The Su_Spence Saga
#1



And so, we open yet another new ledger for yet another DAS.

This one is not off to an auspicious beginning; there are blots on the first page.

No one likes to be patronised or fed platitudes; we cannot, not as yet, call Pony-Pooh or Bollocks but already the mood is trending toward that and more. The unfortunate opening address and the latest round of Estimates have gone down like a well trimmed man-hole cover and landed with a loud 'clang' on the stony ground of industry good will toward CASA. That was in short supply before the appointment – in tatters now. Consider:-

“I do not pretend to know everything about aviation and aviation safety, but I do bring a depth of knowledge and experience to my job.”

Aye: but from which end? Certainly not from the coal face. What can possibly be learned in the sheltered, cloistered world of secure employment, comfortable surrounds, working with like minded people and all the time in the world to arrive at a politically acceptable decision, on behalf of someone else – and no can to carry when it all turns to worms. Want a 'depth' of knowledge? Fine, take the family mortgage and bet it on gaining an AOC. Write your own manuals and travel the long weary road of gaining approvals; then set about building a business and earning a honest crust from a flight school, or charter outfit or even a third tier regular service. Try that for a couple of years; then perhaps the claim of to 'know' the industry problems will gain some credibility.


“Over the last few weeks, I have heard from people across the spectrum of Australian aviation.”

Oh! well then; that's just Fine and Dandy. Now, having said that, it will OK to retire behind the barricades and work closely with those who created the 'problems' and enforce the rules as they interpolate those to suit their own 'vision' or personal agenda.

We will set aside the bollocks which flows from the "Over the last" & etc. rubbish. All this 'heartening' collaboration, engagement and 'respect' dribble has all been said before; indeed they are now words to ignite resentment and fury – so often trotted out – placebos and patronising twaddle, used to sooth the politicians.

The last paragraph of the Spence platitude raised an urgent call for the bucket. It simply and honestly sends the wrong message. Industry's problems begin and end deep within the bowels of CASA; look to the where the rot lays and cure that; the rest will come to hand as a direct result of that. Anything else is demeaning platitude and a modified version of the same old song. I may add (as a personal note) the coy use of a 'pet' forename, to sign off is presumptuous; I will let you know when we are on a first name basis; until then, mind your manners and show some respect. Adding insult to the injury of using Crawford as your mouthpiece demonstrates clearly - just how far off track Spence has been led already, within the swamps and mires of Sleepy Hollow.

Master Hitch has penned a short piece which is worthy of inclusion on the opening page.

“New CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Pip Spence has landed at Aviation House and has opened her first CASA Briefing newsletter by outlining her expertise in the aviation industry and how much she understands it. I have no qualms as such with blowing your own trumpet, but if the tune you're playing is not one the audience wants to hear it's still just noise. There is a greater risk; a gauntlet that Spence had chosen to run, and that's to put promote yourself on a platform that currently doesn't exist. In this case, it's a promise of respect. She said "Under my leadership, CASA will show respect for the aviation community and actively seek to work with people from all parts of aviation to maintain and improve safety." Right now that's an unfathomable proposition; the operations side of the regulator has a reputation for disrespect and roughshod tactics when it comes to dealing with the GA community. It's almost part of their DNA. If Spence is going to achieve her platform, some serious changes are needed; changes that will thresh out the dead wood within the department and allow new growth to thrive. Spence's problem is that she has now boldly gone where so many have gone before, and if, like the others, she fails to deliver, the aviation industry will stop listening to her tune because they will have heard it before”...

We shall leave the matter of presenting Crawford as the face of the CASA in abeyance for the moment; just until the dust has settled and the vomiting has ceased. However, it is a rather large black mark on a brand new ledger. Mistake #1 and a biggy.

I hereby declare the new DAS season open.

Toot – toot.
Reply
#2

(05-31-2021, 06:53 PM)P7_TOM Wrote:  On behalf of the 60% - NOW - calling BOLLOCKS.

Too ancient and set in my ways. Learnt the way this CASA world wags, decades ago. Time to call this latest fairy tale for what it is. 'All the best Pip” has just sent a huge 'Up Yours” to industry. I'd bet many choc frogs that she is the the useless ministers hand maiden – political expediency and election angst over rules all.

In some countries – corruption is an open game; available to all with the gelt. But never mind – the only problem aviation has according to the ministerial 'vision' is all fixed wing pilots learning VTOL skills – someone should tell him the Jetsons were no more than a cartoon fantasy – bit like SOAR – the inspirational idyll. Far removed from the Buckley common sense way to aid a dying industry.

That's my two Bob spent as pleases me best. The next two, and another two after them may buy enough Ale to allay the fury at this monstrous insult to industry's legitimate complaint being reduced to a demeaning 'piss take'. Second the motion – SHAME on that Estimates committee.

Set 'em here – and keep 'em coming; thank you.

[Image: D05ZtSnWoAAfBWZ.jpg]
Reply
#3

[Image: BOHICA.jpg]

Su_Spence and the BOHICA - Syndrome??

KC quote (linked post above) from 6 years ago:

Quote:KC (AMROBA) explains it best:
Quote: Wrote:"..Is CASA Australia’s Aviation Regulator or does it have an internal vision of being like one of the above?


