05-16-2016, 04:39 PM
Same job, more money. Unworthy of both in my opinion.
Mythical reform.
(04-19-2016, 11:18 PM)Peetwo Wrote: "Never a let a chance go by - Oh Lord!.."
It would seem that CASA have used the opportunity of Malcolm Turnbull's proroguing & subsequent special recall of parliament and all the political shenanigans/smokescreen involved to discretely table another 11 exemptions, 5 repeals of airworthiness directives, 3 AD amendments, plus a authorisation and a reg & MOS amendment:
Quote:Civil Aviation Act 1988—
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988—
Authorisation and permission — helicopter winching operations—CASA 33/16 [F2016L00463].
Direction — flight time limitations for helicopter mustering operations—CASA 37/16 [F2016L00505].
Instructions — use of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)—CASA 27/16 [F2016L00475].
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Engine Flameouts - Revised Operating Technique and Modifications—AD/B737/16 Amdt 4 [F2016L00389].
Exemption — CASR Subpart 99.B DAMP requirements for foreign aircraft AOC holders—CASA EX50/16 [F2016L00373].
Exemption — display of markings—CASA EX46/16 [F2016L00364].
Exemption — for seaplanes—CASA EX57/16 [F2016L00466].
Exemption — from certain prerequisites for an ATPL flight test—CASA EX222/15 [F2016L00015]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined airspace—CASA EX53/16 [F2016L00465].
Exemption — from the flight instructor rating flight test—CASA EX218/15 [F2015L02115]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — from the PIRC—CASA EX215/15 [F2015L02096]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — from the spinning FAE—CASA EX214/15 [F2015L02097]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — Grade 3, 2 or 1 training endorsement (aeroplane) flight test—CASA EX219/15 [F2015L02117]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — operating in vicinity of non-controlled aerodrome, VHF radio broadcasts and maintaining a listening watch—CASA EX60/16 [F2016L00491].
Exemption — requirement to obtain a pass in an instrument rating theory examination—CASA EX24/16 [F2016L00458].
Maintenance of Cockpit Voice Recording Systems—AD/REC/1 Amdt 4 [F2016L00369].
Manual of Standards Part 66 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 2) [F2016L00390].
Periodic Testing of ATC Transponders—AD/RAD/47 Amdt 4 [F2016L00368].
Repeal of Airworthiness Directives—
CASA ADCX 004/16 [F2016L00330].
CASA ADCX 005/16 [F2016L00362].
CASA ADCX 006/16 [F2016L00467].
CASA ADCX 007/16 [F2016L00391].
CASA ADCX 008/16 [F2016L00484].
Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003—Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 101) Regulation 2016 [F2016L00400].
CASA open for corruption business - Part I: Ruling by exemption & notified differences -
Quoting Hansard from Skidmore session above:
Quote:Senator XENOPHON: So we are starting three years before the US. I stand to be corrected, but I think New Zealand is due to start a year after the US.
Mr Skidmore : I believe it might be 2021, from memory. But the mandate that has been set was established some time ago, and the consultation that occurred with industry occurred back then in regard to certain in establishing the time frames. I would have to find some of the details regarding.
Senator XENOPHON: Because of time constraints, what has been put to me by a number of people in the general aviation community is that many general aviation operators will hit the wall because of ADS-B, that it will be a significant financial impost and that costs would in all likelihood come down significantly once the US adopted by 2020, so why are we doing this several years earlier than the US, which is going to be the market leader, if you like, in rolling this out?
Mr Skidmore : I would do not think that anyone disagrees that ADS-B is a good system. We are putting it in place and there are already 73, or 75, stations that Air Services has established. The system is up and running. It is already being used. There are a number of people who have already implemented ADS-B. We would be turning around and denying them the benefits of ADS-B if we—
And then from the Tamworth rally P9 noted Jeff Boyd quoted as saying (about that Estimates session) :
Quote:For mine, the first give away is where Boyd says “Mark was a bit set up”, which is a total bollocks of the first water. The next is adopting a position contrary to the Act, ‘Commercial consideration’, which has been a CASA catchall No-no supporting all manner of aberration for generations. It is a strange, contrary, confused stance, more typical of a victim of Stockholm syndrome than that the fire breathing, reformist Chairman of the CASA board.
And yet section 9A of the CA Act clearly states:
Quote:9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as is practicable, the environment is protected from:
(a) the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and
(b) the effects associated with the operation and use of aircraft.
Then quoting the Skidmore Estimates session once again:
Quote:Senator XENOPHON: Is CASA still open to talking to representatives of the general aviation community about their serious concerns respect of ADS-B.
Mr Skidmore : Anyone can talk to us in regard to asking for an exemption if they can put forward a good safety case, and we are happy to look at it.
Which was a sentiment pretty much mirrored by Jeff Boyd at the Tamworth rally and later with the interview with ABC New England's Kelly Fuller - Geoff Boyd CASA.
It might be just me (and P9) but doesn't the exemption option suggest a huge conflict of interest with s9A of the Act? Not to mention the COI to the relevant section of the Act that deals with the granting of exemptions as a parliamentary instrument - s98 Part 5A:
Quote: (5A) The regulations may empower CASA to issue instruments in relation to the following:Which brings me to the CASA AQON in reply to Senator Sterle QON 161
(a) matters affecting the safe navigation and operation, or the maintenance, of aircraft;
(b) the airworthiness of, or design standards for, aircraft.
An instrument must not prescribe a penalty.
:Quote:Question no.: 161
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Exemption Process
Proof Hansard Page: 111 (8 February 2016)
Senator Sterle, Glenn asked:
Senator STERLE: Can you outline what happens throughout the exemption process? Who makes the ultimate decision over whether an exemption is granted or not?
Mr Skidmore: The applicant would put forward the information regarding the exemption. The requirement for an exemption is listed. I am not sure whether I am the best person to go through this process. I will find the best person to go through the process for you.
Senator STERLE: For the purposes of timing, I am happy for you to take it on notice if that can be provided.
Mr Skidmore: Certainly. We can do that.
Answer:
Subpart 11.F of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998) deals with exemptions. Under subregulation 11.160(1), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) may grant an exemption from a provision of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, CASR 1998 or a Civil Aviation Order in relation to a matter mentioned in subsection 98 (5A) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act).
Under subregulation 11.160 (2) of CASR 1998, an exemption may be granted to a person or a class of persons. Under subregulation 11.160 (3), CASA may grant an exemption on application, or on its own initiative. If a person applies to CASA for an exemption, Subpart 11.F of the CASR sets out the information that is required to be provided by the applicant to CASA.
For an application for an exemption, CASA must regard as paramount the preservation of an acceptable level of safety. For making a decision on its own initiative, CASA is guided by the requirement in subsection 9A (1) of the Act that in exercising its powers and functions CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
Under regulation 11.205, CASA may impose conditions on an exemption if necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Under regulation 11.210, it is a strict liability offence not to comply with the obligations imposed by a condition. Under regulation 11.225, CASA must, as soon as practicable, publish on the Internet details of all exemptions under Subpart 11.F. Under subregulation 11.230(1), an exemption may remain in force for no more than three years or for a shorter period specified in the instrument.
CASA internal processes for the grant of an exemption
The CASA business unit which receives an application for an exemption, or considers that CASA should grant an exemption on its own initiative, will generally prepare a standard form recommendation (SFR) document that is directed to the relevant Executive Manager in CASA for consideration by that person as to whether to grant an exemption. The SFR will set out the reasoning for the exemption and the safety considerations associated with it. If the Executive Manager supports the grant of an exemption in principle, a request is made to CASA’s Legal Services Division (LSD) to draft the exemption instrument. In doing so, LSD will consider whether the exemption can lawfully be granted. The General Counsel of CASA will provide the exemption instrument to the Executive Manager for signing, under cover of a minute.
In relation to a ‘first of type’ exemption, it has been CASA’s policy and practice for the past six years, that only the Director of Aviation Safety can sign such an exemption. In such matters, the above processes will still apply. The person who signs an exemption makes the ultimate decision as to whether it should be granted. P2 comment - I'm imagining the 'exemption' application accompanied by a brown paper bag loaded with the prerequisite number of 50s -
From where I am standing CASA ruling by exemption is complete & utter BOLLOCKS! It is merely covering up for the fact that the 1000s of pages of prescriptive regulations are massively cost prohibitive, unreadable & therefore totally un-useable for industry purpose. Not to mention the probability for corruption under such a system (IMO) is extremely high.
MTF...P2
Quote:P2 – “I'm imagining the 'exemption' application accompanied by a brown paper bag loaded with the prerequisite number of 50s”.
No doubt the old brown envelope works in the ‘lower’ hells and at the coal face, a bag of sweeties; or, lunch on the yacht followed by a night with someone’s sister after a sumptuous dinner has worked miracles in the past. But what about the machinations required up at the gods level. Same principal, different bait. Undying allegiance, endless cooperation and a willingness to support any and all of the ridiculous, can make life sublime.
You see, dear boy, when you have industry ‘support’ and can, with impunity, turn away those who dare to complain, then your Miniscule may safely continue to consider hair style and ‘selfies’ as the prime responsibility; after all – Oliver Skidmore Twist is in control, has a ‘select’ tiger team (retch) backing him up, Boyd has been emasculated and the board subverted. Now what could possibly be wrong with this situation? Oh, and the wonderful stream of money just keeps pouring into this Nirvana. Who’d give a flying rats arse about those consigned to the pit or the poor house.
"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche",
i.e. Duck ‘em; let them eat cake.
Toot toot
05-25-2016, 06:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2016, 06:22 PM by thorn bird.)
There is no such thing as CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!
CASA have spent the past thirty years and almost a half billion dollars of taxpayers money creating their half finished masterpiece of bureaucratic embuggerance.
Completely ignoring the industries objections and advice,
and the direction given by ministers of either persuasion.
Their regulatory reform process is only half finished after 30 years and already the industry is on its knees. Bankstown airport used to employ over 8000 people directly involved in aviation today it employs around three hundred.
If the government is intent on allowing CASA to continue with their alleged “reform” what is the point???
Wasting another 25 years and another half billion dollars of taxpayers money when there will be no industry left to embugger, let alone regulate, plainly defies logic and is patently stupid.
For my mind, Mr Air Vice Marshall Skidmark is an arrant coward.
I say that because even my five year old granddaughter can see and understand there is something horribly wrong with the way aviation is administered in this country.
That being the case and most of the industry would agree, AVM Skidmore must be aware, nobody can be that stupid.
Therefore one can only assume he doesn’t have the Kahuna’s to face down the incompetent clusterf..ks who make up the “Iron Ring”.
If he’s not prepared to fight he’s a coward.
If he cant see a reason to fight he’s stupid.
If he doesn’t know what to fight for he’s naïve.
He should take the couple of million he’s already taken on false pretenses and resign, he is plainly not up for the job.
CASA have spent the past thirty years and almost a half billion dollars of taxpayers money creating their half finished masterpiece of bureaucratic embuggerance.
Completely ignoring the industries objections and advice,
and the direction given by ministers of either persuasion.
Their regulatory reform process is only half finished after 30 years and already the industry is on its knees. Bankstown airport used to employ over 8000 people directly involved in aviation today it employs around three hundred.
If the government is intent on allowing CASA to continue with their alleged “reform” what is the point???
Wasting another 25 years and another half billion dollars of taxpayers money when there will be no industry left to embugger, let alone regulate, plainly defies logic and is patently stupid.
For my mind, Mr Air Vice Marshall Skidmark is an arrant coward.
I say that because even my five year old granddaughter can see and understand there is something horribly wrong with the way aviation is administered in this country.
That being the case and most of the industry would agree, AVM Skidmore must be aware, nobody can be that stupid.
