John McCormick leaving CASA

[dazza 38]

I loved the AAAA submission , it was not backwards in coming forwards. LOL

 

 

[kaz3g]

Kaz, its much to easy for the RAA and AOPA to blame CASA than work together for a better outcome. Just how politics is

But it doesn't have to be that way, FT...that's my point. The AAAA submission certainly makes strong criticism and highlights the loss of effective consultation under the big R model of the past 5 years, but it also provides a lot of constructive suggestions for better dialogue and improved outcomes in the future.

 

AOPA has been gentler in its approach but still highlights the big issues facing GA. In my view, the RA submission just skirts around them

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

Kaz, First of all the submissions are not going to the regulator, they are going to the committeeconducting the enquiry into the effectiveness of the regulator.

I understand that Maj. I just can't see where our submission really addressed the Regulators effectiveness.

 

That committee did request individual submissions for its consideration, not a combined submission as you suggest....Each organisation is different, and may have different areas of complaint.. Maj.........

I haven't suggested a combined voice at all, Maj. In fact I think it is really important that each group highlights issues of particular relevance to it. I suggested some serious collaboration may have been very worth while so everyone presented a united voice on core issues (same hymn book).

 

If we all just put our heads in our own little dung hill we will never get to smell the roses outside.

 

(Sorry for the horrible mixed metaphor )

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The one question I have to ask, "Is he dreaming"..There is an old Ozzie saying regarding enquiries:- "You just have to put a few bucks on the bar and sit back and listen" ------- You will get more information and will be more accurate. Simple.

Regards

 

Keith Page.

AUSSIE ya pelican

 

 

[Spriteah]

Thanks Crezzi... Appreciate your helpI leave my pilot certificate in my aircraft and can't remember the number to log in

Having read it, it's probably better it stays in the members only section.

 

Kaz

Really. I'm disappointed by that comment.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

 

[Spriteah]

I understand that Maj. I just can't see where our submission really addressed the Regulators effectiveness.

 

I haven't suggested a combined voice at all, Maj. In fact I think it is really important that each group highlights issues of particular relevance to it. I suggested some serious collaboration may have been very worth while so everyone presented a united voice on core issues (same hymn book).

 

If we all just put our heads in our own little dung hill we will never get to smell the roses outside.

 

(Sorry for the horrible mixed metaphor )

 

Kaz

So Kaz before those comments you read the terms of reference?

 

Jim.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Thanks Crezzi... Appreciate your helpI leave my pilot certificate in my aircraft and can't remember the number to log in

Having read it, it's probably better it stays in the members only section.

 

Kaz

Yes Kaz.. There are certain things which should not be out in the public arena, this is one.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[kaz3g]

So Kaz before those comments you read the terms of reference?Jim.

Yes, Jim, I read the terms of reference and the Minister's media release when he announced it. I followed the appointment of Phillip Reiss to the review as the representative of GA and I hoped that there might be also be a lot of constructive dialogue in the RAA submission around the retrogressive strict liability, big R regulator that CASA has become under the current senior management.

 

The introduction of strict liability into the whole of the CASR's is an attack on our fundamental rights and freedoms, something I would have thought particularly important to individuals noted for their free spirit approach to life. It takes away the most basic right of citizens in a free society - the presumption of innocence.

 

And the result of this is a loss of confidence in the system for reporting aviation incidents amid the fear of prosecution and imposition of regressive fines. The Regulator has already indicated that it is about to embark on the introduction of Infringement Notices but we seem to have heard nothing from it about its increased efforts to educate airspace users, maintainers, etc

 

But the reason for my comment that caused you to express disappointment was that I found the construction of the submission lacking the level of professionalism I would have hoped to see. I don't mean that criticism to be hurtful to any individual and I have no knowledge of its author, but in my view it was written as a friendly letter and not a structured submission with an introduction, a series of issues and solutions each clearly differentiated by a subject heading, and a reasoned conclusion. If you haven't looked at the AOPA and AAAA submissions, please do so as I think they are really instructive as to structure and have far greater depth.