Australia has created aviation requirements that are being prosecuted by a Regulator with a fixation on policing breaches of the criminal provisions they have created.
Aviation safety cannot be regulated into people as aviation safety relies on the safety culture of participants.
If CASA need access to metadata for ‘criminal’ offense then the Feds should be handling the offense.
This sought of dampens all the PR from CASA about working with industry.
This is a big brother mentality that does not improve trust or confidence in CASA.."

Talking about not improving 'trust or confidence in CASA, read the following from EWH (note the Su_Spence quotes in bold):

Quote:[Image: plain_english_guides_web1.jpg]

CASA releases First Plain English Guides
2 June 2021
Comments 0 Comments

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority this week released the first of the plain English guides to regulations that were first recommended by the Aviation Safety Regulation review in 2014.

The first guides cover Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) Part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules and Part 101 Micro and Excluded Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operations and Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 Fatigue Management.


The object of the guides is to present regulatory requirements in clear, concise language that is more easily understood than the legal language of the underlying legislation.


New Director of Aviation Safety and CEO Pip Spence said the guides mean people in the aviation community do not have to trawl through the detail of regulations and standards for the information they need.


“In these three key parts of the safety regulations getting the information you need will now be quicker and easier,” she said.


“CASA has listened to feedback from the aviation community about making compliance with the regulations easier and we have delivered a practical solution.


“We are already working on guides covering other key parts of the safety regulations to build a library of plain English safety information that will be of most benefit to the aviation community.


The three guides are available free as digital documents or as printed copies for $2.95 plus postage, with ordering done through CASA's online shop.


“I encourage everyone to get a copy of the guides relevant to their operations and to actively use them to support their safe flying," Spence added. "This is an initiative that can make a significant impact on maintaining and improving the safety of Australian skies.”

 How things change - err NOT!  Confused

Having a closer look at the 2 Parts (Part 91, 101) and 1 CAO (48.1), on a simple page count total we have over 332 pages... Confused 

The mind boggles on how many pages the complete simplified plain English 'library' version (of which PS speaks) will be?? 

P2 comment: Referring to the 52 page PE version of Part 101 (Drone regs), IMO the most essential part to read is the following... Rolleyes  

Quote:Operation of an RPA in contravention of the Airspace Act 2007 and the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and the various pieces of subordinate legislation such as the CASR and MOS, can have significant penalties, including, in some instances, terms of imprisonment. Most of the aviation laws that apply to RPA are strict liability offences carrying fines of up to $10,500.

Quote:A strict liability offence is one where there is no need for CASA to prove the operator intended to break the rule, the act of breaking the rule is sufficient for the offence to be committed. There is a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact available.

Depending on the severity of the contravention, CASA may:
 › issue an infringement notice to pay a penalty
 › take administrative action such as suspending or cancelling your accreditation
 › compel the operator to enter into enforceable voluntary undertakings
 › refer a matter for criminal prosecution.

Quote:Not only can a contravention be expensive, but it can also result in a prohibition on future involvement with RPA.



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#4

Plain English???? how is that defined??

Are the "Plain English" guides just another make work program, how much did it cost to produce them?

Once they are completed, say in another thirty years and half a billion dollars or so, will there be another set of guides required to explain the plain english guides? Will producing plain english guides go on Ad infinitum?.

In the USA the FAA produce very useful guides. They do not interpret what the rules mean, there is no necessity for that, their rules are already in plain english. They rather promote ways to improve teaching and safe operations in general.

Do complex rules actually make things safer, rather than improving skills and highlighting safety traps?

Just why is it that Australia cannot write rules in plain English to start with, other comparable countries seem to manage? They have comparable or better safety outcomes than Australia.

If Australia ends up at war with China, as many are fearful is becoming likely, will the Government have to pay the development sharks to vacate their industrial sites, tear down their edifices and restore the airports as airports?
Reply
#5

A thing of wonder.

It was a bleak, dark and stormy night when some intrepid members of the IOS penetrated the swamps of Sleepy Hollow. Despite being at great personal risk and with some difficulty, they managed to liberate a master copy of the forecast CASA 'safety' lecture tours. But I must warn you, before you watch the CASA method of 'safety' vision, to beware of being outspoken.

You see, the minister must be appeased; there is great concern within his office that the fluffy, manipulated- 'Tell-us-U-Luv-us' questionnaire will not be able to convince anyone that CASA is a model, much respected, internationally admired organisation. The 'safe compliance' training lectures are designed to add credibility to the claim that all is well and CASA is keeping all 'safe'. So, here is the CASA vision splendid of 'safety training'.

Reply
#6

The problem dear K is that unfortunately CASA is more concerned about liability than safety.
There was an article in the Australian a week or so ago that bemoaned the fact that statistics
were showing that punitive fines licence suspensions and others censures were having little effect
on peoples propensity to speed or commit other offences contrary to the road rules, the suggestion
being rules based enforcement was a failure and perhaps safety education might be a better option as an adjunct to the rules.
Reply
#7

CASA lifts embuggerance on BRM Aero?? - Wink

Via EWH:


Quote: [Image: brm-aero_bristell_classic.jpg]

CASA lifts Restrictions on Bristell Operations
21 June 2021
Comments 0 Comments


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority today removed the restrictions on Bristell LSAs that prevented them from being used in stall training. CASA issued a ban on stall training in Bristells in July 2020, stating that they had not received sufficient assurance from BRM Aero that the aircraft complied with the standard for light sport aircraft (LSA), a contention that the manufacturer has disputed consistently.