Therefore one can only assume he doesn’t have the Kahuna’s to face down the incompetent clusterf..ks who make up the “Iron Ring”.
If he’s not prepared to fight he’s a coward.
If he cant see a reason to fight he’s stupid.
If he doesn’t know what to fight for he’s naïve.
He should take the couple of million he’s already taken on false pretenses and resign, he is plainly not up for the job.
Observations - from the back of the room.
Caution mini ramble follows:-
Now as any fellahin in the bazar will tell you – that’s the plain truth. One of the many reasons underpinning the judgement of OST is his terminal ignorance; another is accepting whatever his troops tell him as gospel; which takes us to an interesting junction on the road to Reform. “Pull up GD, lets have a shufti”.
This junction is clearly an accident black spot, carcasses of reform initiatives dragged to the side of the road and dumped, kicking up a hell of a stink. Some have gone beyond the purification stage, mummified in the rarefied atmosphere; others are quite fresh. I’d say forensic examination would reveal several reasons for the demise of the victims. The freshest corpse has a toe tag – ASRR – it has clearly been starved and beaten before being mown down by the CASA juggernaut as it screamed down the road to Perdition at a rate of knots. You can actually see the skid marks which indicate the driver took the hard left turn to Perdition after the event without slowing down – road kill. It’s a sad looking thing, this ASRR corpse, dressed by hope, braces by logic, belt by common sense, boots by practicality. Just someone’s opinion. Aye; RIP, indeed.
So what happened here? Ignorance has much to answer for; OST was and remains totally ignorant of the working of industry, particularly the lighter end of town. In the beginning, this could be explained, even accepted as part of his background in the rarefied air of the ‘forces’. Many excellent folk from the forces have joined the ‘authority’ and made valuable contributions. Those were they who were ‘accepted’ into the civilian ranks’. Civil aviation is no less a ‘closed’, elitist organisation than the forces equivalent; one must be inducted and accepted to gain full, rather than ‘visitor’ membership, or a tourist visa. So the ignorance of Skidmore was initially tolerated by industry, but it was fully exploited by his own troops. Skidmore believes travelling about the place, pressing the flesh, indulging in tea and biscuits would gain him not only acceptance, but entre. Wrong. Partly, industry organisations are to blame for this; the CASA boss is visiting, play nice, no spitting, no shouting; kiss arse, play nice and curry favour. I’d bet good money that few, if any organisations gave Skidmore the rounds of the kitchen and sent him home with a well deserved flea in his ear and a sore arse. No matter, those that did would be very quickly discredited by the CASA machine and OST could simply and safely ignore the odd howl of protest from the IOS. But the fault is his and his alone; he took no steps to learn more, see more and gain ‘acceptance’. An easy mark for the creatures at Sleepy Hollow to manipulate.
Now some may call bollocks to the above; but you’d be wrong to say such. Skidmore actually believes the fairy tale woven for him by the Hoo-Doo Voodoo clan. He claims flying schools are busting at the seams with bright young things desperate to fly; that engineering workshops have work piled up for months ahead and apprentices beating down the doors; that every regional airline is making a motza and the profits from charter flying are obscene. This is the specious argument being used, as recently as yesterday, to oppose industry reality. Sad, but nonetheless true.
So, who fills his head with such nonsense. Nonsense which he happily transmits to the Department and thus to the minister. Take a look at who survived the latest reduction, see the positions they hold, then wonder no more.
But for mine, the final insult is the adamant refusal to look back and see why his CASA is a hated, feared, defunct, basket case of an organisation. If he was dinkum about reform, he could win the support of all by simply naming, shaming and firing those who had, have and continue to abuse the system Skidmore imagines he governs. No chance, they are his mates, a life support system for a Muppet emperor who delights in his new motley.
A honourable man would resign and donate his ill gotten gains to a worthy charity; but he wont. Nope, he'll just sit at meeting tables, spouting the bullshit he’s been told as the truth, denying the past and buggering up the future. No matter, those who led the Skidmore lamb to the sacrifice will still be there, long after he is gone: long gone; but not forgotten as the worst, most ineffective, purblind, manipulated, compromised DAS in history. That title took some winning children; but he has managed it, with ease and a little help from his friends.
Selah.
Caution mini ramble follows:-
Quote:TB – “He should take the couple of million he’s already taken on false pretences and resign, he is plainly not up for the job.”
Now as any fellahin in the bazar will tell you – that’s the plain truth. One of the many reasons underpinning the judgement of OST is his terminal ignorance; another is accepting whatever his troops tell him as gospel; which takes us to an interesting junction on the road to Reform. “Pull up GD, lets have a shufti”.
This junction is clearly an accident black spot, carcasses of reform initiatives dragged to the side of the road and dumped, kicking up a hell of a stink. Some have gone beyond the purification stage, mummified in the rarefied atmosphere; others are quite fresh. I’d say forensic examination would reveal several reasons for the demise of the victims. The freshest corpse has a toe tag – ASRR – it has clearly been starved and beaten before being mown down by the CASA juggernaut as it screamed down the road to Perdition at a rate of knots. You can actually see the skid marks which indicate the driver took the hard left turn to Perdition after the event without slowing down – road kill. It’s a sad looking thing, this ASRR corpse, dressed by hope, braces by logic, belt by common sense, boots by practicality. Just someone’s opinion. Aye; RIP, indeed.
So what happened here? Ignorance has much to answer for; OST was and remains totally ignorant of the working of industry, particularly the lighter end of town. In the beginning, this could be explained, even accepted as part of his background in the rarefied air of the ‘forces’. Many excellent folk from the forces have joined the ‘authority’ and made valuable contributions. Those were they who were ‘accepted’ into the civilian ranks’. Civil aviation is no less a ‘closed’, elitist organisation than the forces equivalent; one must be inducted and accepted to gain full, rather than ‘visitor’ membership, or a tourist visa. So the ignorance of Skidmore was initially tolerated by industry, but it was fully exploited by his own troops. Skidmore believes travelling about the place, pressing the flesh, indulging in tea and biscuits would gain him not only acceptance, but entre. Wrong. Partly, industry organisations are to blame for this; the CASA boss is visiting, play nice, no spitting, no shouting; kiss arse, play nice and curry favour. I’d bet good money that few, if any organisations gave Skidmore the rounds of the kitchen and sent him home with a well deserved flea in his ear and a sore arse. No matter, those that did would be very quickly discredited by the CASA machine and OST could simply and safely ignore the odd howl of protest from the IOS. But the fault is his and his alone; he took no steps to learn more, see more and gain ‘acceptance’. An easy mark for the creatures at Sleepy Hollow to manipulate.
Now some may call bollocks to the above; but you’d be wrong to say such. Skidmore actually believes the fairy tale woven for him by the Hoo-Doo Voodoo clan. He claims flying schools are busting at the seams with bright young things desperate to fly; that engineering workshops have work piled up for months ahead and apprentices beating down the doors; that every regional airline is making a motza and the profits from charter flying are obscene. This is the specious argument being used, as recently as yesterday, to oppose industry reality. Sad, but nonetheless true.
So, who fills his head with such nonsense. Nonsense which he happily transmits to the Department and thus to the minister. Take a look at who survived the latest reduction, see the positions they hold, then wonder no more.
But for mine, the final insult is the adamant refusal to look back and see why his CASA is a hated, feared, defunct, basket case of an organisation. If he was dinkum about reform, he could win the support of all by simply naming, shaming and firing those who had, have and continue to abuse the system Skidmore imagines he governs. No chance, they are his mates, a life support system for a Muppet emperor who delights in his new motley.
A honourable man would resign and donate his ill gotten gains to a worthy charity; but he wont. Nope, he'll just sit at meeting tables, spouting the bullshit he’s been told as the truth, denying the past and buggering up the future. No matter, those who led the Skidmore lamb to the sacrifice will still be there, long after he is gone: long gone; but not forgotten as the worst, most ineffective, purblind, manipulated, compromised DAS in history. That title took some winning children; but he has managed it, with ease and a little help from his friends.
Selah.
A new thread on the UP caught my eye; Tamworth as a venue for the ABC program Q&A. HLB kicked it off, thought it a good place and time to raise matters aeronautical as an election issue, not a bad idea. There are some good responses, but one that stands out as a reminder of the retrogressive attitude of the new DAS, despite the touchy feely – tiger team approach and associated pony pooh; is the situation of CVD crew, They are still going nowhere but out the door. CASA solution, weed out the existing and prevent a new crop from getting a look in. Disgusting and so very typical of the current putsch running the show
That alone is worth discussing, publicly. It’s a badge of shame Skidmore must wear, forever.
Anyway FWIW the thread is – HERE – the post - #9 – worth considering. Reform of the Regulator rapidly becoming an urban myth.
That alone is worth discussing, publicly. It’s a badge of shame Skidmore must wear, forever.
Anyway FWIW the thread is – HERE – the post - #9 – worth considering. Reform of the Regulator rapidly becoming an urban myth.
Interesting Article.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a rule that overhauls the airworthiness standards for general aviation airplanes during the development and manufacturing process. The FAA’s proposal, which is based on industry recommendations, would reduce the time it takes to get safety enhancing technologies for General Aviation (GA) airplanes into the marketplace while also reducing cost. The proposed rule would change the current prescriptive requirements contained in the federal aviation regulations and replace them with risk and performance based standards.
“This proposal would improve safety, reduce costs, and leverage innovation to ensure the highest level of safety is designed and built into small airplanes,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “General aviation is vital to the U.S. economy, and this proposal would benefit manufacturers, pilots, and the general aviation community as a whole.”
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is a result of the Small Airplane Revitalization Act (SARA), which was signed into law on Nov. 27, 2013 and restructures the existing certification standards and replaces the current requirements in Part 23 with performance-based standards that maintain the same level of safety, according to FAA officials. It would also add new certification standards to address general aviation loss of control accidents and in-flight icing conditions. The proposal also establishes performance and risk based divisions for airplanes with a maximum seating capacity of 19 passengers or less and a maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or less.
“This proposal would streamline how we approve new technologies for small piston-powered airplanes all the way to complex high-performance executive jets,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “The FAA’s collaboration with industry and international partners reflects a performance-based, flexible approach which would accommodate today’s rapidly changing aviation industry and technological advances now and in the future.”
The proposal responds to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and SARA, which directed the FAA to streamline the approval of safety advancements for small general aviation aircraft. It also addresses recommendations from the FAA’s 2013 Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
“This NPRM includes much needed and long overdue reforms to the aircraft certification process,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “AOPA has worked diligently with the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, other industry stakeholders and the FAA to promote a shift to standards that maintain safety while making it easier and more affordable to bring innovative technology into GA aircraft. This proposed rule is a critical step in that direction.”
“While the NPRM focuses on design and certification of new aircraft, changes are still needed to make it easier and more affordable for the owners of legacy aircraft to put modern safety equipment in their airplanes”, AOPA officials notes.
“We hope that this NPRM, along with policy changes already in place to support the installation of safety enhancing equipment in GA aircraft, signals a new approach to regulation and certification,” said Baker. “One size does not fit all when it comes to aircraft equipment. With the GA fleet aging and just over a thousand new piston-powered GA aircraft being delivered each year, we must make it easier to upgrade legacy aircraft with a wide range of innovative safety technology.”
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a rule that overhauls the airworthiness standards for general aviation airplanes during the development and manufacturing process. The FAA’s proposal, which is based on industry recommendations, would reduce the time it takes to get safety enhancing technologies for General Aviation (GA) airplanes into the marketplace while also reducing cost. The proposed rule would change the current prescriptive requirements contained in the federal aviation regulations and replace them with risk and performance based standards.
