The Sad Case Of Glen Buckley.

[walrus]

…..Which is chronicled on Pprune.,…..

 

I am concerned for  his health and well being.

 

‘’This case, in my opinion, will scare off anyone wishing to invest in this industry, as will the sagas of Bristell, Jabiru and Angelflight.

 

Couldn’t the Act be changed to allow CASA some leeway to promote investment in aviation?

[turboplanner]

4 hours ago, walrus said:

‘’This case, in my opinion, will scare off anyone wishing to invest in this industry, as will the sagas of Bristell, Jabiru and Angelflight.

 

Couldn’t the Act be changed to allow CASA some leeway to promote investment in aviation?

CASA is exactly what the name says, a Safety body,  the Compliance and Enforcement component of Aviation in Australia.

So many people seem to be caught like a deer in the spotlight thinking it is something it isn't, then expecting something that CASA has no power to deliver, and then capping it off by doing the same thing over and over and over again.

 

Think of it as the C&E department of a major Company.

It's the Marketing Department which produces the Marketing policies used to promote the Company's products, and it's the Sales Department which executes those policies. C&E just manage safety in the organisation by coming up with corporate procedures.

 

Same with CASA.

 

So for a start CASA isn't there to promote aviation; C&E is never there in Corporate structures to promote them or to reduce their costs (unless by coming up with safer standards which produce less accidents).

 

CASA are there to make black and white go/no go decisions; those decisions cannot have anything to do with viability of an organisation, leniency "this time" or turning a blind eye. That doesn't, or shouldn't be happening anywhere in CASA or corporate or government.

 

Where someone feels they've been hard done by, there are appeals processes; Natural Justice is a legal requirement in all parts of our society.

 

 

 

 

[FlyBoy1960]

CASA is there is a safety regulator. To get the absolute best safety results you need to minimise your exposure. In  this case if you stop aircraft from flying then you are significantly reducing your exposure risk.

 

In a perfect world from a CASA perspective, I am sure that they would only like to see Qantas and Virgin type of operations which are by statistics very safe, they can then, pack their back, give themselves a wage rise and declare they are doing a fantastic job. All they need to do is to get rid of GA and RA-Aus because these are the segments which are affecting their safety ratings.

 

It can only be in their interests to reduce their risk exposure by stopping GA and recreational aviation for the reasons given above

[turboplanner]

4 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

CASA is there is a safety regulator. To get the absolute best safety results you need to minimise your exposure. In  this case if you stop aircraft from flying then you are significantly reducing your exposure risk.

It can only be in their interests to reduce their risk exposure by stopping GA and recreational aviation for the reasons given above

That's the Chooky Looky "sky is falling version" which has been repeated generation by generation since the original flying doctor pulled his stunts.

 

[Student Pilot]

CASA motto, "We're not happy till your not happy". The way GA has gone in the last 30 years there will be no flying to make safe soon. Anybody in GA (Apart from those with a vested interest in CASA) know how hard it it is to work with CASA.