 

Writing submissions to Government is a bit of an art that is possibly outside the skill set of our aviation minded Board. But RAA has enough money in the bank that when something as important as this comes along it could have been contracted out to a professional writer for a relatively modest fee. The importance of good submissions and their effect on credibility can't be overstated. I think I have a bit of credibility in this area because major submissions to Government and other major bodies are very much part of my work responsibilities.

 

As I said above, Jim, I don't want my comments to be taken as being derogatory of any individual, especially recognising the voluntary nature off their contributions, though no doubt some will still take them that way. I do want to see RAA continuing to grow and our love of aviation unimpeded by restrictive policies turned into regressive legislation.

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

Yes Kaz.. There are certain things which should not be out in the public arena, this is one.Regards

Keith Page.

I see we are in total agreement for once, Keith.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Spriteah]

Yes, Jim, I read the terms of reference and the Minister's media release when he announced it. I followed the appointment of Phillip Reiss to the review as the representative of GA and I hoped that there might be also be a lot of constructive dialogue in the RAA submission around the retrogressive strict liability, big R regulator that CASA has become under the current senior management.The introduction of strict liability into the whole of the CASR's is an attack on our fundamental rights and freedoms, something I would have thought particularly important to individuals noted for their free spirit approach to life. It takes away the most basic right of citizens in a free society - the presumption of innocence.

 

And the result of this is a loss of confidence in the system for reporting aviation incidents amid the fear of prosecution and imposition of regressive fines. The Regulator has already indicated that it is about to embark on the introduction of Infringement Notices but we seem to have heard nothing from it about its increased efforts to educate airspace users, maintainers, etc

 

But the reason for my comment that caused you to express disappointment was that I found the construction of the submission lacking the level of professionalism I would have hoped to see. I don't mean that criticism to be hurtful to any individual and I have no knowledge of its author, but in my view it was written as a friendly letter and not a structured submission with an introduction, a series of issues and solutions each clearly differentiated by a subject heading, and a reasoned conclusion. If you haven't looked at the AOPA and AAAA submissions, please do so as I think they are really instructive as to structure and have far greater depth.

 

Writing submissions to Government is a bit of an art that is possibly outside the skill set of our aviation minded Board. But RAA has enough money in the bank that when something as important as this comes along it could have been contracted out to a professional writer for a relatively modest fee. The importance of good submissions and their effect on credibility can't be overstated. I think I have a bit of credibility in this area because major submissions to Government and other major bodies are very much part of my work responsibilities.

 

As I said above, Jim, I don't want my comments to be taken as being derogatory of any individual, especially recognising the voluntary nature off their contributions, though no doubt some will still take them that way. I do want to see RAA continuing to grow and our love of aviation unimpeded by restrictive policies turned into regressive legislation.

 

Kaz

Kaz,

 

My understanding (passed on from our President who was in attendance) was the submission must strictly relate to the terms of reference and should be two to three pages long. If this is true then I consider our submission to be acurate and to the point within the terms of reference and requested format. As much as I enjoyed reading and personally support many views of the AAAA submission it did not in my view meet require criteria.

 

Ideally I would like to have the RAAus and AOPA submit a combine response to issues in the future when possible. Maybe one day we will achieve that goal. We can add about 9000 voices to any submission.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

RAAus Treasurer

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Jim,

 

The first page or so blatting on about ATSB assistance for investigating accidents was offered to us on a plate by Martin Dolan in Feb 2012! The then President Runciman and then CEO Tizzard did not take up the limited time offer and it lapsed. The then staff (Tizzard/Tully) were known to not want the ATSB involved presumably because it would limit the ability of RA-Aus to punish the guilty.

 

The most fundamentally wrong thing about CASA is its failure to normalise the basis for Recreational Aviation. Currently we operate under a stack of exemptions where, was it Part 103, was to give us rights and obligations not the confusion that stems from exceptions to rules.

 

CASA's appalling failure on getting a simple, clear set of Regulations in place is enough to warrant the dismissal of the entire organisation. AS the AAAA points out the Year Book was the most incredibly cynical bit of Goebel speak I have read in many a long day.