CASA today revoked the instrument, stating that they had now received more information from independent bodies about the stall testing done on the Bristell and BRM Aero's notification to owners about the centre of gravity arms.


"[Today] CASA revoked the regulation 262APA(4) operating limitations following receipt of new compliance information from BRM Aero Ltd and fundamental corrections having been made to the Aircraft Operating Instructions (AOI)," CASA says.


"On 9 March 2021, BRM Aero Ltd provided to CASA further information as to compliance of Bristell LSA with ASTM 4.5.9 spin requirements by two specialist organisations as to spin compliance and the scope of the LSA self-certification scheme.


"In addition, CASA had information that BRM Aero Ltd had recently made and distributed to aircraft owners, important corrections to the centre of gravity calculations for the affected aircraft. The corrections were required to be incorporated into the AOI.


"CASA is reasonably satisfied that the corrections made to the AOI have adequately mitigated the safety related concerns held by CASA, such that all participants are meaningfully aware of these corrections and importantly, how they change the loading requirements of the aircraft.


"Provided operators of the aircraft only operate the aircraft in compliance with the corrected AOI data, CASA considers that the potential for inadvertent operation of the aircraft at or outside the centre of gravity limits is substantially reduced."


In light of the corrections to the AOI, CASA has issued the following recommendations.
  • CASA recommends that pilots and operators of the affected aircraft ensure they are familiar with the effect of the revised AOI corrections, as there may now be a significant change to the way the aircraft is permitted to be loaded and there may now be restrictions upon operating the aircraft in certain.

  • Pilots and operators should pay particular attention to the corrected arm associated with the pilot and passenger row. The correction to the AOI has adjusted the arm for the pilot and passenger significantly further.

  • Pilots and operators should pay particular attention to the aft movement of the centre of gravity with fuel burn. Dependant on the empty weight and empty CoG of each aircraft, the corrected arm and the effect of an aft moving CoG with fuel burn, may significantly change the revised permitted loading of the aircraft, when compared to previous loading of the.

  • Pilots should check that the loading of the aircraft is within the published limits, both at the proposed take-off weight and also at a zero-fuel or minimum fuel.
CASA applied the restrictions after a number of Bristell accidents around the world including two in Australia where the stall recovery characteristics were brought into question. The regulator then stated they were not satisfied with undertakings from the manufacturer that the aircraft complied with the stalling requirements of the ASTM standard.

According to CASA. it was the investigation into a fatal crash in Ireland in June 2019 that exposed the CoG problem, when investigators found the moment arm was longer than that specified in the weight and balance documents. An interim report was issued last week.


The UK Light Aircraft Association also completed work late last year that supported the findings of the Irish investigation.


BRM Aero worked through Australian agent Edge Aviation on the matter, which has resulted in CASA being referred to the Commonwealth Ombudsman over their conduct in dealing with BRM Aero and local dealer Anderson Aviation.

Plus via AOPA Oz:

Quote:[Image: 201821445_2244816342315945_8581843338648...e=60D5D8ED]

OPINION:  CASA BACKFLIP
REGULATOR REVOKES ADDITIONAL OPERATING LIMITATIONS
ON BRM AERO LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT (BLSA)



AOPA Australia CEO, Mr Benjamin Morgan, provides an opinion.

In a letter dated 21st June 2021, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has today announced the revocation of additional operating limitations placed on BRM Aero Light Sport Aircraft (BLSA), signalling a major victory for the aircraft manufacturer.

The CASA backflip comes almost a year after it imposed restrictions on the aircraft type, that were largely encouraged by what BRM Aero have vigorously claimed to be a defective and inappropriate flight test report from the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited (RAAUS).

Signed by Mr Robert Walker, Executive Manager of the Stakeholder Engagement Division of CASA;

“Upon consideration of your submission and other emergent facts and circumstances as set out below, I am writing to give you notice that pursuant to subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (AIA) and regulation 262APA of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR), I have decided in my capacity as delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to revoke the additional operational limitations previously imposed upon BLSA operating within Australia by notice dated 28th July 2020.”

But more importantly, it’s the following statement that is of significant interest to our industry;

“In making this decision, I am also reasonably satisfied that revocation of the additional operating limitations is not contrary to the interests of aviation safety.”

So, if there was no risk to aviation safety, it begs the question;  why did CASA take the public action that they did?  And, more importantly, who was motivating them to do this?

Aircraft manufacturers and regulators must be able to work with together constructively.  When problems or concerns are identified, its incumbent for all to work in the best interests of safety in addressing problems.

Based on the documentation and correspondence shared with AOPA Australia, CASA appears to have taken an unnecessarily hostile approach with BRM Aero, largely fuelled by staff and representatives who held significant conflicts of interest, thus prejudicing the regulator from resolving the concerns in a productive manner.  Or was that the intention all along?

During the course of this past year, AOPA Australia on behalf of BRM Aero aircraft owners reached out to CASA seeking an intervention, only for it to have fallen on deaf ears.  The then Director of Aviation Safety, Mr Carmody, refused a meeting - CASA it seemed was uninterested in any other view or opinion other than its own.