“This proposal would improve safety, reduce costs, and leverage innovation to ensure the highest level of safety is designed and built into small airplanes,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “General aviation is vital to the U.S. economy, and this proposal would benefit manufacturers, pilots, and the general aviation community as a whole.”
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is a result of the Small Airplane Revitalization Act (SARA), which was signed into law on Nov. 27, 2013 and restructures the existing certification standards and replaces the current requirements in Part 23 with performance-based standards that maintain the same level of safety, according to FAA officials. It would also add new certification standards to address general aviation loss of control accidents and in-flight icing conditions. The proposal also establishes performance and risk based divisions for airplanes with a maximum seating capacity of 19 passengers or less and a maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or less.
“This proposal would streamline how we approve new technologies for small piston-powered airplanes all the way to complex high-performance executive jets,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “The FAA’s collaboration with industry and international partners reflects a performance-based, flexible approach which would accommodate today’s rapidly changing aviation industry and technological advances now and in the future.”
The proposal responds to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and SARA, which directed the FAA to streamline the approval of safety advancements for small general aviation aircraft. It also addresses recommendations from the FAA’s 2013 Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
“This NPRM includes much needed and long overdue reforms to the aircraft certification process,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “AOPA has worked diligently with the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, other industry stakeholders and the FAA to promote a shift to standards that maintain safety while making it easier and more affordable to bring innovative technology into GA aircraft. This proposed rule is a critical step in that direction.”
“While the NPRM focuses on design and certification of new aircraft, changes are still needed to make it easier and more affordable for the owners of legacy aircraft to put modern safety equipment in their airplanes”, AOPA officials notes.
“We hope that this NPRM, along with policy changes already in place to support the installation of safety enhancing equipment in GA aircraft, signals a new approach to regulation and certification,” said Baker. “One size does not fit all when it comes to aircraft equipment. With the GA fleet aging and just over a thousand new piston-powered GA aircraft being delivered each year, we must make it easier to upgrade legacy aircraft with a wide range of innovative safety technology.”
07-14-2016, 11:15 AM
(05-31-2016, 09:08 AM)kharon Wrote: Interesting Article.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a rule that overhauls the airworthiness standards for general aviation airplanes during the development and manufacturing process. The FAA’s proposal, which is based on industry recommendations, would reduce the time it takes to get safety enhancing technologies for General Aviation (GA) airplanes into the marketplace while also reducing cost. The proposed rule would change the current prescriptive requirements contained in the federal aviation regulations and replace them with risk and performance based standards.
“This proposal would improve safety, reduce costs, and leverage innovation to ensure the highest level of safety is designed and built into small airplanes,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “General aviation is vital to the U.S. economy, and this proposal would benefit manufacturers, pilots, and the general aviation community as a whole.”
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is a result of the Small Airplane Revitalization Act (SARA), which was signed into law on Nov. 27, 2013 and restructures the existing certification standards and replaces the current requirements in Part 23 with performance-based standards that maintain the same level of safety, according to FAA officials. It would also add new certification standards to address general aviation loss of control accidents and in-flight icing conditions. The proposal also establishes performance and risk based divisions for airplanes with a maximum seating capacity of 19 passengers or less and a maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or less.
“This proposal would streamline how we approve new technologies for small piston-powered airplanes all the way to complex high-performance executive jets,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “The FAA’s collaboration with industry and international partners reflects a performance-based, flexible approach which would accommodate today’s rapidly changing aviation industry and technological advances now and in the future.”
The proposal responds to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and SARA, which directed the FAA to streamline the approval of safety advancements for small general aviation aircraft. It also addresses recommendations from the FAA’s 2013 Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
“This NPRM includes much needed and long overdue reforms to the aircraft certification process,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “AOPA has worked diligently with the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, other industry stakeholders and the FAA to promote a shift to standards that maintain safety while making it easier and more affordable to bring innovative technology into GA aircraft. This proposed rule is a critical step in that direction.”
“While the NPRM focuses on design and certification of new aircraft, changes are still needed to make it easier and more affordable for the owners of legacy aircraft to put modern safety equipment in their airplanes”, AOPA officials notes.
“We hope that this NPRM, along with policy changes already in place to support the installation of safety enhancing equipment in GA aircraft, signals a new approach to regulation and certification,” said Baker. “One size does not fit all when it comes to aircraft equipment. With the GA fleet aging and just over a thousand new piston-powered GA aircraft being delivered each year, we must make it easier to upgrade legacy aircraft with a wide range of innovative safety technology.”
Heavens above? EASA fostering & promoting GA -
Following on from the US Part 23 initiative (above), EASA are now getting in on the Act. Via AIN:
Quote:EASA Releases Small Aircraft Certification ProposalHmm..that's funny, I noticed that neither EASA or the FAA not once mentioned that they would be modelling their Part 23 rewrite on Skidmore's regulatory reform philosophy - err why not??
by Kerry Lynch
- June 23, 2016, 12:16 PM
Today the European Aviation Safety Agency issued its proposed rewrite of certification rules governing light aircraft, putting the new European CS-23 regulation on pace for release later this year.
The EASA Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2016-05 was issued a little more than three months after the U.S. FAA had published its own proposed rewrite of Part 23 certification rules and more than a year after the European agency had issued an advance notice of proposed amendment to gather initial industry comment.
The NPA considers feedback from the advance document as well as the FAA proposal, the EASA said. Noting that its proposal is “not fully in line” with the FAA’s proposal, the European agency urged comment on the differences between the two documents. The NPA anticipates a three-month consultation period followed by a final decision in the fourth quarter.
Greg Bowles, director of European regulatory affairs and engineering for GAMA, praised the EASA NPA as a “concise and well worded document” that takes into account concerns expressed in comments to both the European advanced notice and the FAA proposal. “We really thought the Part 23 [rewrite] has great benefits. The EASA proposal is a further evolution of what the FAA proposed and has improved upon it,” Bowles said.
He cited as a couple of examples the fact that the FAA proposal is more prescriptive in the minimum control speed to address loss of control, while the EASA proposal takes a more performance-based approach. Also, the EASA document would adopt a new numbering system that reduces confusion, Bowles said.
He expressed optimism that the EASA rule could stay on track for release this year, since the European Commission has placed the purview of the rewrite entirely within the EASA. “It’s been a really long road from when we began,” he said, noting the rewrite effort has been under way for nearly a decade. “It’s a pretty monumental change, and at a time when the industry needs one.”
MTF...P2
07-14-2016, 04:40 PM
A good question P2, I mean the whole world is lining up at his door to copy Australia's industry destroying regulations, whats wrong with them for goodness sake? don't they realise anyone involved in aviation outside the regulators of course are criminals, especially GA people. The Iron Ring categorises GA as "organised crime" requiring draconian distortion of the rule of law akin to the inquisition to stamp out. One wonders whats next from OUR CAsA? Acceptance of water boarding as enhanced interrogation technique perhaps? Iron maidens? the rack? thumb screws? forced to listen to Barry Manilow all night?
07-14-2016, 10:32 PM
Thorny;
"forced to listen to Barry Manilow all night"?
Could be worse. Imagine listening to that complete knob Beaker espousing his Beyond Reason methodology for let's say, 6 hours straight?
However;
Skidmore prefers Village People - In the navy.
Campbell likes Bony M - Rasputin.
Dr Voodoo likes Metallica - Enter Sandman.
Flyingfiend likes anything by Conchita Wurst.
Gobbles likes 'Don't fear the Reaper' by Blue Oyster Cult. It should be CAsA's national anthem.
"forced to listen to Barry Manilow all night"?
Could be worse. Imagine listening to that complete knob Beaker espousing his Beyond Reason methodology for let's say, 6 hours straight?
However;
Skidmore prefers Village People - In the navy.
Campbell likes Bony M - Rasputin.
Dr Voodoo likes Metallica - Enter Sandman.
Flyingfiend likes anything by Conchita Wurst.
Gobbles likes 'Don't fear the Reaper' by Blue Oyster Cult. It should be CAsA's national anthem.
"To put an antic disposition on."
Was the Hamlet madness feigned, a ruse to confound and confuse? Many believe it was. The ‘antic disposition’ of true reform reminds and reinforces the notion of a questionable madness.
“Nor do we find him forward to be sounded.
But with a crafty madness keeps aloof
When we would bring him on to some confession
Of his true state.”
This continuum of confusion in an attempt to define what is required, the industry attempts to capture the smoke, dazzled by light reflected from the highly polished mirrors. The lip service paid the ‘myth of safety’, the mystique endlessly transmogrified, the never ending round and round of circular ‘discussion’ during which the regulator decides which crumbs it will allow to fall from their table to the hungry. It is a form of madness. A deliberate connivance, designed to serve only one purpose. The regulator has no intention of reforming itself; non whatsoever. That much is clear and it becomes clearer with each passing day.
The game is about power. Plain, pure and simple. You could at a pinch include influence in the equation, but only to balance. Fear is the weapon used to retain that power. There is little subtlety associated and the big sticks are used without let or hindrance, whenever it pleases. The ‘audit’ stick is a well worn favourite, the denial of approval another, the NCN another. None hardly ever used in the spirit and intent of improving ‘Safety’ but as a method of control.
When fear and distrust combine , loathing is a natural response. While this is isolated to one operator or an individual the system works; the notion of a united industry threatens that hold. So long as disunity can be maintained, the regulator holds all the cards. Every operator and licence holder ‘needs’ or ‘wants’ something from the regulator to maintain or grow a business, the threat of delay or restriction is powerful motivation for ‘good’ (approved) behaviour. The time honoured method of unique ‘exemption’ or ‘instrument’ is a further incentive, the promise of ‘fast tracking another; stick and carrot.
The TAAAF policy and the ASRR both provide a road to sanity; the reform of the regulator intricately intertwined with those demanded changes. People hold varying opinions on how the demanded changes can be ‘triggered’, made to happen. Many of those opinions have merit and are worthy of serious consideration; and, I dare say that in the main, most would work. – Unexpected consequences accepted, they are all doomed to failure unless we can put an end to gross, bordering on indecent parody of reform. A director in whom all can have faith, who deserves the trust gifted and who will, without fear or favour, embrace the challenge of cleaning up the glass house, before throwing rocks at others. Once the CASA house is clean, industry faith and trust could be quickly restored, mostly with a few pen strokes to undo the mischief.
Regulatory reform is a luxury item; it can be forged quickly and efficiently by a joint effort; provided both sides were honourable, honest folk, with good intentions and the well being of the industry at heart, for motivation. But reform of the ‘regulator’ is a must, this cannot wait much longer. It is imperative that industry be able to rely on the integrity of the regulator; trust and respect have long been lost. There is little reason to question ‘why?’ it is so, it is a fact of life. The sooner the mandarins realise that no one either trusts or respects the regulators opinions; or, motive; or, expertise, or; integrity, or: honesty, the sooner things can be mended. And they do need mending. Funny thing is, with the ‘right man’ at the top, most of the tension and distrust would simply melt away, like a snowflake in hell. Put a man in who has industry respect and trust, the rest will follow along naturally enough. A minister could, with the right selection, earn a gold star and be known as the one who saved an industry.
Probably said all this before; but the omens for change are good. Carmody is no ones fool and although it is a ‘sound’ move to place him there until Skidmore departs via the back door there is scope for a ‘sense’ of what CASA must become to be mooted. It has to change, the well respected Carmody will not be the instrument of that change, but he may well be the harbinger.
Aye well, we shall, as always, see what we shall see as time goes by. But Carmody, probably better than most, knows that the antic disposition will not be tolerated; not again. The ineptitude of Skidmore and the CASA survey fully exposed the division between what industry expect and pay for and what CASA is prepared to deliver; but only on consideration of, and to reward those of good behaviour. It is wrong, totally, completely and utterly wrong.
