CASA 292/14 - Conditions and direction about Jabiru engines

[Oscar]

Nev, I would agree that 'appears' is a key word, and I'll go further and suggest that anybody who has been on the receiving end of Rod Stiff's displeasure (and I have) would not be drawing too long a bow by having the distinct impression that he could create a battlezone over a friendly beer.. but that impression does not make it fact.

 

I was a Commonwealth Public Servant for 27 years, with a break as a consultant, before going into private enterprise. The Public Service is an absolutely hierarchical organisation and while I had many opportunities to contribute to policy development, in the finality, policy comes top-down. If one is specifically directed to act in a certain way, you have a choice of obeying the order or resigning your position - it's that simple.

 

Because of the legislative structure for the control of 'aviation', all forms of Sport aviation are forced to be politically aware. It is utterly pointless and entirely counter-productive to rail against the minutiae of the situation, and it is most certainly useless to target individuals who have no power to change the situation.

 

For the sake of the future of recreational / Sport aviation, I personally endorse the idea that 'bad' legislation / regulation should be fought tooth and nail with every weapon we can muster - but please: let's get the right targets.

 

 

[facthunter]

Unless you have experience in politics and dealing with beurocracies, you have no idea, how to handle it, and it is still a lot of suck it and see.. I think our new CEO might have a clue or two. CASA was NEVER easy. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

The new DAS has talked the talk. Lets see if he walks the walk. What is it, 8 months or more since the release of the Forsyth report & not one skerrick of change to date even though the government has approved (well given lip service anyway) 36 of the 37 recommendations.

 

 

[Camel]

He already has failed badly, in the CASA newsletter page he says you give feedback and he acts in relation to angel flight. So there was a lot of feedback regard Jabiru but all that has happened is NOTHING except ignoring the feedback. I believe there was 650 responses regarding Jabiru.

 

We listened to feedback and acted

 

CASA will not pursue the option of requiring community service flights to be operated under the authority of a self-administering organisation. This follows an analysis of the responses to a discussion paper issued in 2014 on the most appropriate safety standards for charity flights. In the discussion paper CASA indicated preliminary support for an option requiring community service flights to be conducted within the rules of a CASA approved self-administration organisation. However, responses to the paper opposed this option for a number of reasons including cost and complexity. CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore, said at present the guidelines and practices used by community service flight organisations such as Angel Flight are sufficient. “We have listened to the feedback to CASA’s preferred option and we accept this is not the way to proceed,” Mr Skidmore said. “CASA is not proposing any changes to the existing regulatory requirements for community service flights at this time. That does not mean we have stopped looking at this issue completely as the discussion paper put forward ten options – including doing nothing, passenger briefings and additional pilot training and checking. If CASA does propose to explore any of these options further there will be additional consultation with the aviation community and the public before any changes are implemented.” There were 72 submissions in response to the community service flight discussion paper.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I have always reckoned the taxpayer should have an interest in all the money being spent on over-policing sport aviation including Jabiru.

 

Then I felt sorry for Hockey with the Senate refusing his money-saving proposals. So I wrote to him to say there is one saving measure where the "recipients" will be grateful not angry. Cut back on the CASA budget for sport aviation I said. There are higher priorities for money which has to be borrowed, and us retirees are more than capable of looking out for ourselves anyway I said. We have a whole organization devoted to this.

 

Well I finally got quite a polite reply from a fairly senior treasury official who had at least read my email. But alas he had forwarded it to CASA and I so got stuff about how CASA had a duty under legislation etc etc.

 

It's a worry (for whoever is going to eventually pay the deficit) that even senior treasury officials don't have any sense of urgency over spending money the government doesn't even have... but what scares me most is the idea of "user pays" for "services" we don't want.

 

At least this idea was not mentioned in the reply I got.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I feel sorry for hockey too

 

 

[Camel]

Interesting reading.

 

http://vocasupport.com/casa/casa-and-actions-against-the-industry/

 

http://vocasupport.com/11-questions-to-casa/

 

Has CASA changed ?

 

 

[facthunter]

Forwarding your submission to the CASA without first asking you is not the right way of doing things. Nev

 

 

[SDQDI]

100 percent agree Nev.