A simple meeting, a coming together of cooler minds could have averted the senseless damage caused by CASA taking the action they did.

There is much to be learned from this sorry debacle and with proper independent review and guidance CASA could be the better for the experience - if it were open to genuine consultation and feedback from the industry and broader community.  History shows this may be difficult for CASA.

Despite the above, its abundantly clear that CASA lacks appropriate oversight of its critical safety decision making and should be restrained from knee jerking to public outcomes.  To do anything other continues to undermine external confidence and relationships with CASA, along with damaging the broader reputation of the aviation industry and CASA itself.

AOPA Australia recognises the need for a robust safety regulator, we must have a diligent and capable CASA for our industry to move forward.  This must be achieved in partnership with the industry, trust and respect must be restored for aviation to progress.

It’s not lost on AOPA Australia that the revocation comes just weeks after the appointment of the new Director of Aviation Safety of CASA, Ms Pip Spence, and we can only hope that this kind of positive direction continues for the sake of our industry’s future.  With Ms Spence, we have a new and unique opportunity to work together and we need to embrace this.

For BRM Aero, they now have the task of rebuilding their brand and reputation – vindicated by today’s announcement, but with a damages bill that could likely run into the tens of millions worldwide.  With major international law firms circling to represent BRM Aero, their distributorship network and aircraft owners worldwide, the RAAUS (who are alleged to have been responsible for creating this mess) are possibly beginning to sweat somewhat. 

If the prospect of funding what could be a long, and extremely expensive legal battle is not frightening enough, then the sobering reality of a damages settlement to the tune of tens of millions might be.

For the broader aviation industry, this next phase of the BRM Aero saga is likely to have some significant consequences and ramifications for aircraft owners and pilots in the recreational space.

Should they be successful in suing the RAAUS for damages to their worldwide brand, network and product, RAAUS could be looking at a hefty payout, with insurers and potentially members left picking up the tab.  Either way, this case may potentially open the door to others, with claims against the self-administration.

If the damages figure reaches high enough it could risk bankrupting the self-administration, which under the current regulatory framework, could leave thousands of pilots and aircraft owners unable to fly.  The situation highlights how fragile and inadequate the current approach to self-administration truly is and why a parallel pathway must be returned to within the CASA regulated system as a priority and a must.


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#8

Bravo Angel Flight - Hang your head in abject shame ATSB & CASA.

- HERE - from Sky News.
Reply
#9

Seconding Secondus -  Wink

Via the UP Nulli Secondus voices dismay at the (amateur hour) CASA educational safety video titled...

Enhancing pilot skills—Expect the unexpected

Quote:CASA Safety Video - Very Concerning

CASA Safety Education Video - Absolutely Underwhelming!

I have just come across the education section on the CASA website which hosts a safety video entitled Enhancing Pilot Skills – Expect the Unexpected. The presenter is CASA Safety Adviser Kirstie Winter.

In my opinion, I could not believe this is what’s offered as Australian aviation safety material.

Riddled with non-technical errors, it begs the question, how could it ever have been approved for broadcast. Considerable sections of the narration are vague with some dialogue actually conflicting with the slide text. On one occasion the presenter repeats the same line twice.

Now granted, it’s best to judge content rather than delivery, but when a presentation fails the most basic attention to detail an audience is rightly forgiven for disengaging. What makes this absolutely unforgiveable: the number one message in aviation safety and no doubt intended by this video is be diligent, take care, plan, communicate effectively, be thorough and do it right. What is presented is none of this. I don't believe the FAA or UK CAA for example would ever broadcast in such a fashion.

Unbelievably below grade for the nation’s lead agency for aviation safety and pilot training standards.

Here's the culprit vid but beware bucket maybe required... Confused



P2 seconds the Secondus OP... Tongue

Speaking of 'amateur hour' I note that seemingly back from purgatory Stewie Macleod fronted last week in his once familiar role as Director Transport Safety with this somewhat related safety message... Rolleyes 


 Thorough pre-flight preparation the best defence against flying into deteriorating weather
[Image: picture1.jpg?width=670&height=377.36764705882354]
Key points:
  • Student pilot and Instructor did not detect forecast deteriorating weather during their pre-flight briefing;

  • Pilots should maintain knowledge and skills required to avoid unintentional operations in IMC;

  • If a VFR-rated pilot does find themselves in marginal weather, they should seek whatever assistance is available, including contacting air traffic services.

 
An incident that saw a student pilot and instructor in a Piper PA-28 encounter deteriorating weather and enter instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) while operating under visual flight rules (VFR) highlights the importance of thorough pre-flight planning, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation notes.


The student pilot (in the left seat) and instructor (in the right hand seat), with a second student pilot (seated in the rear) observing, were conducting a navigation training flight in the PA-28 from Melbourne’s Moorabbin Airport to Warrnambool in western Victoria and return on 25 February 2021, as part of the student’s integrated commercial pilot licence training.


After refuelling at Warrnambool the aircraft departed to return to Moorabbin in visual flight conditions, with the plan that they would return to Warrnambool if the weather deteriorated.