Hamlet (bless ‘im) dealt with it in his own way; madness upon madness, intrigue after intrigue and look at what a total cock up that turned out to be. We have had all the cock-ups, intrigue and madness we need for now thank you. Lets have the lights on; some sanity, some honesty and a reform of the tragic creature we know as CASA.
Sunday ramble posted on Saturday night; time is perhaps out of joint; but the workshop calls and there is a new keg installed and beckoning; better test it, make sure all is well before the company arrives.
Toot toot.
Was the Hamlet madness feigned, a ruse to confound and confuse? Many believe it was. The ‘antic disposition’ of true reform reminds and reinforces the notion of a questionable madness.
“Nor do we find him forward to be sounded.
But with a crafty madness keeps aloof
When we would bring him on to some confession
Of his true state.”
This continuum of confusion in an attempt to define what is required, the industry attempts to capture the smoke, dazzled by light reflected from the highly polished mirrors. The lip service paid the ‘myth of safety’, the mystique endlessly transmogrified, the never ending round and round of circular ‘discussion’ during which the regulator decides which crumbs it will allow to fall from their table to the hungry. It is a form of madness. A deliberate connivance, designed to serve only one purpose. The regulator has no intention of reforming itself; non whatsoever. That much is clear and it becomes clearer with each passing day.
The game is about power. Plain, pure and simple. You could at a pinch include influence in the equation, but only to balance. Fear is the weapon used to retain that power. There is little subtlety associated and the big sticks are used without let or hindrance, whenever it pleases. The ‘audit’ stick is a well worn favourite, the denial of approval another, the NCN another. None hardly ever used in the spirit and intent of improving ‘Safety’ but as a method of control.
When fear and distrust combine , loathing is a natural response. While this is isolated to one operator or an individual the system works; the notion of a united industry threatens that hold. So long as disunity can be maintained, the regulator holds all the cards. Every operator and licence holder ‘needs’ or ‘wants’ something from the regulator to maintain or grow a business, the threat of delay or restriction is powerful motivation for ‘good’ (approved) behaviour. The time honoured method of unique ‘exemption’ or ‘instrument’ is a further incentive, the promise of ‘fast tracking another; stick and carrot.
The TAAAF policy and the ASRR both provide a road to sanity; the reform of the regulator intricately intertwined with those demanded changes. People hold varying opinions on how the demanded changes can be ‘triggered’, made to happen. Many of those opinions have merit and are worthy of serious consideration; and, I dare say that in the main, most would work. – Unexpected consequences accepted, they are all doomed to failure unless we can put an end to gross, bordering on indecent parody of reform. A director in whom all can have faith, who deserves the trust gifted and who will, without fear or favour, embrace the challenge of cleaning up the glass house, before throwing rocks at others. Once the CASA house is clean, industry faith and trust could be quickly restored, mostly with a few pen strokes to undo the mischief.
Regulatory reform is a luxury item; it can be forged quickly and efficiently by a joint effort; provided both sides were honourable, honest folk, with good intentions and the well being of the industry at heart, for motivation. But reform of the ‘regulator’ is a must, this cannot wait much longer. It is imperative that industry be able to rely on the integrity of the regulator; trust and respect have long been lost. There is little reason to question ‘why?’ it is so, it is a fact of life. The sooner the mandarins realise that no one either trusts or respects the regulators opinions; or, motive; or, expertise, or; integrity, or: honesty, the sooner things can be mended. And they do need mending. Funny thing is, with the ‘right man’ at the top, most of the tension and distrust would simply melt away, like a snowflake in hell. Put a man in who has industry respect and trust, the rest will follow along naturally enough. A minister could, with the right selection, earn a gold star and be known as the one who saved an industry.
Probably said all this before; but the omens for change are good. Carmody is no ones fool and although it is a ‘sound’ move to place him there until Skidmore departs via the back door there is scope for a ‘sense’ of what CASA must become to be mooted. It has to change, the well respected Carmody will not be the instrument of that change, but he may well be the harbinger.
Aye well, we shall, as always, see what we shall see as time goes by. But Carmody, probably better than most, knows that the antic disposition will not be tolerated; not again. The ineptitude of Skidmore and the CASA survey fully exposed the division between what industry expect and pay for and what CASA is prepared to deliver; but only on consideration of, and to reward those of good behaviour. It is wrong, totally, completely and utterly wrong.
Hamlet (bless ‘im) dealt with it in his own way; madness upon madness, intrigue after intrigue and look at what a total cock up that turned out to be. We have had all the cock-ups, intrigue and madness we need for now thank you. Lets have the lights on; some sanity, some honesty and a reform of the tragic creature we know as CASA.
Sunday ramble posted on Saturday night; time is perhaps out of joint; but the workshop calls and there is a new keg installed and beckoning; better test it, make sure all is well before the company arrives.
Toot toot.
09-10-2016, 08:34 PM
A world gone mad;
"How many new laws are passed each year?
In a Dec. 27, 2011, press release, the National Conference of State Legislatures said U.S. states and territories passed more than 40,000 bills and resolutions into law in 2011. Yet, the release also said, laws do not always take effect at the start of a year."
How many new ones get passed in Australia each year? Who knows, but we get more every year, not less, that's for certain. We are a micro-managed society that is watched and monitored by increasingly paranoid governments. It is evident in the way we are governed, regulated, watched and observed, controlled, and stripped of rights and power.
Ho hum, I guess it doesn't effect the Politicians as they are 'above the law', you won't see Goldman Sachs Turnbull booked by a bus shelter copper doing 1 km per hour over the limit. In fact Malcolm palms off a lot of his coin to an international island so he doesn't have to comply with Australian tax laws. And what about the laws on superannuation? I can't get mine until probably 97 years of age at this rate. But I still recall Senator Bill O'Chee at age early 30 retiring after just a handful of years in Politics and taking a cool $1m dollars with him to spend. So overall the laws are fucked unless you are one of those who are exempt from complying with them.
That's my Saturday night ramble, I better power down the internet and check the night sky for Drones hey?
Tick tock the new age French Revolution
"How many new laws are passed each year?
In a Dec. 27, 2011, press release, the National Conference of State Legislatures said U.S. states and territories passed more than 40,000 bills and resolutions into law in 2011. Yet, the release also said, laws do not always take effect at the start of a year."
How many new ones get passed in Australia each year? Who knows, but we get more every year, not less, that's for certain. We are a micro-managed society that is watched and monitored by increasingly paranoid governments. It is evident in the way we are governed, regulated, watched and observed, controlled, and stripped of rights and power.
Ho hum, I guess it doesn't effect the Politicians as they are 'above the law', you won't see Goldman Sachs Turnbull booked by a bus shelter copper doing 1 km per hour over the limit. In fact Malcolm palms off a lot of his coin to an international island so he doesn't have to comply with Australian tax laws. And what about the laws on superannuation? I can't get mine until probably 97 years of age at this rate. But I still recall Senator Bill O'Chee at age early 30 retiring after just a handful of years in Politics and taking a cool $1m dollars with him to spend. So overall the laws are fucked unless you are one of those who are exempt from complying with them.
That's my Saturday night ramble, I better power down the internet and check the night sky for Drones hey?
Tick tock the new age French Revolution
(09-10-2016, 08:34 PM)Gobbledock Wrote: A world gone mad;
"How many new laws are passed each year?
In a Dec. 27, 2011, press release, the National Conference of State Legislatures said U.S. states and territories passed more than 40,000 bills and resolutions into law in 2011. Yet, the release also said, laws do not always take effect at the start of a year."
How many new ones get passed in Australia each year? Who knows, but we get more every year, not less, that's for certain. We are a micro-managed society that is watched and monitored by increasingly paranoid governments. It is evident in the way we are governed, regulated, watched and observed, controlled, and stripped of rights and power.
Ho hum, I guess it doesn't effect the Politicians as they are 'above the law', you won't see Goldman Sachs Turnbull booked by a bus shelter copper doing 1 km per hour over the limit. In fact Malcolm palms off a lot of his coin to an international island so he doesn't have to comply with Australian tax laws. And what about the laws on superannuation? I can't get mine until probably 97 years of age at this rate. But I still recall Senator Bill O'Chee at age early 30 retiring after just a handful of years in Politics and taking a cool $1m dollars with him to spend. So overall the laws are fucked unless you are one of those who are exempt from complying with them.
That's my Saturday night ramble, I better power down the internet and check the night sky for Drones hey?
Tick tock the new age French Revolution
Speaking of the huge amount of largely unnecessary laws don't forget about the disallowable instruments dealing with the regulations, directions and exemptions to those laws...
With a long hiatus between the 44th & 45th Parliament CASA was obviously quite impatient to get back to the business of embuggerance and ruling by exemption. Here is the nearly 60 odd disallowable instruments tabled in just three sitting days of Parliament...
Quote:Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - professional development program and approved course of professional development for flight examiners CASA EX134/16 F2016L01362
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Inspection, Test and Retirement AD/GAS/1 Amdt 11 F2016L01364
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Part 66 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 5) F2016L01357
Civil Aviation Act 1988âCivil Aviation Order 100.5âDetermination - non-application of part of CAO 100.5âCASA 47/16âF2016L00774
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 1) F2016L01161
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 2) F2016L01224
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (Capiteq Pty Limited) CASA 50/16 F2016L00852
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (JetGo Australia Holdings) CASA 89/16 F2016L01291
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (Jetstar Airways) CASA 52/16 F2016L00833
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (National Jet Express)âCASA 51/16 F2016L00832
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (National Jet Systems) CASA 75/16 F2016L01215
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (Sunstate Airlines) CASA 53/16 F2016L00834
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (Tiger Airways) CASA 60/16 F2016L01054
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (Virgin Australia Airlines) CASA 57/16 F2016L01110
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (Virgin Australia International Airlines) CASA 56/16 F2016L01103
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants for Airbus A320 and Fokker F100 aircraft (Virgin Australia Regional Airlines) CASA 61/16 F2016L01047
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants in Boeing 737-800 series aircraft (Qantas Airways Limited) CASA 80/16 F2016L01249
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Instructions - GNSS primary means navigation (A330, B737NG and E190 aircraft) CASA 81/16 F2016L01250
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Instructions - GNSS primary means navigation (B737NG and B777-300ER aircraft) CASA 82/16 F2016L01251
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Conditions and direction concerning certain aircraft fitted with engines manufactured by Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd CASA 65/16 F2016L01112
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Control Column Handgrip Fitting AD/BEA 121/27 Amdt 3 F2016L01270
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - aerial application proficiency check and operator proficiency check (head of flight operations) - aeroplanes CASA EX105/16 F2016L01111
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - aeronautical experience for an NVIS rating or endorsement CASA EX77/16 F2016L00859
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - carriage of Mode S transponder equipment (Rawlings) CASA EX127/16 F2016L01295
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - CASR Part 61 aeronautical knowledge examinations and completion period CASA EX86/16 F2016L00981
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - CASR Part 61 aircraft flight reviews CASA EX97/16 F2016L01045
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - Cessna 100 series aircraft operated in the private category - extension of Supplemental Inspection Document requirements CASA EX96/16 F2016L01051
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - Cessna Supplemental Inspection Document requirements CASA EX98/16 F2016L01053
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 - aerial application operations (in aeroplanes) CASA EX92/16 F2016L01044
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - defect beyond designated rectification interval CASA EX100/16 F2016L01113
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - design of modification or repair for an aircraft that is to be operated under a special flight permit CASA EX99/16 F2016L01099
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - dropping of articles from an aircraftâ CASA EX72/16 F2016L00815
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - flight data recording CASA EX117/16 F2016L01271
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - flight examiner rating for holders of CAO 82.0 check pilot approvals CASA EX106/16 F2016L01114
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - from having training and checking organisation CASA EX115/16 F2016L01252
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - instrument proficiency checks for aircraft pilot type ratings CASA EX93/16 F2016L01046
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - materials flammability airworthiness standards for Medical Isolation Transportation Devices CASA EX109/16 F2016L01166
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - Mode S transponder equipment CASA EX125/16 F2016L01281
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - standards for GNSS navigation equipment (National Jet Express Pty Ltd) CASA EX82/16 F2016L00872
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - Surveillance Australia Pty Ltd operations into Lord Howe Island CASA EX79/16 F2016L00835
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - take-off with traces of frost CASA EX101/16 F2016L01075
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - to members of Australian Warbirds Association Ltd (AWAL), Aviation Reference Number 568691 CASA EX73/16 F2016L00841
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) Controllers Certificate requirements CASA EX81/16 F2016L00961
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - use of radiocommunication systems during parachute operations (Australian Parachute Federation) CASA EX116/16 F2016L01274
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Part 21 Manual of Standards Instrument 2016 F2016L00915
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Part 45 Manual of Standards Instrument 2016 F2016L00850
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Part 61 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 1) F2016L00831
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal - exemption - from standard landing minima - Boeing 737 fail-passive aircraft - Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd CASA EX123/16 F2016L01278
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal - exemption - from standard take-off and landing minima - Japan Airlines CASA EX128/16 F2016L01302
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal of Airworthiness Directives CASA ADCX 011/16 F2016L00996
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal of Airworthiness Directives CASA ADCX 012/16 F2016L01002
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal of Airworthiness Directives CASA ADCX 013/16 F2016L01140
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal of Airworthiness Directives CASA ADCX 014/16 F2016L01172
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal of Airworthiness Directives CASA ADCX 015/16 F2016L01214
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal of Airworthiness Directives CASA ADCX 016/16 F2016L01282
Going down through that list, I don't think you could get a better example of just how out of control our supposedly reforming, Big R, regulator is; while systematically strangling the industry out of existence through overwhelming Red Tape...