 

We should be applauding the AAAA for stating what should be the bleeding obvious. Their proposed solution is brilliant!

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Jim,The first page or so blatting on about ATSB assistance for investigating accidents was offered to us on a plate by Martin Dolan in Feb 2012! The then President Runciman and then CEO Tizzard did not take up the limited time offer and it lapsed. The then staff (Tizzard/Tully) were known to not want the ATSB involved presumably because it would limit the ability of RA-Aus to punish the guilty.

The most fundamentally wrong thing about CASA is its failure to normalise the basis for Recreational Aviation. Currently we operate under a stack of exemptions where, was it Part 103, was to give us rights and obligations not the confusion that stems from exceptions to rules.

 

CASA's appalling failure on getting a simple, clear set of Regulations in place is enough to warrant the dismissal of the entire organisation. AS the AAAA points out the Year Book was the most incredibly cynical bit of Goebel speak I have read in many a long day.

 

We should be applauding the AAAA for stating what should be the bleeding obvious. Their proposed solution is brilliant!

Don, just to set the record straight: Elimination of "regulation by exemption" was a major driver of the Review of regulations 1996, set up by John Sharpe. Dick Smith first pointed the finger at it in his book "Two years in the Aviation Hall of Doom", and it was an identified aim. I was a member of the steering committee of that review, for two years; in case people have forgotten, it's still happening, though a lot of the original concepts have been distorted. Getting rid of "regulation by exemption" has been on CASA's agenda now for at least two decades - and things are slowly moving that way.

The principal area of "regulation by exemption" is of course the 95 series Civil Aviation Orders, which are ALL exemption-based; and I'd venture to suggest that had the change been more precipitous it would have been a catastrophic shock for the various recreational aviation sectors, whose members seem allergic to reading the regulations, let alone observing them. The change essentially involves re-writing the regulations so that instead of saying "You can't do that, unless . . ." they say "You can do that, provided . . ." . Under the old system, exemptions were the only way to have an alternative to main-stream aviation.

 

The attempt represented by Part 103, was in my view a very mistaken approach; it was in effect a straight-jacket that would have strangled development of recreational aviation within a decade or two. It was attractive at the time because it appeared to provide room for growth - but it was essentially a straight-jacket that was two sizes too large at the time, so that appearance was illusory. Recreational aviation is not going to stand still; the RAA mis-management schemozzle has set it back in Australia for a while; but it must either grow or die; it cannot remain static. The advent of the RPL is in fact a doorway - for those that choose to use it - into the larger aviation world, from the recreational aviation world. It's an opportunity, not a threat. RAA needs to work out how to use it as such.

 

Yes, the AAAA submission was excellent. Our old regulations are piecemeal and ad-hoc. It's instructive to look at FAR Part 91; it manages to bring all the aspects of recreational aviation as they exist in the U.S.A. into the same arena as GA, without stomping on the activities - tho it makes organisations such as RAA irrelevant; and it's short & sweet compared to the CASA attempt at a Part 91. The New Zealanders have been smart enough to adopt it, without trying to "improve" it. We should be that smart.

 

 

[Stoney]

Wow, I have just finished reading the AAAA submission and think that it is one of the best letters I have seen. We should have more honest letters that say exactly what the reader means, too much of it these days is watered down to be politically correct.

 

By the way, if I was running the country CASA would be one of the first organisations that I would fix.

 

Unfortunately, I do not meet the requirements to be appointed to a senior Government position due to my parents being married when I was born.

 

 

[TAA up-into-the-air]

There is no risk of the directness of the AAAA submission and that of Phil Hurst should be congratulated. It is a pity that all involved in aviation don't stand up and be counted. The fear of retribution is certainly "alive and well" and unfortunately is real. The cosy relationship between ATSB and CASA, exposed in the PelAir inquiry is to be condemned and this type of internal interference with investigations has been traced by some as related to the 15 deaths at Lockhart River and the six deaths at Benalla. The DAS [McCormick] and ultimately the CASA Board have a lot to answer for in how poorly aviation is working in Australia.