As the flight progressed, and as had been forecast, the weather deteriorated, and the instructor decided to divert to Cobden Airport to land and wait until the weather cleared.


However, visibility significantly reduced in rain, and the instructor, who held an instrument rating but had not conducted any instrument flying since a March 2020 proficiency check (and therefore did not meet the currency requirements for single-pilot instrument flight rules flights), took control of the aircraft and the decision was taken to return to Warrnambool.


As the aircraft approached Warrnambool, visibility continued to reduce and the cloud base began to lower. The instructor then initiated a climb into cloud and contacted air traffic control, which provided navigation assistance to an area free from cloud, issuing a heading to Avalon Airport.


The aircraft, which was certified for day and night VFR operations only, subsequently exited cloud about 10 nm south-west of Avalon Airport, with the flight then continuing to Moorabbin for an uneventful landing.


“The ATSB found that although the pilots had conducted a pre-flight briefing, they did not detect the forecast deteriorating weather in the Warrnambool area,” said ATSB Director Transport Safety Stuart Macleod.


“In addition, prior to departure from Warrnambool they did not assess the aerodrome forecasts for both Moorabbin and Warrnambool to ensure they were suitable destination airports.


“This probably resulted in them selecting Warrnambool as an alternate airport, despite the forecast temporary deterioration, and the aircraft encountering poor weather during the return to Warrnambool.”


Mr Macleod said weather related incidents continue to be a significant concern in aviation safety.


“The ATSB encourages pilots of all experience levels to develop and maintain the knowledge and skills required to avoid unintentional operations in IMC,” he said.


“And if a VFR-rated pilot does find themselves in marginal weather, they should seek whatever assistance is available, including contacting air traffic services.”


Mr Macleod said the ATSB’s ‘Don’t push it, Don’t go’ safety education campaign provides further information on the risks of VFR into IMC flight.


“Don’t push it, Don’t go’ highlighted three key messages: the importance of thorough pre-flight planning and having alternate plans, that pressing on where there is the possibility of entering IMC carries a significant risk of spatial disorientation, and the value of using a ‘personal minimums’ checklist to help manage flight risks,” he said. 


“Pilots without a current instrument rating should always be prepared to amend and delay plans to fly due to poor or deteriorating weather conditions, and not to push on.


“Thorough pre-flight preparation is the best defence against flying into deteriorating weather."


Read the report: AO-20-21-009 VFR into IMC involving Piper Aircraft PA-28, VH-FPS near Warrnambool, Victoria on 25 February 2021.
 

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#10

One word: Childish.

My old Headmaster, Sir Brian Hone had one overarching dictum that transcended everything: “A breach of common sense is a breach of school rules.” Would that CASA adopted that principle and simplified its regulations accordingly.
Reply
#11

God forbid Wombat, commonsense is an anathema to any bureaucrat, let alone CASA.
If common sense prevailed there would be Chaos. You can't have people running around
using common sense for goodness sake, if that happened what would happen to rules
and the generation thereof, things might actually start to work, bureaucrats cannot allow
that to happen, if things worked we wouldn't need bureaucrats to tell us how to make
them work. The golden rule of the Political class and public sector is to never write rules
that work. If they did they would not need to hire more Bureaucrats to fix them, I believe
the word is "Propagation".
Reply
#12

Expected v Unexpected.

The Macleod offering is at least 'topical' and useful in that it states, in the first line - "pre-flight preparation is, and always will be, the best defence against VFR into IMC."  We have hammered this subject before; there are very few 'genuine' cases of 'inadvertent' loss of VMC..Fact......Understanding the 'dynamics' of the forecast, planning 'decision' points and defining escape paths to a coffee and a wait-a-bit place are crucial elements. All been said and explained (ad nauseam) since Pontious; the lessons writ in blood and tangled wreckage.

The CASA offering reflects their inexperience and amateurish, home made tick-a-box approach to air operations generally. Stating the obvious has never helped any more than draconian rules and horrendous penalties. The old 'Crash Comic' did a great deal of good; the 'I learned' series of articles promoted much discussion and valuable lessons. To be honest, I watched the first 30 seconds of the CASA offering and hit the kill switch - at the request of the other collective 200 years of professional experience I was watching it with. "Rubbish" and quite probably dangerous rubbish.

Box ticking will not ever save a situation where, despite the coroners paperwork being tidy, some poor sods have to disentangle charred remains from a wreck, slammed into a cliff face 100 feet shy of the tree tops in the wind, rain, mud, blood and leeches. The eternal question has not ever been satisfactorily answered - Why?

But I repeat myself. There is no such animal as 'unexpected' weather. The BoM (bless 'em) do their best to provide accurate data (discussion for another day). Pilots must, I repeat MUST be able to develop a 'mental picture' of the forecast conditions, apply that to their intended flight path and formulate cut off points, escape routes and have a 'flexible' plan in mind which allows and acknowledges alternate strategy; and, be prepared to use it. Why push on toward being trapped between a 'rock and and a hard place' when turning left at Albuquerque and running for an extra 20 minutes would have stepped around the rising terrain and lowering cloud? Airline aircraft divert all the time, even manage the odd go-around - there is no shame in that. Quite the reverse in fact; Navy pilots wave off carrier landings without penalty; professional attitude rules.