IMO Senators disallow the whole lot and tell them to go away and get real - FDS!
MTF...P2
With a shovel full of shit and a tail wind.
Even then; this benighted industry can’t hit the barn door of change. I read much about ‘changing’ the Act, I have no quarrel with the proposal, even less with some of the suggested ‘philosophy’. Those who believe the Act is the key to industry prosperity and well being are articulate, intelligent, sensible folk; experienced and wise in the workings of ‘departments’. From an academic stance the proposal has merit, weight and a very firm grounding in law, rather than policy.. While changes to the Act provide a legal ‘foothold’ for change; it does not however ‘police’ the demanded changes, nor the spirit and intent of change. Like water finds its way around a rock, so will those who will resist any and all change find a way to circumvent good intentions.
There is only one thing going to change CASA and that is CASA. The deeply entrenched problems lay in one area only – in the attitude, not the Act. The tales of piss poor attitude, incompetence, arrogance, personal animosity and payback are manifold and legendary. These tales do not stem from the Act; they originate from people, those employed by industry funded CASA. Apart from being used as top cover for the gross indecencies; the Act had SFA to do with the Chambers report. Chambers, those above him and some of those beneath happily arranged the embuggerance of James; Pel-Air sat back and let it happen. Quadrio, another tale of venality and embuggerance. Airtex, Barrier, Polar, Canley Vale, the recent excesses displayed by various regional departments; you know the ones, those which no one dare speak of for fear of retribution and audit. The Act had sod all to do with these anathemas; people did.
Until there is a serious top level change of ‘attitude’ demonstrated and clearly articulated by a Senate sponsored ICC investigation into the behaviour of CASA employees and something done about the results, nothing will change. You can lobby, pressure, consult, collaborate, waste wind, time and words until you are blue in the face. Nothing is going to change until CASA changes. That can only happen through an internal operation. That involves selecting the ‘right’ DAS.
The DAS has the clout to make these internal changes. The DAS can, without any assistance, conduct internal investigations and make a case for dismissal. The CASA is riddled with bullies, cowards and incompetents. Fire half a dozen or six of the worst (list willingly supplied) and the rest will fall into line. The ‘attitude’ of those remaining will never change, but they will have to sit quietly so long as they are out gunned by newly appointed ‘white hats’; or leave. Inshallah.
Forget about changing the Act, that’s a nice to have; set aside regulatory reform that’s an easy fix. Start the change by demanding that the new DAS has the courage and integrity to tame the rampant beast first. Bring the CASA operatives to heel, stop the blatant lying and deceptions, hire some competent airmen to work with operators, make compliance a joint effort not a battle to the death. Change CASA and watch industry rapidly find it’s true potential. It is that simple; we have a simple minister who would love to get the industry off his back; so, present easy solutions. CASA have created this bloody shambles; the distrust and the disdain. Not the minister, not the local MP, certainly not the industry. But of course industry simply dare not speak out, because if they do and nothing gets ‘fixed’ the cost of retribution will be horrendous. Why? Well children that’s because CASA keeps getting away it, that’s why and ‘we’ let ‘em. They did invent, promote and foster the ‘fear of loss’ syndrome as well as the ‘mystique’. Hellish position – damned if you do; damned if you don’t.
Change the bloody Act, change the flaming regulations, change to colour of the bog paper; if it pleases: but until CASA is changed; nothing will change, not for the better anyway. Now all aboard the merry go round.
Selah.
Even then; this benighted industry can’t hit the barn door of change. I read much about ‘changing’ the Act, I have no quarrel with the proposal, even less with some of the suggested ‘philosophy’. Those who believe the Act is the key to industry prosperity and well being are articulate, intelligent, sensible folk; experienced and wise in the workings of ‘departments’. From an academic stance the proposal has merit, weight and a very firm grounding in law, rather than policy.. While changes to the Act provide a legal ‘foothold’ for change; it does not however ‘police’ the demanded changes, nor the spirit and intent of change. Like water finds its way around a rock, so will those who will resist any and all change find a way to circumvent good intentions.
There is only one thing going to change CASA and that is CASA. The deeply entrenched problems lay in one area only – in the attitude, not the Act. The tales of piss poor attitude, incompetence, arrogance, personal animosity and payback are manifold and legendary. These tales do not stem from the Act; they originate from people, those employed by industry funded CASA. Apart from being used as top cover for the gross indecencies; the Act had SFA to do with the Chambers report. Chambers, those above him and some of those beneath happily arranged the embuggerance of James; Pel-Air sat back and let it happen. Quadrio, another tale of venality and embuggerance. Airtex, Barrier, Polar, Canley Vale, the recent excesses displayed by various regional departments; you know the ones, those which no one dare speak of for fear of retribution and audit. The Act had sod all to do with these anathemas; people did.
Until there is a serious top level change of ‘attitude’ demonstrated and clearly articulated by a Senate sponsored ICC investigation into the behaviour of CASA employees and something done about the results, nothing will change. You can lobby, pressure, consult, collaborate, waste wind, time and words until you are blue in the face. Nothing is going to change until CASA changes. That can only happen through an internal operation. That involves selecting the ‘right’ DAS.
The DAS has the clout to make these internal changes. The DAS can, without any assistance, conduct internal investigations and make a case for dismissal. The CASA is riddled with bullies, cowards and incompetents. Fire half a dozen or six of the worst (list willingly supplied) and the rest will fall into line. The ‘attitude’ of those remaining will never change, but they will have to sit quietly so long as they are out gunned by newly appointed ‘white hats’; or leave. Inshallah.
Forget about changing the Act, that’s a nice to have; set aside regulatory reform that’s an easy fix. Start the change by demanding that the new DAS has the courage and integrity to tame the rampant beast first. Bring the CASA operatives to heel, stop the blatant lying and deceptions, hire some competent airmen to work with operators, make compliance a joint effort not a battle to the death. Change CASA and watch industry rapidly find it’s true potential. It is that simple; we have a simple minister who would love to get the industry off his back; so, present easy solutions. CASA have created this bloody shambles; the distrust and the disdain. Not the minister, not the local MP, certainly not the industry. But of course industry simply dare not speak out, because if they do and nothing gets ‘fixed’ the cost of retribution will be horrendous. Why? Well children that’s because CASA keeps getting away it, that’s why and ‘we’ let ‘em. They did invent, promote and foster the ‘fear of loss’ syndrome as well as the ‘mystique’. Hellish position – damned if you do; damned if you don’t.
Change the bloody Act, change the flaming regulations, change to colour of the bog paper; if it pleases: but until CASA is changed; nothing will change, not for the better anyway. Now all aboard the merry go round.
Selah.
(09-12-2016, 04:31 PM)Peetwo Wrote: With a shovel full of shit and a tail wind. - MKII
(09-10-2016, 08:34 PM)Gobbledock Wrote: A world gone mad;
"How many new laws are passed each year?
In a Dec. 27, 2011, press release, the National Conference of State Legislatures said U.S. states and territories passed more than 40,000 bills and resolutions into law in 2011. Yet, the release also said, laws do not always take effect at the start of a year."
How many new ones get passed in Australia each year? Who knows, but we get more every year, not less, that's for certain. We are a micro-managed society that is watched and monitored by increasingly paranoid governments. It is evident in the way we are governed, regulated, watched and observed, controlled, and stripped of rights and power.
Ho hum, I guess it doesn't effect the Politicians as they are 'above the law', you won't see Goldman Sachs Turnbull booked by a bus shelter copper doing 1 km per hour over the limit. In fact Malcolm palms off a lot of his coin to an international island so he doesn't have to comply with Australian tax laws. And what about the laws on superannuation? I can't get mine until probably 97 years of age at this rate. But I still recall Senator Bill O'Chee at age early 30 retiring after just a handful of years in Politics and taking a cool $1m dollars with him to spend. So overall the laws are fucked unless you are one of those who are exempt from complying with them.
That's my Saturday night ramble, I better power down the internet and check the night sky for Drones hey?
Tick tock the new age French Revolution
Speaking of the huge amount of largely unnecessary laws don't forget about the disallowable instruments dealing with the regulations, directions and exemptions to those laws...
With a long hiatus between the 44th & 45th Parliament CASA was obviously quite impatient to get back to the business of embuggerance and ruling by exemption. Here is the nearly 60 odd disallowable instruments tabled in just three sitting days of Parliament...