 

"Hey big brother this little fella is complaining about how we let you do things, here is his name and address you better go chase him up."

 

More like something you would expect from the mafia.

 

 

[Camel]

Forwarding your submission to the CASA without first asking you is not the right way of doing things. Nev

I'm not quite following your thoughts, a google search brought these up and it's similar to the Jabiru scenario. CASA had an opportunity to consult and discuss and may have come up with a plan that would provide a good solution. CASA did put it up for discussion but it showed it had no interest in what anyone had to say although they softened the action, an article said over 600 responses, do you think they read all of them ? I personally am waiting for many more responses to letters and am amused by the fact this engine has been around for quite a while and the experimental implications are ridiculous. An example is a Jabiru engine fitted with Rotec liquid cooled heads.

 

To me CASA actions are Mafia style or is this what you infer SDQDI . They should identify the exact problem, exact model of engine, serial no, series and ask Jabiru to fix it. Jabiru engines had problems but now the biggest problem is if they are not perfect who would buy one ?

 

 

[facthunter]

Camel, the issue is passing on a letter to CASA without asking the sender, (or at least de-identifying him/her). it's improper to do it out of consideration for the sender, without authority. They shouldn't have to be told this. It's totally sloppy process.. Nev

 

 

[Camel]

Camel, the issue is passing on a letter to CASA without asking the sender, (or at least de-identifying him/her). it's improper to do it out of consideration for the sender, without authority. They shouldn't have to be told this. It's totally sloppy process.. Nev

Sorry, I thought it was my post that concerned you but now I understand, I agree fully.

 

 

[gandalph]

Camel, the issue is passing on a letter to CASA without asking the sender, (or at least de-identifying him/her). it's improper to do it out of consideration for the sender, without authority. They shouldn't have to be told this. It's totally sloppy process.. Nev

Worse than that Nev, it's unethical.

 

 

[UltraFlash]

Worse than that Nev, it's unethical.

I would have also thought it wasn't legal, passing on correspondence addressed to them in confidence. Did you ask the question of them as to why they took this course of action?

The issue is, as is common in government, public servants in one department looking after themselves and their 'mates' in another department with complete disregard for taxpayers or the real-world effects of their actions.

 

 

[facthunter]

One could be forgiven for asking "where were they trained". It's SO BASIC. Or has ethics disappeared from everything these days? Nev

 

 

[2tonne]

I would have also thought it wasn't legal, passing on correspondence addressed to them in confidence. Did you ask the question of them as to why they took this course of action?The issue is, as is common in government, public servants in one department looking after themselves and their 'mates' in another department with complete disregard for taxpayers or the real-world effects of their actions.

If you send someone a letter and don't want them to pass it on, you should make it clear that it is "Confidential". Otherwise, I think they are free to do with it whatever they want.

 

 

[facthunter]

Utterly disagree. It's ethics. Do you do that with all your emails? Some do. "Disregard if not the intended recipient" etc In the circumstances where the CASA is the subject of the correspondence and the sender expresses views, one would assume the sender would have CC'd the letter or sent it to CASA themselves, if that was what they wanted. It's a betrayal if an implied trust. IF you knew they onsent correspondence to anyone they wish to without clearing it, beforehand, would you still deal with them? Nev

 

 

[2tonne]

I wasn't suggesting that passing on correspondence without consent is the right thing to do, but it does happen even when people believe they are doing it for the right reasons, for example they might think they are just passing it on to the relevant person/department. I try to treat all written correspondence as public information, ie don't say something you would regret someone else reading. Although the nature of a letter might imply that it is confidential, if it is meant for the eyes of one person only I make sure to tell them so.

 

 

[Oscar]

This whole issue is a bit more complex than just a simple question of ethics.

 

Let me presage what follows by saying that passing on details of an individual's complaint to the relevant Govt. department on an issue over which they have jurisdiction concerning the action(s) of another Govt. department, as a result of which the complained-of 'other Govt. Department' would be placed in receipt of information that could prejudice their actions towards the complaining individual, is certainly unethical. By way of example: If I had been subject to, let us say, a determination of evading tax by the ATO and had a penalty placed upon me, that I then complained (on reasonable grounds) to the Attorney-General's Department was unconstitutional according to Section XXX of the Constitution and the A-G's Dept. had passed on my correspondence to the ATO, I think that would be extremely unethical. The result of the A-G's Dept. passing on details of my complaint could well see the ATO unleashing their hell-hounds onto me.