But, we have said all of this and more, time and time again. If that video CASA released is the best they can do in an attempt to prevent VFR into IMC, and continue to present it as 'inadvertent' then it is time to bring in some 'professional' experience and be shut of the bumbling amateurs posing as 'experts in the field'. I shall record one 'Blot' on the Spencer copy book.

Toot - toot.
Reply
#13

Sandy on the UP Rolleyes

Via the UP: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st11082829


Quote:Don’t believe it



Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO [Image: viewpost.gif]

Quote:"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less"..................

Just sayin'.......

Didn't believe it then......Don't believe it now.....

True, only the gullible and uninformed, or perhaps those just ignorant through lack of deep interest, could possibly believe that sincerity of intention was behind such ad nauseum public relations pronouncements from such a completely discredited organisation.

Such statements about any intentions for real reforms in the aviation regulatory environment go to either the arrogance within the leadership of CASA, or an almost total, and unforgivable, lack of knowledge about the numerous previous statements, from 1989, all with exactly the same elements. Charitably one would opt for the latter explanation, but which ever way the disaster is viewed, the conclusion must be the same, finally Parliament is responsible.

Parliament abrogated it’s responsibility back in 1988 by creating an independent Commonwealth corporation to regulate and administer public policy for aviation. This muddle headed and experimental concept is based on the notion of governance by experts who are above politics and who will altruistically only govern in the best interests of the Nation, without personal ambition at the lowest cost in terms of their salaries and cost burdens to the aviation industry.

Similarly in 2009 the then Minister Anthony Albanese in his reading speech justified removing the ATSB out of his Ministerial responsibility because it’s functions should be “above politics.” This is one example, don’t worry, both sides of politics are guilty of this pernicious stupidity which runs against the democratic principle of representative government.

Until a Minister and Parliament resume authority, to make real and permanent reforms to grow aviation jobs, businesses and services throughout Australia, there’ll be no progress because the current model of governance will not work It is not because it is ‘broke,’ it was never fit for purpose in the first place.

One more muddled concept; User Pays.

The obvious purpose of public policy and administration by government is for the benefit, including the protection and prosperity, of all citizens. So who is the ‘user’?

Consider that if the business of General Aviation (GA) of the 70s and 80s had been allowed to grow in line with our prosperity and population increase, GA could easily have been twice it’s present size.

The money multiplier generated by a free enterprise aviation industry, unhampered by the extraordinary shackles (counterproductive to safety) constructed by the out of control regulator and rubber stamped by government, would far outweigh the permit fees being gouged by CASA, the monopoly provider of permissions.



Not to mention CASA have invented numerous new ‘permissions’ to which are attached time wasting performances, unnecessary paperwork and swinging fees.

Ring write contact your Parliamentary representatives regularly requesting FAA regulations and Ministerial regulation of aviation through a Department of Government.

To fly is not a State given privilege but the right of a free citizen to pursue happiness, to live life.

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#14

“Safety” is a meaningless nominative word that was deliberately used in the Act to destroy the actual pursuit of safety by the Government in favor of ensuring that the Government has no liability for safety outcomes and maximum freedom to do what it likes, when it likes, to whomever it likes for what ever reason it is feeling at the time. This attitude, by definition, taints ALL staff at CASA starting with the Board and management.

Let’s be clear on this; no professional company or institutional Director, CEO or Senior Manager, will willingly accept an appointment to an organisation charged with a Diaphanous, brainless and meaningless mission as “the pursuit of safety above everything” because it’s a meaningless mission that will one day come back to destroy their reputations possibly (sadly) at the hands of a Royal Commisioner.

The correct use of the term “safety” in an actionable context requires a measuring predicate: “compared to what??”. The Civil Aviation Act, CASA Mission and all other Australian documents are missing this predicate and therefore have built their entire regulatory edifice on foundations of sand. Let’s be clear on this; without some measurable concrete benchmark, there is no way anyone can know, let alone test, the integrity or value of anything that CASA does. You should note that the answer to the question of measurable benchmarks cannot be weasel words like “international standards”, “worlds best practice”, “industry norms”, “ICAO/FAA/CAA regulations” and suchlike, the actual benchmark HAS to be traceable back to an acceptable probability of “un - safety” meaning a probability of death or serious injury. If it can’t be traced back to that number, then you are regulating by guesswork at best and prejudice, laziness, hearsay, vengeance or corruption at worst.

Do I make myself clear? The Civil Aviation Act was written to avoid requiring this acid test, incidentally opening the way to the aforementioned evils.

To put that in plainer language that a defence force officer will already know, everything you do has to be in support of achieving your mission. If it can’t be shown to meet this test then it is superfluous.

As for the question of “comparable to what” genuine regulators, but not CASA, I think, will point to a probability of death. Additional to that is an actuarial cost of death. Taken together these two numbers tell us exactly how much money can and should be spent on regulations - every one of them, through the use of well known and understood risk management calculations that have been used by professionals of all sorts for at least forty years in my experience. There are even ICAO instructions on how to do this.

Does Australia measure the potential benefit of aviation regulation using this tool? No. The result? We have regulations that “someone” thinks might make us safer compared to a non existent standard in their own minds. As for actual proof? Sorry!