Quote:Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - professional development program and approved course of professional development for flight examiners CASA EX134/16 F2016L01362
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Inspection, Test and Retirement AD/GAS/1 Amdt 11 F2016L01364
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Part 66 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 5) F2016L01357
Civil Aviation Act 1988âCivil Aviation Order 100.5âDetermination - non-application of part of CAO 100.5âCASA 47/16âF2016L00774
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 1) F2016L01161
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 2) F2016L01224
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (Capiteq Pty Limited) CASA 50/16 F2016L00852
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (JetGo Australia Holdings) CASA 89/16 F2016L01291
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (Jetstar Airways) CASA 52/16 F2016L00833
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (National Jet Express)âCASA 51/16 F2016L00832
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (National Jet Systems) CASA 75/16 F2016L01215
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (Sunstate Airlines) CASA 53/16 F2016L00834
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (Tiger Airways) CASA 60/16 F2016L01054
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (Virgin Australia Airlines) CASA 57/16 F2016L01110
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants (Virgin Australia International Airlines) CASA 56/16 F2016L01103
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants for Airbus A320 and Fokker F100 aircraft (Virgin Australia Regional Airlines) CASA 61/16 F2016L01047
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Direction - number of cabin attendants in Boeing 737-800 series aircraft (Qantas Airways Limited) CASA 80/16 F2016L01249
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Instructions - GNSS primary means navigation (A330, B737NG and E190 aircraft) CASA 81/16 F2016L01250
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Instructions - GNSS primary means navigation (B737NG and B777-300ER aircraft) CASA 82/16 F2016L01251
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Conditions and direction concerning certain aircraft fitted with engines manufactured by Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd CASA 65/16 F2016L01112
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Control Column Handgrip Fitting AD/BEA 121/27 Amdt 3 F2016L01270
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - aerial application proficiency check and operator proficiency check (head of flight operations) - aeroplanes CASA EX105/16 F2016L01111
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - aeronautical experience for an NVIS rating or endorsement CASA EX77/16 F2016L00859
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - carriage of Mode S transponder equipment (Rawlings) CASA EX127/16 F2016L01295
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - CASR Part 61 aeronautical knowledge examinations and completion period CASA EX86/16 F2016L00981
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - CASR Part 61 aircraft flight reviews CASA EX97/16 F2016L01045
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - Cessna 100 series aircraft operated in the private category - extension of Supplemental Inspection Document requirements CASA EX96/16 F2016L01051
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - Cessna Supplemental Inspection Document requirements CASA EX98/16 F2016L01053
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 - aerial application operations (in aeroplanes) CASA EX92/16 F2016L01044
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - defect beyond designated rectification interval CASA EX100/16 F2016L01113
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - design of modification or repair for an aircraft that is to be operated under a special flight permit CASA EX99/16 F2016L01099
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - dropping of articles from an aircraftâ CASA EX72/16 F2016L00815
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - flight data recording CASA EX117/16 F2016L01271
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - flight examiner rating for holders of CAO 82.0 check pilot approvals CASA EX106/16 F2016L01114
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - from having training and checking organisation CASA EX115/16 F2016L01252
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - instrument proficiency checks for aircraft pilot type ratings CASA EX93/16 F2016L01046
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - materials flammability airworthiness standards for Medical Isolation Transportation Devices CASA EX109/16 F2016L01166
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - Mode S transponder equipment CASA EX125/16 F2016L01281
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - standards for GNSS navigation equipment (National Jet Express Pty Ltd) CASA EX82/16 F2016L00872
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - Surveillance Australia Pty Ltd operations into Lord Howe Island CASA EX79/16 F2016L00835
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - take-off with traces of frost CASA EX101/16 F2016L01075
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - to members of Australian Warbirds Association Ltd (AWAL), Aviation Reference Number 568691 CASA EX73/16 F2016L00841
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) Controllers Certificate requirements CASA EX81/16 F2016L00961
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Exemption - use of radiocommunication systems during parachute operations (Australian Parachute Federation) CASA EX116/16 F2016L01274
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Part 21 Manual of Standards Instrument 2016 F2016L00915
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Part 45 Manual of Standards Instrument 2016 F2016L00850
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Part 61 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 1) F2016L00831
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal - exemption - from standard landing minima - Boeing 737 fail-passive aircraft - Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd CASA EX123/16 F2016L01278
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal - exemption - from standard take-off and landing minima - Japan Airlines CASA EX128/16 F2016L01302
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal of Airworthiness Directives CASA ADCX 011/16 F2016L00996
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal of Airworthiness Directives CASA ADCX 012/16 F2016L01002
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal of Airworthiness Directives CASA ADCX 013/16 F2016L01140
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal of Airworthiness Directives CASA ADCX 014/16 F2016L01172
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal of Airworthiness Directives CASA ADCX 015/16 F2016L01214
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Repeal of Airworthiness Directives CASA ADCX 016/16 F2016L01282
Going down through that list, I don't think you could get a better example of just how out of control our supposedly reforming, Big R, regulator is; while systematically strangling the industry out of existence through overwhelming Red Tape...
IMO Senators disallow the whole lot and tell them to go away and get real - FDS!
MTF...P2
(09-13-2016, 07:25 AM)kharon Wrote: Even then; this benighted industry can’t hit the barn door of change. I read much about ‘changing’ the Act, I have no quarrel with the proposal, even less with some of the suggested ‘philosophy’. Those who believe the Act is the key to industry prosperity and well being are articulate, intelligent, sensible folk; experienced and wise in the workings of ‘departments’. From an academic stance the proposal has merit, weight and a very firm grounding in law, rather than policy.. While changes to the Act provide a legal ‘foothold’ for change; it does not however ‘police’ the demanded changes, nor the spirit and intent of change. Like water finds its way around a rock, so will those who will resist any and all change find a way to circumvent good intentions.
There is only one thing going to change CASA and that is CASA. The deeply entrenched problems lay in one area only – in the attitude, not the Act. The tales of piss poor attitude, incompetence, arrogance, personal animosity and payback are manifold and legendary. These tales do not stem from the Act; they originate from people, those employed by industry funded CASA. Apart from being used as top cover for the gross indecencies; the Act had SFA to do with the Chambers report. Chambers, those above him and some of those beneath happily arranged the embuggerance of James; Pel-Air sat back and let it happen. Quadrio, another tale of venality and embuggerance. Airtex, Barrier, Polar, Canley Vale, the recent excesses displayed by various regional departments; you know the ones, those which no one dare speak of for fear of retribution and audit. The Act had sod all to do with these anathemas; people did.
Until there is a serious top level change of ‘attitude’ demonstrated and clearly articulated by a Senate sponsored ICC investigation into the behaviour of CASA employees and something done about the results, nothing will change. You can lobby, pressure, consult, collaborate, waste wind, time and words until you are blue in the face. Nothing is going to change until CASA changes. That can only happen through an internal operation. That involves selecting the ‘right’ DAS.
The DAS has the clout to make these internal changes. The DAS can, without any assistance, conduct internal investigations and make a case for dismissal. The CASA is riddled with bullies, cowards and incompetents. Fire half a dozen or six of the worst (list willingly supplied) and the rest will fall into line. The ‘attitude’ of those remaining will never change, but they will have to sit quietly so long as they are out gunned by newly appointed ‘white hats’; or leave. Inshallah.
Forget about changing the Act, that’s a nice to have; set aside regulatory reform that’s an easy fix. Start the change by demanding that the new DAS has the courage and integrity to tame the rampant beast first. Bring the CASA operatives to heel, stop the blatant lying and deceptions, hire some competent airmen to work with operators, make compliance a joint effort not a battle to the death. Change CASA and watch industry rapidly find it’s true potential. It is that simple; we have a simple minister who would love to get the industry off his back; so, present easy solutions. CASA have created this bloody shambles; the distrust and the disdain. Not the minister, not the local MP, certainly not the industry. But of course industry simply dare not speak out, because if they do and nothing gets ‘fixed’ the cost of retribution will be horrendous. Why? Well children that’s because CASA keeps getting away with it, that’s why and ‘we’ let ‘em. They did invent, promote and foster the ‘fear of loss’ syndrome as well as the ‘mystique’. Hellish position – damned if you do; damned if you don’t.
Change the bloody Act, change the flaming regulations, change to colour of the bog paper; if it pleases: but until CASA is changed; nothing will change, not for the better anyway. Now all aboard the merry go round.
Selah.
New UAV regulations, a lawyers banquet -
Reference - 'Closing the safety loop' thread:
Still really don't have much to add to my cynical suspicions above, nor do I have an opinion either way on the new regs due to be released this time next week. However I did find the following article from the 'Lawyers Weekly' interesting in that it would seem, that like sharks on a trail of blood, the legal fraternity can sense much happy litigation and legal embuggerances to come once the amended CASR Part 101 is bedded down...
Ahh..it's a lawyers world isn't it? - happy days...
MTF...P2
Reference - 'Closing the safety loop' thread:
(09-02-2016, 09:05 AM)Peetwo Wrote: CAsA & ATsB out of the loop on RPA/UAV safety -
Remember this??
(07-08-2016, 03:29 PM)Peetwo Wrote:(07-07-2016, 11:40 AM)kharon Wrote: Drones and the like.
This topic is getting some traction, particularly now with ‘sales’ expected to increase 10 fold. It got some attention at the BRB last evening. It’s not a ‘hot’ topic, not yet at least, but the different ‘styles’ of risk management were discussed. The FAA appear to be taking a strong line, registration and airworthiness checks, CASA a more laid back approach where responsibility is abrogated through the familiar hand washing process. One of the almost unanimously agreed points was that no matter what the official approach taken, the ‘rogue’ element and those who wilfully intend to misuse the UAV will do so, regardless.
The conversation then turned to ‘numbers of’ – in the long term. Just how many of the wretched things can we expect. Consensus seemed to be that at the moment, it’s a ‘fad’ which will hit a peak and diminish as interest wains and wrecks increase. Sensible money seems to be bet across a three horse race; the sane, safe, legal productive use of an excellent tool by responsible adults: the dedicated aero-modeller types who have never yet created a problem to anyone; and, the dedicated Darwin award crowd who also like lasers and spotlights. The also rans are those who will purchase not a tool or a thing of interest but a trendy ‘product’ to amuse ‘junior’ for a while until it is discarded and finds it’s way into the nearest skip, broken and forgotten as easily as it was purchased.
One thing was agreed, UAV’s are here to stay in one form or another; it only remains to be seen how ‘government’ will respond – after the fact with retrospective knee-jerk; or, proactively looking carefully at the risks.
We shall see – for mine, the shotgun is always handy.
Toot toot.
Hmm...I'm a little bit dubious of this...
"...Australia can be confident that the biggest aerial innovation since the jet engine is being introduced safely and deliberately. Nobody knows this better than CASA — and when CASA promotes the benefits of more commercial micro drones in Australia, we should all listen..."
From his track record so far Skidmore has shown no inclination to giving a flying fig (or UAV) for minority industry groups and/or their commercial concerns, it is simply not part of his vocabulary -
It may be a case of.."damned if you do, damned if you don't"; however going off the track record of the Department & it's aviation safety agencies, I am somewhat suspect that Murky & his minions are obfuscating their responsibilities in a further attempt to limit the government's public liability on such issues as the rapidly growing plethora of small (<2kg) UAVs. That is they are once again divorcing themselves from the safety loop.
Today's Oz article by Binger does nothing to dispel my suspicions...
Quote:Drone deregulation: fatalities will be a case of ‘when, not if’
Still really don't have much to add to my cynical suspicions above, nor do I have an opinion either way on the new regs due to be released this time next week. However I did find the following article from the 'Lawyers Weekly' interesting in that it would seem, that like sharks on a trail of blood, the legal fraternity can sense much happy litigation and legal embuggerances to come once the amended CASR Part 101 is bedded down...
Quote:Australia leads the way in drone regulation
21 September 2016 Lara Bullock
New drone regulations, to be introduced by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority next week, will impact lawyers in a wide array of practice areas, including insurance, intellectual property and privacy.
The regulator for the use of aircraft in Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), has developed new drone regulations, which will take effect on 29 September.
On a recent episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show podcast, Piper Alderman partner James Lawrence gave background on drone regulation in Australia and detailed the upcoming changes.
“Australia was the first country to regulate, formally, the use of drones for civilian use and commercial use. In fact, CASA first set out their set of rules in 2002, well before the USFFA set out their set of rules,” Mr Lawrence said.
“At the moment we’re still operating under the old, much more restrictive regime, but that will change as of 29 September this year. Again, CASA [is] taking the lead on really cutting a lot of the red tape around the use of drones in a commercial context, which means that really it's quite an exciting time for the use of drones.”
CASA’s new regulations will amend Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR), which is the primary regulatory instrument affecting drones in Australia.
A recent article published by Corrs Chambers Westgarth outlined the three key changes: drones will be categorised differently based on gross weight, there will be new standing operating conditions, and there will be changes to drone licensing and certification requirements.
Legal sectors impacted
Mr Lawrence said that drone usage touches a surprisingly large number of sectors, and therefore legal practice areas.
