Is CASA moving (further) to the "dark side"?

[Captain]

Perhaps it is just me, but I sense that since the new boss has been in place CASA is making moves back to more control, less progressive changes for the better and trying to reign in the self regulated groups to some degree.

 

(Insert Jaws doo-doo doo-doo sound effects here ............. or is it just that we might be in the doo-doo with them?)

 

Does anyone else share my concerns, or am I just being paranoid again?

 

 

[GraemeK]

"Flight Safety" magazine just arrived today, and it got me thinking along the same lines.

 

In an interview the new CEO talks in terms of CASA becoming a "big-R Regulator", with more decision making directly by CASA and less consultation with industry/stakeholders.

 

He also (curiously) mentions his desire to get some CASA people inside the self-administering organisations such as RAAus. This seems like "big-R" with a vengeance, and will certainly reduce the independence of these groups. So I don't think you are being overly paranoid at all.

 

 

[Guest drizzt1978]

Michael's Prediction (Thats Me)

 

Casa Is shrinking

 

Ra AUS is growing

 

The two will become one, in one way or another, just give it time.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The question i asked before and ask again.

 

Is the CEO operating to his own agenda or the Govenments?

 

Also, how can he make change without consultation within the industry?

 

I can see a reality check coming for this guy.

 

 

[facthunter]

Comparo.

 

bit like dogs licking certain parts. They do it because they CAN. I share your concerns. CASA does not operate under the same function as does the FAA in USA. Casa is a regulator. It does not have to facilitate Aviation activities at all. The name says it ALL . Civil Aviation Safety AUTHORITY. In principal the industry pays for the regulator, but has no say (really) in how it operates. The punitive "on the spot" penalties and points loss , and savage court cases where individuals are sent broke by the need to defend a prosecution, are not appropriate in many cases. I am not comfortable with at all. WHY? Assuming that MOST pilots DO want to fly their planes safely, and would not deliberately breach a regulation. Wouldn't education and extra training be more appropriate. The confusion about the meaning of some of the regulations should be cleared up. CASA have been encouraging input on NPRM's etc for a long time. Is this just a show? Nev

 

 

[Captain]

The question i asked before and ask again. Is the CEO operating to his own agenda or the Govenments?

Also, how can he make change without consultation within the industry?

 

I can see a reality check coming for this guy.

OZ

 

We need to be vigilant that it isn't us that gets the "reality check" (or cheque).

 

Seems to be a bit the way the PS works unless you have a good CEO. New head honcho chucks his weight around, changes the color of the trains etc, spends a few hundred thousand on a new logo and a change of font on the letterhead, upgrades the website, stuffs it up for many under his control (and with an aviation "Authority" that means us), builds his resume and moves on/buggers off with all those below him taking every opportunity to increase their power base (and in the bad old days that meant that many CASA inspectors were out-of-control in the way they threw their weight around the industry).

 

It will take a strong leader there to keep them on the straight and narrow again now, and truly work for and with private & recreational aviation.

 

Under their previous regime they were heading towards hands-on control of commercial aviation and self regulation of private aviation. I thought that was a wise and good move for all, but I sense a change of direction recently.

 

I hope that the RA Aus Board is on the ball with this.

 

 

[Yenn]

Having watched CASA since it was DCA it seems to me that it is just a beaurocracy trying to grow ever larger. You would think after over 100 years of flying and being able to watch the US FAA, we could have sensible regulations, but as always we are in a state of overhaul. The FAA regs would work well for us, but the public servants would not then have the ability to spend years changing things, or even worse starting to change things and then going backwards. CASA has grown so strong that it can ignore the Minister supposedly responsible for controlling it. One word from the minister and it screams unsafe and gets its own way.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Some years ago the Parallel Path system came in when a drop zone owner was not happy with the way the APF was regulating him so he tried to start up his own association. Of course the Authority and the APF said no and it ended up in court. The DZ owner won and the parallel path set up came into being and either a group or individual could operate outside the existing govening bodies as long as they had an approved op regs (easy just scatch out the name of the existing one and insert your own banner, have insurance and pay CASA a fee to administer it.) It was expensive compared to the cost that you and i pay. But it was an alternative. The court ruled hat no single body or authority could have a monopoly (remember Telecom and Optus). So now the CEO has revoked the Parallel Path setup. I mean this guy has balls, he has revoked a decision set by the Crown. Seems that the CEO is operating outside our constitution and legislation.

 

 

[Tomo]

CASA's turning/has been to political I reckon, they need to sit down and listen to their members... become a friendly organization, would make it easier for all concerned.