Choc Frog awarded - K....
Reply
#15

Well put, Wombat’s logic and the finer points about risk management in aviation puts perspective on the subject of safety and would be good reading for Minister Joyce.

We know there must be a new dynamic, it is not in our best interests to minutely manage, by criminal code regulations the private operations of General Aviation (GA), CASA must go.

We do need to be careful not to go backwards, we should be advancing, but without the old paternalistic ways of the Department of Civil Aviation, though that environment was at least workable and was without today’s excessive controls and enormous fees.

We need a new concept where we have the ‘road rules’ and not a lot more for private GA. In this era of information free choice should be given much greater weight and all pet theories about, for example training, should be counted as opinions which may be tested by aviators or not. Nothing succeeds like success, good methods will win out, and no information is spread faster than the consequences of failure. Innovation, experimentation and technology change our potentials to improve efficiency and safety, the old control mentality is not fit for a better future for Australia’s GA.
Reply
#16

Spence exerts her authority on YBBN NAP proposal?? 

Via Oz Aviation: 


CASA REJECTS BRISBANE AIRPORT’S PROPOSAL TO REDUCE INNER-CITY AIRCRAFT NOISE
written by Hannah Dowling | July 23, 2021

[Image: A-Qantas-737-800-as-shot-at-Brisbane-BNE...8.jpg.webp]
A Qantas 737-800 as shot at Brisbane BNE by Rob Finlayson
CASA has thrown out Brisbane Airport’s request to increase the allowable tailwind for aircraft, which would have seen fewer planes flying over the homes of inner-city residents.

The safety authority said the proposal do not “provide sufficient evidence or data” to support the change and cited international regulations ruling that noise pollution should not be a factor in changing tailwind allowance.


Residents of Brisbane’s inner-city suburbs, including New Farm, Bulimba, Teneriffe, Hamilton and Hawthorn have spent months lobbying and protesting against excessive aircraft noise pollution over their homes following the introduction of Brisbane’s second parallel runway.


In March, Brisbane Airport Corporation submitted a proposal to the regulator, seeking to increase the allowable tailwind for aircraft arriving or departing from the airport from 5 knots to 10 knots.


The change, if it had been approved, would aim to result in more aircraft utilising the airport’s parallel runways to the northerly direction, over Moreton Bay, rather than the south, over the suburbs.

“CASA has determined that the current BAC proposal, as presented, does not provide sufficient evidence or data to support an approval for [the] request for runway nomination by air traffic control when the tailwind is greater than 5 kts and when a suitable alternative runway is available,” the regulator said in its ruling.


Overall, the organisation said the proposal did not provide “sufficient new information, evidence, or a compelling risk analysis” to justify such a change in policy, however the regulator did note that BAC could make another application based on “new or different data” for CASA to reconsider.





MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#17

CASA now requiring: “new evidence, data, risk analysis to…………j.u.s.t.i.f.y a change in policy”??? Be still my beating heart!

And this after the Federal Court, in the Angel Flight case, specifically ruled that CASA did not require any such thing to make a regulation??

https://www.australianflying.com.au/late...gel-flight

What has happened to our beloved regulator? Shirley this decision about Brisbane is an aberration?

Is it too early to hope that a Pauline Conversion has occurred on the road to Damascus?

If so, how do we support such revolutionary (for CASA) change?
Reply
#18

Ms. Spence would not have had much trouble to sign off on this decision regarding operations at Brisbane Airport. Given a commonly standard runway, the pilot of any aircraft will not opt for any downwind landing because an into wind landing is inherently the safer option due to the aircraft’s lower ground speed. The last thing pilots need is more downwind, even five knots is a compromise against safety.

Civil Aviation Advisory Publication 166 quote:-
“ 4.2.1 Take-off or landing downwind is not recommended as a standard procedure. Pilots should use the runway most closely aligned into wind (the active runway), wherever possible.”

The real test for our new CASA CEO will be to lance one outstanding festering sore, that of CASA’s disgraceful attack on Glen Buckley. That would be a start, a message of repudiation to her underlings, that the command and control mentality, hammering down General Aviation with a suite of ever more prescriptive of criminal sanction rules, new permissions and fee gouging must be reversed.

We could then see the beginnings of rebuilding the legitimate place of CASA and allow General Aviation the space to grow businesses, jobs and services in the manner of free enterprise in a free country.
Reply
#19

errr?? passing strange all the BrouHaha over maximum tailwinds.

I had the funny idea that max tailwind components were annunciated in the specific aircraft flight manual.
Reply
#20

A Sandy reply to PIPRolleyes

Yesterday I opened up the latest CASA Briefing and it was with a heavy heart that I read the following bureaucratic waffle from PIP... Confused

Quote:[Image: Pip-1.jpg]

Director of Aviation Safety, Pip Spence
 
Human nature being what it is, people want certainty and clarity, so it's not surprising that one of the main questions that people have been asking me is what are my plans for changing CASA.
 
Having been in the role just over two months, the two key themes that have really struck me are: the significance of the changes that we are part way through implementing (both in terms of the regulatory framework and the way we operate) and the commitment of CASA staff to supporting aviation safety.
 
These two things have confirmed in my mind that my focus should be on incremental changes - we are a professional organisation, but that does not mean there is no room to improve. 
 