“What we’re seeing is a lot more uptake in the real estate, insurance, imaging and agribusiness sectors,” he said.
“In the insurance space we’re seeing underwriters and insurers able to use drones to, for example, survey damaged buildings after large storms. Managing liability and indemnities in the contractual arrangements between the drone service provider and the insurer is a real balancing act.”
He also emphasised that drone regulations have an impact on intellectual property and copyright practices.
“A lot of these drones will generally take optical surveillance or imaging devices as part of the payload, so there’s a lot of imaging being taken. So a real question arises in the context of who owns copyright, for example, in images that are being taken, and how is that managed in the context of a service agreement?” he said.
“In the copyright context, the first owner of the copyright is the person who takes the photograph. In those circumstances, ownership of copyright will be a real issue in the context of someone who engages a drone operator. If you’re engaging that operator, you may want, for example, the copyright and any copyright work produced by use of the drone.”
Another important legal concern, according to Mr Lawrence, is privacy.
“There is a concern around privacy and intrusion. Of course, in Australia we do not have a tort of intrusion of privacy. We have the Commonwealth Privacy Act, but that generally regulates the collection and use of personal information,” he explained.
“There is a gap, in some people’s minds, around protection of privacy. In fact, the Australian Law Reform Commission recently recommended that Australia embrace a Commonwealth, legislative right of privacy. As yet, that has not been acted on.”
Ahh..it's a lawyers world isn't it? - happy days...
MTF...P2
Of hungry lawyers.
There’s a happy thought; and perhaps that is the FAA’s intent. They seem to have taken a very grown up stance on UAV ‘control’, before the inevitable law suits start piling up. By getting in early and setting the rules in place, they are thinking of avoiding getting dragged into tedious, pointless, expensive court battles. By stating that it is ‘illegal’ to do such and such; or, thou shalt not without etc. they step out of potential areas of ‘legal’ conflict. It is far too much to expect CASA to be so far sighted; they cannot imagine anyone daring to file suit and blame them for anything. But, sure as eggs, soon or late, someone will decide that a CASA rule is a good case to prosecute – and win. Then there will be yet another, retrospective ‘knee-jerk’ reaction, the inevitable over kill and more draconian regulations produced – after the fact.
It is a very adolescent stance: it is also naïve. It is also fraught with ‘political’ peril, for it will be the minister of whom the awkward questions in the media are asked: when someone gets hurt, or a crime is committed, or a high profile bare arse is plastered all over the media. UAV’s are a ticking time bomb; there is no question about its going bang; only when.
Choc frog P2 – the legal eagles will be sharpening their claws and keeping a sharp eye out for a potential earner; baby needs new shoes and all that. Are having a head full of porridge instead of brain and an ability to work in blinkers prerequisites for a CASA management role; certainly it seems to be so. Heigh Ho.
Toot toot.
There’s a happy thought; and perhaps that is the FAA’s intent. They seem to have taken a very grown up stance on UAV ‘control’, before the inevitable law suits start piling up. By getting in early and setting the rules in place, they are thinking of avoiding getting dragged into tedious, pointless, expensive court battles. By stating that it is ‘illegal’ to do such and such; or, thou shalt not without etc. they step out of potential areas of ‘legal’ conflict. It is far too much to expect CASA to be so far sighted; they cannot imagine anyone daring to file suit and blame them for anything. But, sure as eggs, soon or late, someone will decide that a CASA rule is a good case to prosecute – and win. Then there will be yet another, retrospective ‘knee-jerk’ reaction, the inevitable over kill and more draconian regulations produced – after the fact.
It is a very adolescent stance: it is also naïve. It is also fraught with ‘political’ peril, for it will be the minister of whom the awkward questions in the media are asked: when someone gets hurt, or a crime is committed, or a high profile bare arse is plastered all over the media. UAV’s are a ticking time bomb; there is no question about its going bang; only when.
Choc frog P2 – the legal eagles will be sharpening their claws and keeping a sharp eye out for a potential earner; baby needs new shoes and all that. Are having a head full of porridge instead of brain and an ability to work in blinkers prerequisites for a CASA management role; certainly it seems to be so. Heigh Ho.
Toot toot.
(09-23-2016, 05:37 AM)kharon Wrote: Of hungry lawyers.
There’s a happy thought; and perhaps that is the FAA’s intent. They seem to have taken a very grown up stance on UAV ‘control’, before the inevitable law suits start piling up. By getting in early and setting the rules in place, they are thinking of avoiding getting dragged into tedious, pointless, expensive court battles. By stating that it is ‘illegal’ to do such and such; or, thou shalt not without etc. they step out of potential areas of ‘legal’ conflict. It is far too much to expect CASA to be so far sighted; they cannot imagine anyone daring to file suit and blame them for anything. But, sure as eggs, soon or late, someone will decide that a CASA rule is a good case to prosecute – and win. Then there will be yet another, retrospective ‘knee-jerk’ reaction, the inevitable over kill and more draconian regulations produced – after the fact.
It is a very adolescent stance: it is also naïve. It is also fraught with ‘political’ peril, for it will be the minister of whom the awkward questions in the media are asked: when someone gets hurt, or a crime is committed, or a high profile bare arse is plastered all over the media. UAV’s are a ticking time bomb; there is no question about its going bang; only when.
Choc frog P2 – the legal eagles will be sharpening their claws and keeping a sharp eye out for a potential earner; baby needs new shoes and all that. Are having a head full of porridge instead of brain and an ability to work in blinkers prerequisites for a CASA management role; certainly it seems to be so. Heigh Ho.
Toot toot.
"K" said...
"..But, sure as eggs, soon or late, someone will decide that a CASA rule is a good case to prosecute – and win. Then there will be yet another, retrospective ‘knee-jerk’ reaction, the inevitable over kill and more draconian regulations produced – after the fact..."
If anyone doubts the veracity of which the Ferryman speaks, you only need visit the historical archive of Part 61 that spent a decade in gestation, only to be hatched as the single most diabolical regulation to be hung, like a festering cancerous millstone, around the neck of industry...
In the latest sickening update to the Part 61 page count and rule by exemption bollocks, Wodger Weekes-as-piss and his 'Tiger team' has the audacity to state..
"..Taskforce managers are currently taking stock of the extensive range of work already delivered and working through the issues yet to be finalised before they commence the transition to business as usual.."
For those that have a strong stomach here is the rest of the latest update:19 September 2016
And this is where the current list of additional exemptions and amended instruments related to Part 61 is at:
Quote:ExemptionsConditions on authorisations - regulation 11.068
- Exemption - flight examiner rating proficiency check (EPC) and professional development requirements (PDP): CASA EX133/16 and CASA EX134/16
- Exemption - flight examiner rating for holders of CAO 82.0 check pilot approvals: CASA 106/16
- Exemption - aerial application proficiency check and operator proficiency check (head of flight operations) - aeroplanes: CASA EX105/16
- Exemption - instrument proficiency checks for aircraft pilot type ratings: (CASA EX93/16)
- Exemption - CASR Part 61 aircraft flight reviews: (CASA EX97/16)
- Exemption - CASR Part 61 aeronautical knowledge examinations and two year completion period: CASA EX86/16
- Exemption - aeronautical experience for an NVIS rating or endorsement: CASA EX77/16
- Exemption - single-pilot turbojet aeroplane specific instrument proficiency check exemption: CASA EX41/16
- Exemption - from completion of an approved training course in multi-crew cooperation: CASA EX225/15
- Exemption - against ATPL flight test requirements: CASA EX222/15
- Exemption - English language proficiency assessments: CASA EX146/15
- Exemption - logging of time in flight for co-pilots on single-pilot certificated aircraft: CASA EX116/15
- Exemption - Parts 141 and 142 - CASA approval of kinds of aircraft: CASA EX126/15
- Exemption - from certain low-level rating requirements: CASA 92/15
- Exemption - dual flight checks before solo flights by student pilots: CASA EX 78/15
- Exemption - aeronautical experience requirements for grant of commercial pilot licences - aeroplane category: CASA EX22/15
- Exemption - foreign cadet pilots taking flight test for a commercial pilot licence - class 1 medical certificate (replacement exemption September 2015): CASA EX156/15
- Exemption - aerial application rating and firefighting endorsement (replacement exemption August 2015)
Part 61 Manual of Standards Part 61 legislative instrumentsRegulation 61.040 approvals
- Prescription of aircraft and ratings - Part 61
- Prescribed qualification standards for flight simulation training devices (MCC training - aeroplane) (Edition1)
- Prescription of aircraft and rating - Agusta Westland AW169
Part 141 and 142 legislative instruments
- Overview
- Approvals to conduct flight tests for issue of class and type ratings
- Approvals to conduct flight tests for training endorsements
- Approval to conduct flight tests for low-level ratings, low-level endorsements and mustering endorsements
- Approval to conduct flight tests and grant low level rating endorsements for sling operations and winch and rappelling operations
- Regulation 141.035 approval to conduct flight training for helicopter firefighting endorsement
- Regulation 142.045 - Prescription - type ratings for CASR Part 142 flight training (Edition 3)
- Regulation 141.035 - approval to conduct flight training for low-level ratings, low-level endorsements and mustering endorsements
- Approval under regulation 141.035 - for regulation 217 training and checking organisations to conduct certain Part 141 flight training AND approval under regulation 142.040 - for regulation 217 training and checking organisations to conduct certain Part 142 flight training
- Variation of AOCs - authorisation of regulation 217 training and checking organisations to conduct certain Part 142 flight training in aircraft
UDB...
While on 'Mythical Reform' note the following from the RAAA thread:
(09-23-2016, 09:24 AM)Peetwo Wrote: All quiet on the Western front, until..??-
Quote:[url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/aviations-fatigue-risk-management-system-needs-complete-rethink/news-story/724c19a35a59dd0a95a36b8beba23597#comments][/url]
It is time the Civil Aviation Safety Authority settled the fatigue risk management system debate once and for all.
The FRMS is designed to ensure flight crews are not subjected to the adverse effects of fatigue while on duty. The FRMS guides the design and management of rostering systems.
It also provides for crew education and awareness around lifestyle choices and the science behind sleep patterns.
The present regulations have provided a safe operational environment for regular public transport in regional Australian operations for many years.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau statistics support this contention.
CASA can design and make laws in several guises. One option is the drafting of civil aviation orders. The proposed rules must be put on hold and CASA needs to carry out a comprehensive review of the new regulations.
This should include a comparison with fatigue risk management rules in overseas jurisdictions such as the US, Europe and New Zealand.
The proposed fatigue rules contained in Civil Aviation Order 48.1 pertaining to Australian regional aviation are far more restrictive than in these countries and CASA has not provided any valid justification for such an unnecessary impost on the regional aviation industry.
For example, the Royal Flying Doctor Service (West Australian section) employs about 50 pilots. The new CAO 48.1 would mean it would have to employ an additional 17 pilots at a cost of $2.1 million every year, for no demonstrated safety outcome.
This is a completely unwarranted attack on one of the safest and most professionally managed organisations in the world.
The review must not be conducted on the CASA premise that fatigue is an unmitigated risk in the industry and simply examine whether CAO 48.1 will fix “the fatigue issue”. It must examine whether there is any empirical evidence that justifies the new CAO 48.1 rule set.
It is ironic that Australian regional operators are faced with the most restrictive and costly rules in the world yet operate in a far less fatigue-inducing environment than the US or Europe.
Everyone agrees that fatigue is a hazard that needs managing.
Everyone agrees that long-haul operations need a comprehensive FRMS.
Everyone who is actually working in the industry and operating in a prudent and safe manner understands the requirements and application of CAO 48.0 plus the standard industry exemptions.
Everyone (including the ATSB) who takes an objective view of the status quo agrees there are no unmitigated fatigue issues in regional Australian regular public transport operations.