 

Australia is the best place on earth to use aviation - but it is the hardest. It doesn't need to be like that.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi all, i just finished reading flight safety, the article. i thought i would quote this bit for people who dont receive the magazine - ' we've done a lot of work with self-admininistering organisations on risk mananagement, and legal work reorganising their deeds. Ideally, in the fullness of time, i'd like to be able to throw some more people in there from CASA.' He seams to have alot on his plate, for starters the new GAAP procedures,he wants to look at all CAR 217-check and training -organisations and go through their pilot training records. he looking at CAR 206 'closed charter' ie- RPT under the guise of charter, with is wrong in his eyes. I think to him you have RPT or nothing. I think the whole aviation industry is in for a shake up. Not just self-administrating bodies. Cheers

 

 

[dazza 38]

CASA's turning/has been to political I reckon, they need to sit down and listen to their members... become a friendly organization, would make it easier for all concerned.Australia is the best place on earth to use aviation - but it is the hardest. It doesn't need to be like that.

Good day Tomo- as facthunter has already enlighten us with. CASA being a government authority. It can be political at times but at the end of the day, as a authority, they can basically make the rules and we dont have a say in it. But generally, they do ask the us what we think through NPRM, and they do consult with all aviation bodies. It could be worse, i reckon. Kind regards (hope you had good rain over the last few days)

 

 

[Tomo]

Good day Tomo- as facthunter has already enlighten us with. CASA being a government authority. It can be political at times but at the end of the day, as a authority, they can basically make the rules and we dont have a say in it. But generally, they do ask the us what we think through NPRM, and they do consult with all aviation bodies. I could be worse, i reckon. Kind regards (hope you had good rain over the last few days)

Yeah true... I'm probably being a bit harsh! But when you sit back and look at it though, why would one get into aviation...?! There are so many variables it scares people off like none other!

 

Other than the usefulness and quickness of air transport and the shear fun/exhilaration of it, there wouldn't be much going for it. And they wonder why there is a shortage of pilots, mechanics?! Anyway stop me moaning, like you said it could be worse! :clown:

 

Yes we had pretty good Rain here Dazza, about 30mm all up, certainly enough to get planting some summer crops. :thumb_up:

 

 

[dazza 38]

Im hearing you buddy, i totally understand and agree with you. (flying was cancelled on saturday at boonah due to the rain that fell on friday) . I just rang Greg Neale at boonah to see how many people have rang him about flying a Baron HA HA, as the cover of flight safety has james morrison wearing his flying school hat. Anyway back to the topic- IMO-we are all worrried a bit or alot about what might happen, but at the moment i think it is a bit of a storm in a tea cup.Lets just sit back and see what happens went he has his say, at gympie in a few weeks time. kind regards Daryl

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

As i said before i am active in several different disiplines and have a few friends from the commercial areas. i just listen to what they have to say and everyone, not just RA, everyone is talking about him, i have yet to hear anyone say that they aren't concerned for their future in one way or another. right across the field lack of consultation and over regulating are the main concerns.

 

 

[GraemeK]

right across the field lack of consultation and over regulating are the main concerns.

My other concern is knee-jerk reactions. As stated in the Flight Safety article, the GAAP changes were rushed through because of the mid-air statistics.

 

Now 2 things are relevant here. Firstly, the statistics did not show a statistically significant trend in mid-airs - we did have a bit of a cluster but that is not uncommon in random, extremely low incidence events. So there was no need to rush in with poorly thought through changes.

 

Secondly, long term the changes may in fact increase the risk (eg by increased holding times at GAAP approach points while waiting for clearance). Plus the change to Class D means that AsA needs more ATC's (which they don't have).

 

My tip is the GAAP to Class D changes will be deferred, possibly for quite some time (HINT: the CEO in the interview makes a great point of "well, we'll act quickly to make changes, but if there are problems then we'll just defer implementation then everyone's happy" - so he's already preparing for the inevitable backdown). BTW, what's the difference between deferring the change on the one hand and making the change and deferring implementation on the other - seems curious logic, dare I say spin!

 

Given this background I really worry about what might happen if we had a couple of major RA accidents in a short time - despite probably having no statistical significance you can bet that the new CASA would come down on us with great force.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Well we recently have had a couple of RA fatal accidents. One in WA and the one near Hay.

 

Unfortunatly it may be a case of 'welcome to what GA has been putting up with, and suffering under for many years'. And look where GA is today ?.

 

CASA has never worked out, that they are there to serve the aviation flying public.

 

They also need to realise that there always has been,and there always will be, accidents and fatalities in aviation.

 

I think they do have ideas that we ARE the new GA...............................................

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Hmmm wonder what comments Dick Smith would have at this time.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Well we recently have had a couple of RA fatal accidents. One in WA and the one near Hay.Unfortunatly it may be a case of 'welcome to what GA has been putting up with, and suffering under for many years'. And look where GA is today ?.

CASA has never worked out, that they are there to serve the aviation flying public.

 

They also need to realise that there always has been,and there always will be, accidents and fatalities in aviation.

 

I think they do have ideas that we ARE the new GA...............................................