To identify those areas for improvement we must engage, listen and understand both with the aviation community and within the organisation. And we need to make sure that we focus on the things that are important to aviation safety as informed by the aviation community.
 
This means being open to new ideas about how to do things better. It also means addressing outstanding issues arising from changes implemented as part of our regulatory reform. I will be looking to the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel for advice on prioritising this work and developing clear timelines. We know there are issues with the rules covering pilot and engineer licensing, with a need to remove any unintended consequences. We also know there are concerns about some of the new flight examiner requirements that must be addressed.
 
CASA must also continue to improve the way we transition to new regulations and bring the aviation community with us. But the good news is the mammoth task of introducing the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations is inching closer to completion, so we are working from a much better position.
 
And the other good news is that we are building on already solid foundations.
 
I’m very mindful of the scale of change that is going on and the pressures caused by those changes. Part of my job is to make sure we continue to function at a high level through this time of change and provide the safety support the aviation community requires.

With that in mind, I’m very conscious the resurgence of COVID 19 has hit the aviation community hard in many areas.  My thoughts, and the thoughts of everyone in CASA, go out to those people in aviation whose livelihoods and careers have again been impacted by this ongoing pandemic.
 
To help both operators and pilots at this time, CASA is introducing an exemption which will allow pilots to exercise the privileges of their ratings without having to complete a flight review or proficiency check for up to 2 months past the expiry date. 
 
This flight review exemption will be available until the end of October 2021, although we will keep the COVID situation under review and make further changes if needed. It is important to note the exemption should only be used if a flight check or review cannot be undertaken due to COVID-19 restrictions. Full details of the exemption are on CASA’s website.
 
All the best Pip

However Sandy lifted my spirits with this 'no prisoners' response... Wink

Quote:So there we have it, the first real communication from the CASA CEO, otherwise known by the really silly and excruciating title of ‘Director of Air Safety.’

Two months and nothing.

“…incremental changes..” but not one specific item.

“ And the other good news is that we are building on already solid foundations.” 
Charitably let’s assume Ms. Spence is meaning Aviation Hearse has solid foundations.
For certainly she speaks not of the much beleaguered and shrunken industry of General Aviation (GA) trying desperately to cover ever more CASA fees, and finding the time to handle CASA’s mountainous paperwork and avoid criminal prosecution for some minor misdemeanour. We have ‘crimes’ for some activities that don’t even rate a mention in the USA rules.

Does Ms. Spence expect us to believe there will be improvements? Surely in over two months she might have reviewed the pronouncements of her predecessors? If so she would understand why we don’t believe a word of it. Because belief and hope have been hammered out of us.
Words are not sufficient;  and all the words have been said over and over again but the results for GA have been “incrementally” worse and worse, death by a thousand cuts.

“…mammoth task of introducing the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations is inching towards completion.”

Who created this mammoth task and why? Well, at long last nearly finished;  after thirty three years? before inches gave way to millimetres? Not to mention $millions wasted with 830 employees beavering away. Snails move at lightning speed compared to CASA’s  never ending story.
In fact the CASRs will not be finished until they are replaced by a workable set of rules such as NZ, or better still for the harmonisation of industry, the US FARs.
But wait, Mr. Carmody told us it was all done and dusted. It really is impossible to believe that the feel good intentions of the CASA leadership will be translated into reality. Its just soft soap repeated.

Ms. Spence, with respect,

Please don’t tell us how good it is or how it is going to be improved. If you are to survive your stint with CASA and have your reputation intact, better still enhanced, you must decide to take some reform measures now to the Minister and ask him for his support.

You could start with :-

(1)  A rapprochement with Glen Buckley.
(2) Go to Minister Dutton with the recommendation from the Forsyth report to remove the ASIC requirements for GA pilots.
(3)  Private Pilot medicals same as RAAUS or USA.
(4) Delete Cessna Special Inspections for Private ops., as USA.
(5)  Allow independent instructors, same as USA where 70% of pilots are trained by independent instructors.

The last reform (5) will help to regenerate the whole of GA, a start to rebuild training throughout Australia where, due to over regulation and unnecessary regulation, we have lost some twelve hundred flying schools which is why we’ve been importing airline pilots.

Get some runs on the board and then tackle the other main problems like the wrong split of VH registered aircraft and the RAAUS system because here safety has suffered, quite apart from our loss of freedom to chose, and forcing people into a fleet of extremely low weight. RAAUS, a monopoly entity administering aircraft with an artificial weight limit, which are often not suited to Australian conditions, but are favoured by many because of a more practical regulatory environment, especially the medicals.

Make a stand within Aviation House and GA will stand with you, you will be a hero to thousands, I’m not exaggerating.

Sandy Reith.


Hmm...it my be time for Barnaby to give PIP a nudge in the right direction as it seems that (once again) the newly appointed DAS/CEO is in serious danger of being captured by the CASA Iron Ring 

 "..But the good news is the mammoth task of introducing the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations is inching closer to completion.."

[Image: chair-mick-mack.jpg]

So Carmody and the current CASA Board Chair have both told porky pies! Are you able to retract Queen's Birthday Gong's for misleading both the industry and the Federal parliament?  Rolleyes

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply




Users browsing this thread: Peetwo, 1 Guest(s)