The "C" in CASA

[old man emu]

The actions, or inactions, of the Authority governing aviation in Australia provide a lot of material for discussion in these forums, and any worthwhile discussion demands that the participants do a modicum of research. I took at look at CASA's most recent Annual Report (2014-2015)

 

Annual Report 2014-15 | Civil Aviation Safety Authority to see what the Authority was telling us.

 

What struck me were these two principles of CASA's role:

 

> The primary consideration of CASA and industry in undertaking their respective functions should be safety

 

> Passenger transport operations should be the highest safety priority

 

I'm not adverse to a government agency holding a tight rein on operators of public transport systems to ensure that the travelling public completes its journeys in safety, and that safety is not compromised by the erosion of good maintenance standards by bean counters whose only goal is to maximise the bottom line in any way possible.

 

However, this fixation by CASA on the commercial side of aviation is stifling the support and promotion of the non-commercial sector where people engage in aviation-related pursuits in the same way as they engage in non-commercial road transport pursuits.

 

Would those responsible for our road traffic rules ever consider imposing the same rules that apply to highway driving to activities such as bush-bashing, organised motor sports? They won't even consider imposing driver fatigue regulations on private drivers conducting long distance trips, despite driver fatigue being a major cause of road trauma outside of metropolitan areas.

 

CASA has developed myopia which is adversely affecting the rights of a sector of the community to enjoy a lawful activity. Unfortunately, it is a detailed review of what CASA is doing that will be a catalyst for making the Authority realise that it is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, not the Commercial Aviation Safety Authority.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[Yenn]

CASA is charged with keeping flying safe and we all know that the easiest way to do that is to keep aeroplanes on the ground and I have been vocal about this in the past. Having attended the fly in at Thangool this weekend I was able to speak to other pilots and also to a CASA rep.

 

I enjoy baiting people in authority and this weekend was no different, but after having a go at Lee Ungerman several times and attending his forum I can honestly say there appears to be movement in CASA. Lee advises that there is more scope given to in field CASA reps to use common sense nowadays and he appears to be actively promoting sport flying.

 

As I was asked by the fly in co ordinator to show what a homebuilt GA plane could do I agreed to do a low height high speed fly past and also a slow flypast. This was done with radio contact to the temporary "tower". I was chipped about this by one of the ELAAA directors, who I think considered it bad practice. I later talked to the CASA man, Lee and he said he saw it and was busy at the time and said it could be illegal, but considered it acceptable in the situation. Funny that the low speed pass was not commented on and it was more likely to come unstuck than the high speed.

 

My reason for the high speed pass if I had been seriously questioned was to check my static system. Not needed.

 

This shows that CASA are not there to stamp on us and I didn't even get ramp checked. Of those pilot at the forum who had been ramp checked at other placs the general opinion was that it was a good experience and they learnt something from it, which is my experience. I wonder how many pilots have been ramp checked, to me it seems to be a small proportion.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

That's a well thought out post OME.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Yen, what was the concern of the ELAAA guy? If you were over 500 ft agl and under 200 kts you are totally legal I would have thought.

 

 

[flyerme]

Ive been ramp checked, was my very first flyin. it was quick and basically checked my details and paper work. My only gripe was that it was " random" so only a couple of us got checked

 

On the subject of flight display I'm not sure the requirements at a " flyin" but at an airshow you have to submit strict details of your flight performance to CASA for approval. That means your hight,speeds, how many circuits, every manoeuvre etc.. has already been approved before take off. I say before take off as the last show I did ( Jamestown over 8000 spectators) my approved display had to be changed on the day of show due to so many aircraft on display requiring holding patterns , my nieupy flies to slow to hold so I requested a full display , also as they wanted me flying in circuit with the tiger moths I had to request my circuit be reduced to 500ft and in the small circuit area whilst the tigers flew at 800 ft in the wide circuit. CASA approved this on the spot no dramas.

 

 

[Yenn]

Kevin. The ELAAA director I think thought that my flypast was poor airmanship. The height was about 100' and it was below 200knots.

 

All is OK as far as I can see and we are all in agreement.

 

I would not normally like to see someone doing a beat up of the airport and have been vocal about someone doing a high speed pass downwind and unannounced at our local strip. I must admit that I didn't complain when The Roulettes did a low pass across Old Station a few years ago, close to last light. Also non announced.

 

I am not sure of the legality of what I did. One way to check for static system errors is to check the altimeter reading at speed close to runway level. If it reads differently from what it reads on the ground the static pressure is not the same at speed, so you have a static problem. I now know that my system is OK.

 

 

[Bernie Knight]

CASA

 

Mmmm it will be a brave, thick skull, patient and tolerant person who takes on the role of CEO next

 

You can only bang your head on the wall for so long ..

 

 

[SDQDI]

Kevin. The ELAAA director I think thought that my flypast was poor airmanship. The height was about 100' and it was below 200knots.All is OK as far as I can see and we are all in agreement.

I would not normally like to see someone doing a beat up of the airport and have been vocal about someone doing a high speed pass downwind and unannounced at our local strip. I must admit that I didn't complain when The Roulettes did a low pass across Old Station a few years ago, close to last light. Also non announced.

 

I am not sure of the legality of what I did. One way to check for static system errors is to check the altimeter reading at speed close to runway level. If it reads differently from what it reads on the ground the static pressure is not the same at speed, so you have a static problem. I now know that my system is OK.

I would've thought if it was at 100feet and you were not taking off or landing or going around or abiding by the conditions of your LL endorsement that it would be clearly illegal?

Having said that I do enjoy watching low passes unless of course they endanger others recklessly

 

 

[Aldo]

My reason for the high speed pass if I had been seriously questioned was to check my static system

Yenn

 

I would have thought you just got the approach wrong and were completing a go around. HaHa

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yen, what was the concern of the ELAAA guy? If you were over 500 ft agl and under 200 kts you are totally legal I would have thought.

He wasn't and should have received a gigantic kick in the bum!

There should have been a warning from the last piece of U500 news where the pilot killed someone, and was charged with manslaughter.

 

 

[DrZoos]

You'd have to be mad to take on the CASA top job, when other jobs pay more, have 1/10th the issues and when you stuff it up you get a huge bonus