 

The regs need changing to the US-FAR's and the CAAct completely re-written.

 

The way forward is to pro-actively start ringing, writing and e-mailing the Minister, the Board and your local member.

 

The relationship of high regulatio, it's removal and improvement to business that results, has a specific MP allocated to it. e-mail address is:

 

[email protected]

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Kaz's point about strict liability is an essential point that should be made, its purpose to be blunt is to reduce the need for full levels of investigation and to reduce the costs of prosecuting people. The reality is that as Kaz has pointed out our ability to fight to not be punished requires us to stump up mega $, where proper investigation in the first instance might well identify innocence before we are forced to spend that mega $$$$.

 

I agree that any approach in Australia to introduce and accept the concept of "strict liability" needs to be very carefully tested. If it was a case of equal power being tested in court then I'd personally be still unhappy but more accepting, reality though is that in no circumstances affecting recreational aviation can it ever be the case that defendant and prosecutor are of equal power, strict liability successfully ties the lessor powered defendants hands behind his back, presumably to make the stoush more fair????????

 

Andy

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I couldn't agree more, Andy; CASA relies on people not being able to afford to fight them in court. It's very far from justice.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...can it ever be the case that defendant and prosecutor are of equal power, strict liability successfully ties the lessor powered defendants hands behind his back, presumably to make the stoush more fair????????Andy

Reminds me of the story about an old rancher being hauled into court. His case was announced as Cyrus Wilkes versus the State of Texas, to which he cringed: lord what a majority!

 

 

[Oscar]

The AAAA submission is a excellent document, properly structured and strongly argued. It will have the Review Panel members returning to it many times as other lighter-weight submissions bring out points somewhat obliquely that perhaps reinforce concerns that the AAAA document has clearly identified and cogently addressed.

 

The RAA submission is, frankly, a disappointment. It will be read once by Panel members and basically put aside as a 'nothing to see here, move on' moment. While I have no point of debate with the points brought forward, I think it is a very poor effort in terms of breadth of content, and frankly woefully inadequate in terms of presentation. The idea that a 'gentle' approach towards CASA will somehow magically provide the RAA with Gold Elephant stamps and Brownie points with CASA that will in any way advance the interests of the organisation is amazingly naive. Our submission could have been polite, respectful, cogent and comprehensive without lacking in forcefulness; instead it is a somewhat rambling document that begs little more than a 'thanks for the thoughts' response.

 

 

[TAA up-into-the-air]

Current submissions to the ASRR:

 

http://vocasupport.com/election/regulatory-review-2013/asrr-submissions/

 

 

[TAA up-into-the-air]

US-FAR’s Please

 

Enough talk already, well done Senator Xenophon and team. The reply to the Senate over the PelAir report was given to the Senate around 4.45PM on Thurday 20th March 2014 and well reported on pprune.

 

The aviation world really does know what is needed and it is to get rid of the rubbish that remnants of the 2-airline policty have left us, re-structure the CAAct and un-lock the shackles.

 

The type of regulation casa has put in place has led us [kicking and screaming] to this point.

 

And in some cases at huge cost to participants as casa “get it wrong” – the current AVMED debacle over CVD and other assesments are examples.

 

Polar Aviation, Barrier and others.

 

Any number of of represenations to casa – such as the well documented case put by the AAAA show the philliblustering that occurs.

 

I am well aware that similar representations put to atsb recieve the same fate [Dick Smith and Benalla, Shane Urqhart and Lockhart River].

 

What is worse in these cases is the complicity of casa to bury information and “escape”.

 

Is the resignation of mccormick the first real crack in the casa shell??

 

Well exposed by Nick [is the casa conflict of interest] and the senate team in PelAir inquiry and the use of people such as Ian Harvey, the barrister commonly used by casa when “things get sticky” as Counsel assisting the Coroner in the Lockhart River inquest.

 

The ASRR inquiry must reflect the will of the aviation industry, not be watered down and fully implemented.