 

From reading Bruce Tuncks' post, it seems to me that what he proposed to the Treasury was that Commonwealth funding being applied to the regulation of recreational aviation in Australia was basically wasting resources. I happen to agree with that position; the impact on society in general from recreational aviation is miniscule and significant de-regulation of its activities would make not one jot of difference to society in general. As long as recreational aircraft are not operating in a way that has them causing the crashes of RPTs or falling into the midst of heavily-populated areas, even the fatality rate of recreational aviation in its worst years comes even within a bull's roar of say rock fishing or some other recreational activities, yet we have one of the most tightly regulated areas of activity. Far more people die and are injured in quad-bike accidents every year than in recreational/sport aviation, but we do not have the very considerable governmental cost of a dedicated team of people involved in the regulation of quad bikes...

 

If - and I am perhaps jumping to conclusions here - Bruce's letter to the Treasurer basically said: 'we, the actual participants in recreational aviation, don't want or even need this level of Governmental involvement our activities, it doesn't help anybody, and it's a waste of taxpayers' money' - it is simply a 'heads-up' to Treasury that here is an area where Govt. expenditure could be better spent elsewhere. I would call that a damn good idea.

 

Unless Bruce had specifically included information in his letter to Treasury that he has committed an offence that falls within CASA's purview to punish him, I don't see that he could be victimised by CASA even knowing all the contents of his letter. If Treasury had simply referred his comments to CASA saying, in effect: 'here's an argument that your expenditure on control of recreational aviation is a waste of money - tell us why he isn't correct?', I personally believe that that is a fair and reasonable exchange of information between Govt. departments.

 

It could well be that Bruce's letter to Treasury might kick-off a review of CASA's allocation of and need for Govt. resources. I think any reasonable person would expect Treasury to seek CASA's position rather than taking a unilateral decision to change the disposition of resources to its functions.

 

We don't have any of the 'source documents' by which to make a judgement on whether Treasury passing whatever information it did to CASA is in fact a breach of ethics; I think it is more reasonable to place this in the area of 'more information needed' before making pronouncements.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't wish to add anything to what I've already said , as I have qualified my statements at every stage. It's not a matter of judging the contents as we introduce another factor. People I have corresponded with at high level have always sought my permission to use material I've sent to them. Nev

 

 

[Camel]

I just saw an interesting article some Jabiru owners and flying schools with Jabiru may be interested in. It is dated march 12th 2015 so is recent.

 

https://www.shine.com.au/operating-limitations-on-aircraft-with-jabiru-engines/

 

please think carefully before any comments.

 

 

[SDQDI]

There is money in it for them win or lose.

 

 

[Camel]

There is money in it for them win or lose.

Yes but I find your comment inappropriate considering you do not own a jabiru ! the Jabiru has played a significant part in establishing recreational flying in this country. I have been addressing the issues with CASA myself and have lost much time and money already, have you lost anything ? I take this serious and have followed it carefully. Like I said Think carefully before comments ! This is about the freedom of recreational flying in this country as the limitations are not anywhere else ! I did not post this for your entertainment, it was for those that are genuinely interested !

 

 

[SDQDI]

I understand that camel but just make sure you have more than one opinion before you jump in. You're right I don't have a jab and so far this hasn't affected me, but I wouldn't want to see you or any other fellow flyer lose more money if things don't work out in your favour.

 

 

[Camel]

I understand that camel but just make sure you have more than one opinion before you jump in. You're right I don't have a jab and so far this hasn't affected me, but I wouldn't want to see you or any other fellow flyer lose more money if things don't work out in your favour.

Like I said I have been following very carefully and I am an FTF so am well aware of all what is happening, I'm more afraid of doing nothing and letting CASA destroy rather than fix and even more afraid of others doing nothing. The actions against Jabiru are similar to actions against others but.no one cared because they were small but I cared and still do.