve or disapprove anything that pleases them. Under the section 98 of the Act under 98(3(d) & (g). Despite all protests, they are the only ‘authority’ which matters - push comes to shove. Yet can they deny all responsibility for the Essendon DFO complex – defend their lack of action on safe legal grounds, without Joe Public standing a chance of challenging that decision (or lack thereof) and winning; despite unassailable evidence. Yes, they can and win too. This is a fact of life as we live it. Safe legislative wriggle room for CASA. That ‘safety’ has cost half a billion so far by the way.
Then; there is a push to have the Navigation Act updated and to relieve CASA of some of the massive, unassailable power they have carefully stored over the decades. Great idea, doomed to fail. Even if the ‘new’ Act gets up, there is more than enough wriggle room to actually give CASA even more uncontested power than ever. Ask a Barrister or; better yet, a retired Judge – we did:– and wished we had not.
Then we come to the much advertised ‘disallowance’ of a CASA edict. Been thrown out of court already, before the party even got going. Apart from being a ridiculous rule set it has provided a terrific example of what happens when you try to find your way through the protective systems Sleepy Hollow has installed. However, as a smoke screen; it has been an unmitigated success. Is the general aviation population concerned about the lack of RFF on Essendon? No. The implications of an aircraft smacking into a building and the potential for massive legal conflict? No. The ability of the local services to control a fuel fed fire and evacuate the building within the survivable time frames demanded by law? No. Has anyone yet apart from the ARFF, (aka UFUA) considered the operational and legal ramifications of this event at Essendon? It is a classic example of a cluster of ducks – all heading for the gun lines. It is, from a human survival and legal standpoint a buggers muddle of massive proportions.
And yet, it could have all been avoided had CASA exercised it's god given right and said NO – that building creates a worst case scenario. That would be the end of it – CASA holds all the cards. But there the building sits – with no added safety measures or revamped action plan or even clear lines of authority. A screaming basket case then; as it is now. Yet CASA have even written into ‘their’ law that the building can be torn down – on their say-so; alone.
“..(g) the prohibition of the construction of buildings, structures or objects, the restriction of the dimensions of buildings, structures or objects, and the removal in whole or in part or the marking or lighting of buildings, structures or objects (including trees or other natural obstacles) that constitute or may constitute obstructions, hazards or potential hazards to aircraft flying in the vicinity of an aerodrome, and such other measures as are necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft using an aerodrome or flying in the vicinity of an aerodrome; etc.
I’m not even going to run a book on that – daylight robbery don’t come close. We can only hope that Slater & Gordon (USA) division can see the lines of attack as clearly as we can see the evacuation paths. Bring the bulldozers with you boys – I’ll come to cheer. Just start with ICAO and work backwards to see who has the Yea or Nay on whether the DFO was (a) legal (b) safe, © properly prepared for the crash event, (d) who actually approved the building, (e) how was the ARFF prepared to deal with the accident and last; but not least – (f) who authorised the infringement on the mandated runway safety width?
Have fun boys.
Toot – toot.
“Sure” say’s the CASA advisor – “three’s OK?” That children is a short version of what happens when anyone challenges CASA on a point of law. No matter what you offer, there is always a wriggle room and change in the tin. The only real ‘safety’ concern of CASA is that their edicts and their whimsy become part of an unchallengeable, home spun rule set, which always ensures they win -.
Take airports for an example – under the regulations they can approve or disapprove anything that pleases them. Under the section 98 of the Act under 98(3(d) & (g). Despite all protests, they are the only ‘authority’ which matters - push comes to shove. Yet can they deny all responsibility for the Essendon DFO complex – defend their lack of action on safe legal grounds, without Joe Public standing a chance of challenging that decision (or lack thereof) and winning; despite unassailable evidence. Yes, they can and win too. This is a fact of life as we live it. Safe legislative wriggle room for CASA. That ‘safety’ has cost half a billion so far by the way.
Then; there is a push to have the Navigation Act updated and to relieve CASA of some of the massive, unassailable power they have carefully stored over the decades. Great idea, doomed to fail. Even if the ‘new’ Act gets up, there is more than enough wriggle room to actually give CASA even more uncontested power than ever. Ask a Barrister or; better yet, a retired Judge – we did:– and wished we had not.
Then we come to the much advertised ‘disallowance’ of a CASA edict. Been thrown out of court already, before the party even got going. Apart from being a ridiculous rule set it has provided a terrific example of what happens when you try to find your way through the protective systems Sleepy Hollow has installed. However, as a smoke screen; it has been an unmitigated success. Is the general aviation population concerned about the lack of RFF on Essendon? No. The implications of an aircraft smacking into a building and the potential for massive legal conflict? No. The ability of the local services to control a fuel fed fire and evacuate the building within the survivable time frames demanded by law? No. Has anyone yet apart from the ARFF, (aka UFUA) considered the operational and legal ramifications of this event at Essendon? It is a classic example of a cluster of ducks – all heading for the gun lines. It is, from a human survival and legal standpoint a buggers muddle of massive proportions.
And yet, it could have all been avoided had CASA exercised it's god given right and said NO – that building creates a worst case scenario. That would be the end of it – CASA holds all the cards. But there the building sits – with no added safety measures or revamped action plan or even clear lines of authority. A screaming basket case then; as it is now. Yet CASA have even written into ‘their’ law that the building can be torn down – on their say-so; alone.
“..(g) the prohibition of the construction of buildings, structures or objects, the restriction of the dimensions of buildings, structures or objects, and the removal in whole or in part or the marking or lighting of buildings, structures or objects (including trees or other natural obstacles) that constitute or may constitute obstructions, hazards or potential hazards to aircraft flying in the vicinity of an aerodrome, and such other measures as are necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft using an aerodrome or flying in the vicinity of an aerodrome; etc.
I’m not even going to run a book on that – daylight robbery don’t come close. We can only hope that Slater & Gordon (USA) division can see the lines of attack as clearly as we can see the evacuation paths. Bring the bulldozers with you boys – I’ll come to cheer. Just start with ICAO and work backwards to see who has the Yea or Nay on whether the DFO was (a) legal (b) safe, © properly prepared for the crash event, (d) who actually approved the building, (e) how was the ARFF prepared to deal with the accident and last; but not least – (f) who authorised the infringement on the mandated runway safety width?
Have fun boys.
Toot – toot.