CASA has yet to supply the Regional Aviation Association of Australia with a substantive supporting safety case despite three Freedom of Information requests.
Neither has CASA ever expended any effort to investigate the “state of the nation” and actually sit down with operators and their safety management systems and obtain the real data. CASA claims it simply does not have the resources for such action.
The wonderfully feel-good written communications from CASA very recently talks about collaboration, consultation, being a fair regulator, just culture and so on. This is at complete odds with what is actually happening.
As for any International Civil Aviation Organisation-compliant red herring argument, don’t be distracted.
We can easily establish that the status quo of SMS, 48.0 and the standard industry exemptions are ICAO-compliant.
The industry would welcome an independent review, but not simply of the efficacy of CAO 48.1 to manage fatigue. That is not our argument, never has been and never will be.
Any review needs to start right back at the beginning and establish if there is in fact an unmitigated risk that needs addressing.
We need a truly independent risk analysis to determine if there is in fact an unmitigated problem in the first place. We believe it would be best conducted by an overseas expert as we doubt there are any independent reviewers available in Australia. They all have a vested interest in the prosecution of CAO 48.1 as they stand to make significant windfalls from drafting myriad FRMS systems.
Any review should be well funded as just going to tender may result in the lowest cost option with the outcome not supported by the industry.
I wish CASA would listen to the industry, accept reality and announce a moratorium on the starting date of CAO 48.1. That way we can all take a step back from the brink, stop the public stoushes and take a more professional and cool-headed approach.
CASA got itself into this embarrassing position by assuming there was a problem and concocted CAO 48.1.
It remains a case of a sledgehammer looking for a shoe tack.
Mike Higgins is chief executive of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia
Quote from Mike Higgins - "..In the name of greater air safety, Civil Aviation Order 48.1 proposes tighter regulations, but are they unwarranted?.." -
What struck me, with the article and above quote, is realistically you could replace 'CAO 48.1' with your favourite bollocks, recently written, voluminous regulation and the article with few alterations would not lose context one iota...
MTF...P2
Nutshells and shoe tacks.
Alternatively; Nut-jobs and sledge hammers.
P2:-“What struck me, with the article and above quote is, realistically you could replace 'CAO 48.1' with your favourite bollocks, recently written, voluminous regulation and the article with few alterations would not lose context one iota...”
Nicely put P2; indeed replace 48.1 and insert your favourite regulation and the article stands the test. Mike Higgins has, as usual, summed up the whole sorry mess neatly and succinctly. Tim Tam quality job, which, along with the Hitch Choc frog article, certainly delivers ‘the message’.
The quote above, for me, frames one of two core issues very nicely. The first being that ‘industry’ will take their collective foot off the gas pedal simply because ‘someone’ else is dealing with the problems, relax and wait the good news. It is quite simply easier to believe the ‘problems’ will go away and all will be well, rather than look at the truly disgraceful, duplicitous track record of CASA past actions and disregard the weasel word rhetoric. The cynical, hypnotic stream of platitude and vague promises are designed to get the volume down and to divert any ministerial attention away from the reality. The preservation of the mystique and to support the legend that CASA is actually competent always takes precedence.
The second concern is neatly summed up, the game is still being played by the ancient rules, but Higgins is not confounded by the mirrors or confused by the smoke – he knows his history. Back in the day, when we had a minister who gave a toss and ‘rules’ were re-jigged to reflect common sense, things changed for the better: until there was a change and new rules, pre drafted, were slotted back in to ‘modify’ the good work done.
Higgins :- “The wonderfully feel-good written communications from CASA very recently talks about collaboration, consultation, being a fair regulator, just culture and so on. This is at complete odds with what is actually happening.”
And there is the truth of it: “[This] is at complete odds with what is actually happening.” Etc.
Hitch:-“The other thing we can look at closely is how well CASA and the industry worked together over the 10 months the task-force existed.”
Hitch very nearly makes a good point, but fails to see the irony. CASA and no one else has created this unholy stew of ‘bad law’. CASA have NFI how to fix it, nor IMO, the intention of doing so. But when ‘they’ are in the crap – who do they call on to sort it out – industry. The very same people their ignorance has affected – and industry does it for free; while the over payed, under worked geniuses who created the mess claim kudos and credit. It is a truly ludicrous situation – we pay them ‘expert’ wages and then have to divert time, energy and even more money to try to unscramble the CASA eggs. And industry tolerates this. Aye, everyone's strange ‘cept thee and me – but, I ain’t to sure about thee.
Higgins :- “I wish CASA would listen to the industry, accept reality and announce a moratorium on the starting date of CAO 48.1. That way we can all take a step back from the brink, stop the public stoushes and take a more professional and cool-headed approach.
If CASA were anywhere near as professional as industry, there would be no need for anything other than a gentlemanly discussion to review the ‘new’ work and perhaps, suggest the odd, mutually agreed modification. There is a vast gulf between this and reality. History proves it. It is an endless cycle of waste, CASA create the monstrosity; industry kicks up a mild mannered fuss, CASA take it away, make some minor cosmetic changes to make their ugly, bastard brain fart ‘look’ acceptable; industry gives in and the now tarted up monstrosity; unchanged in essentials, is allowed to survive.
Higgins :- “We need a truly independent risk analysis to determine if there is in fact an unmitigated problem in the first place. We believe it would be best conducted by an overseas expert as we doubt there are any independent reviewers available in Australia. They all have a vested interest in the prosecution of CAO 48.1 as they stand to make significant windfalls from drafting myriad FRMS systems.”
Mike, I can agree with every word in that statement, absolutely and completely. But, did we not have one of those a while back? I seem to remember a thing done by the good Rev. Forsyth which, independently, which made good sense and even had some lukewarm ministerial backing. Ah! Yes. But that was ‘only an opinion’ and therefore, failed, miserably to dent the CASA ego fed denial and defence system. Don't get me started on the last great FRMS scam, last time it was in vogue; blatant, wholesale, open scam. Approval only on application with the 'right' manual. Disgraceful, but I digress.
But I have said all of this before, just a couple of posts back even. –Gods alone know how many serviceable key boards have been hammered to an ignominious death in the cause; but nothing, absolutely nothing changes, not under the surface, nor in the deep, dark, secret places of Sleepy Hollow.
Enough, it is a beautiful morning; better find the dogs – how do the scruffy buggers always know when its ‘bath day’? Winter’s sloth and fleas washed away and a run in the fresh spring air. They may hate it; but, they always seem to feel much better after ‘the treatment’.
Toot – toot.
Alternatively; Nut-jobs and sledge hammers.
P2:-“What struck me, with the article and above quote is, realistically you could replace 'CAO 48.1' with your favourite bollocks, recently written, voluminous regulation and the article with few alterations would not lose context one iota...”
Nicely put P2; indeed replace 48.1 and insert your favourite regulation and the article stands the test. Mike Higgins has, as usual, summed up the whole sorry mess neatly and succinctly. Tim Tam quality job, which, along with the Hitch Choc frog article, certainly delivers ‘the message’.
The quote above, for me, frames one of two core issues very nicely. The first being that ‘industry’ will take their collective foot off the gas pedal simply because ‘someone’ else is dealing with the problems, relax and wait the good news. It is quite simply easier to believe the ‘problems’ will go away and all will be well, rather than look at the truly disgraceful, duplicitous track record of CASA past actions and disregard the weasel word rhetoric. The cynical, hypnotic stream of platitude and vague promises are designed to get the volume down and to divert any ministerial attention away from the reality. The preservation of the mystique and to support the legend that CASA is actually competent always takes precedence.
The second concern is neatly summed up, the game is still being played by the ancient rules, but Higgins is not confounded by the mirrors or confused by the smoke – he knows his history. Back in the day, when we had a minister who gave a toss and ‘rules’ were re-jigged to reflect common sense, things changed for the better: until there was a change and new rules, pre drafted, were slotted back in to ‘modify’ the good work done.
Higgins :- “The wonderfully feel-good written communications from CASA very recently talks about collaboration, consultation, being a fair regulator, just culture and so on. This is at complete odds with what is actually happening.”
And there is the truth of it: “[This] is at complete odds with what is actually happening.” Etc.
Hitch:-“The other thing we can look at closely is how well CASA and the industry worked together over the 10 months the task-force existed.”
Hitch very nearly makes a good point, but fails to see the irony. CASA and no one else has created this unholy stew of ‘bad law’. CASA have NFI how to fix it, nor IMO, the intention of doing so. But when ‘they’ are in the crap – who do they call on to sort it out – industry. The very same people their ignorance has affected – and industry does it for free; while the over payed, under worked geniuses who created the mess claim kudos and credit. It is a truly ludicrous situation – we pay them ‘expert’ wages and then have to divert time, energy and even more money to try to unscramble the CASA eggs. And industry tolerates this. Aye, everyone's strange ‘cept thee and me – but, I ain’t to sure about thee.
Higgins :- “I wish CASA would listen to the industry, accept reality and announce a moratorium on the starting date of CAO 48.1. That way we can all take a step back from the brink, stop the public stoushes and take a more professional and cool-headed approach.
If CASA were anywhere near as professional as industry, there would be no need for anything other than a gentlemanly discussion to review the ‘new’ work and perhaps, suggest the odd, mutually agreed modification. There is a vast gulf between this and reality. History proves it. It is an endless cycle of waste, CASA create the monstrosity; industry kicks up a mild mannered fuss, CASA take it away, make some minor cosmetic changes to make their ugly, bastard brain fart ‘look’ acceptable; industry gives in and the now tarted up monstrosity; unchanged in essentials, is allowed to survive.
Higgins :- “We need a truly independent risk analysis to determine if there is in fact an unmitigated problem in the first place. We believe it would be best conducted by an overseas expert as we doubt there are any independent reviewers available in Australia. They all have a vested interest in the prosecution of CAO 48.1 as they stand to make significant windfalls from drafting myriad FRMS systems.”
Mike, I can agree with every word in that statement, absolutely and completely. But, did we not have one of those a while back? I seem to remember a thing done by the good Rev. Forsyth which, independently, which made good sense and even had some lukewarm ministerial backing. Ah! Yes. But that was ‘only an opinion’ and therefore, failed, miserably to dent the CASA ego fed denial and defence system. Don't get me started on the last great FRMS scam, last time it was in vogue; blatant, wholesale, open scam. Approval only on application with the 'right' manual. Disgraceful, but I digress.
But I have said all of this before, just a couple of posts back even. –Gods alone know how many serviceable key boards have been hammered to an ignominious death in the cause; but nothing, absolutely nothing changes, not under the surface, nor in the deep, dark, secret places of Sleepy Hollow.
Enough, it is a beautiful morning; better find the dogs – how do the scruffy buggers always know when its ‘bath day’? Winter’s sloth and fleas washed away and a run in the fresh spring air. They may hate it; but, they always seem to feel much better after ‘the treatment’.
Toot – toot.
09-24-2016, 11:51 AM
Strict Liability:
Assuming the US, like Australia generally has Strict Liability in traffic matters, are we witnessing the final evolution of the concept of guilty until proven innocent with the many recent shootings. Disregarding any racial connotations, are the Police that indoctrinated in their training that they actually believe a summary action is justified? Does the average motorist not understand that the burden of proof lies with them?
I suppose CAsA will require firearms shortly to police the Act.
Assuming the US, like Australia generally has Strict Liability in traffic matters, are we witnessing the final evolution of the concept of guilty until proven innocent with the many recent shootings. Disregarding any racial connotations, are the Police that indoctrinated in their training that they actually believe a summary action is justified? Does the average motorist not understand that the burden of proof lies with them?
I suppose CAsA will require firearms shortly to police the Act.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)