Hello Major Millard, i agree with you, as we got bigger, the the spot light is put on us. I think we know, IMO we have got so big, that we cant be written off as like the old days, i mean 20 years ago when we were little then. GA thought we would die a lonely death, and just wittle away. We havent, we will be the new GA, if not already. For private/recreation flying, flying a ultralight is within reach of alot people, more than that flying a 4 seat piper or cessna at $250 or $300 dollars a hour( i havent flown GA for a long time so my estimate is a guess). Anyway apart from streamed line commercial courses from knowing nothing to being a CPL .. We have the field, apart from people who want to take more than one passenger.We have hurt alot of GA schools from the old days, so be it, the smart ones became dual schools and accepted that we were not going to go away and could see the advantage. As for fatalities,you would think that it would be no different to car crashes, as in more people on the road more people die, but as we got bigger, our fatalities have reduced we fly alot more hours that the old days with fewer fatalities. I dont agree with the sudden changes that are being put on to us. All i am saying is that just wait and see, what actually changes are made if any. Kind regards Daryl

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi GraemeK, what worries me with the new GAAP changes is, with the maximum of 6 a/c in a circuit. what happens if a student gets to a inbound reporting point and calls inbound. Then is told know sorry the circuit is full. He/she will probably turn around and head outbound on a 180 degree heading to the inbound a/c. I thought the whole point of these new procedures was to prevent head on colisions. If they go to the US class D airspace, from what i have read, their is no IRP so you can come in on any radial.

 

 

[GraemeK]

Yep dazza - at the moment, there's potentially dangerous congestion about the reporting points if there's no slot in the circuit. And the issue of people flying outbound on an inbound track over a VRP is an issue highlighted in the current "Flight Safety" - nasty.

 

If we go to the US style Class D, then you can come in from any direction, so problem solved!

 

Except for two things - firstly I'm not sure if CASA's going the whole hog on Class D and abolishing reporting points or whether we're gunna continue with our own local "flavour" - secondly I'm not sure which is worse, everyone congregating around one VRP where at least you know where everyone's coming from, or having people coming from all directions so you need eyes in the back of your head! In the US environment where you have heaps of radar coverage, maybe not an issue ...

 

Again, maybe a bit of consultation might have come up with a better solution.

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

Hmmm wonder what comments Dick Smith would have at this time.

Good idea Ozzie, let's go over to pprune and ask..(he is a serial poster on that site)

 

maybe he would like to come on here and share experience and wisdom from his perspective.

 

 

[Thx1137]

Good idea Ozzie, let's go over to pprune and ask..(he is a serial poster on that site)maybe he would like to come on here and share experience and wisdom from his perspective.

He has a document that I think has some relevance at National Airspace System (NAS) Document. Search for the word GAAP. He also has a section called "Reviews of the "Ambidji GAAP Report"". they don't sound impressed!

 

Here is a snippit from the first document, written in 2001.

 

2.1 Class D airspace

 

 

Application

 

 

Class D airspace will exist at non-radar controlled TMAs where a tower service is provided. GAAP aerodromes will be designated Class D aerodromes, and if necessary, a difference lodged with ICAO with respect to VMC minima.

 

 

Design

 

 

 

 

The control zone will be of minimum dimensions so as to protect IFR and visual circuit and approach procedures in accordance with the MOS.

 

 

The CTR and associated Class D steps will capture the arrival and departure profile of high performance aircraft and extend to 4500 AMSL to abut overlying Class E airspace. The end state model will follow North American architecture.

 

 

Procedures

 

 

 

 

Class D procedures will be aligned to the FAA application.

 

 

While VFR aircraft in Class D airspace are subject to an airways clearance (ICAO Annex 11, App. 4), the clearance may be implicit as is current practice at GAAP Zones and in US Class D airspace.[ii]

 

 

 

8 Benefits include simplicity and standardised training. GAAP currently applies non-ICAO VMC criteria.[/url]

 

 

 

9 On advice of intent to the Tower an implicit clearance is assumed by VFR aircraft unless the Tower directs otherwise. This is consistent with FAA practice.

 

 

[Mazda]

The National Airspace System is current Government policy. So the push to move from GAAP to Class D has been on the cards for a very long time. It just took someone with guts to actually make the reforms.

 

I think CASA has turned a corner for the better. It has a CEO with loads of aviation experience, a current pilot and aircraft owner, and someone prepared to make tough decisions while hearing the voices of the little guys.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Mazda , I am hearing what you say. As long as he listens to, and understands the little guys' point of view. This man has come from the top, he's been as far from the 'littleguy' as you can get............In my days as a 77Sqn Mirage ground crew, (his old Sqn) we had some pilots who simply thought the little guys were just there to run after them, when they left their flying gloves in the ready room !!.........................................................................................

 

 

[Matt]

I echo Mazda's comments...also appreciate the need for all aviation operators to be treated fairly and equitably...ultimately though, CASA's primary role is to ensure safety for the fare paying public. Recreational / sport (i.e. non-commercial) aviation I expect would be down the list of priorities despite some of us hoping otherwise.

 

As I have read and heard directly from John at a recent conference, the move to self-administration for the majority (all?) non-commercial aviation is something he is keen to see. This should be seen as a positive result for all non-commercial operators. The fact that CASA will be looking over the shoulder of these organisations is perfectly reasonable - as self-administrators they have a delegated authority to fulfill the role and meet the obligations / expectations that CASA would otherwise be doing & meeting. Should we expect any less?