Move over RAA here comes CASA

[Guest JRMobile]

Just reading the CASA monthly news letter and came across this:

 

"In relation to sports aviation the Policy Statement says: “To improve the sport and recreational sector’s capacity to self-administer, CASA will be introducing a strategic

 

framework that ensures the sector does not expose non-participants or their property to unacceptable risks and allows for future growth of the sector. A Sports Aviation Office will be created to oversee the sector, and a safety forum introduced to assist information exchange within the sector itself and between it and the safety regulator

 

regarding operational and maintenance standards in the sector. CASA will also implement a Sport Aviation Safety Network to assist self-administering organisations in implementing risk reduction strategies and to integrate oversight between CASA, self-administering organisations and industry operators.”"

 

It is referring to the Govt's aviation white paper, Im never any good at deciphering political speak but it seems to read as if we are going to see more CASA, ie more bureaucracy in our every day flying or am I reading to much into it?

 

Cheers JR

 

 

[Captain]

Just reading the CASA monthly news letter and came across this:"In relation to sports aviation the Policy Statement says: “To improve the sport and recreational sector’s capacity to self-administer, CASA will be introducing a strategic

framework that ensures the sector does not expose non-participants or their property to unacceptable risks and allows for future growth of the sector. A Sports Aviation Office will be created to oversee the sector, and a safety forum introduced to assist information exchange within the sector itself and between it and the safety regulator

 

regarding operational and maintenance standards in the sector. CASA will also implement a Sport Aviation Safety Network to assist self-administering organisations in implementing risk reduction strategies and to integrate oversight between CASA, self-administering organisations and industry operators.”"

 

It is referring to the Govt's aviation white paper, Im never any good at deciphering political speak but it seems to read as if we are going to see more CASA, ie more bureaucracy in our every day flying or am I reading to much into it?

 

Cheers JR

John,

 

I fear that you are spot on, and to my mind this is a reversal of Gov't Policy where CASA was going to regulate the commercial sector and the RAA, GFA and ultimately GA were to regulate themselves.

 

Whenever a beaurocrat is going to "help you" to "improve your performance", then you can bet they'll stuff it up.

 

That is sure to be one way to reverse the RA Aus boom in membership.

 

Let's get some flying done before they "help" too much.

 

Regards Geoff

 

PS See my earlier thread on "Is CASA moving to the Dark Side". Your post is more evidence and I hope that our Board is on the ball.

 

PPS It worries me greatly when they choose to use words that refer to our "Sector" exposing "non-participants or their property to unacceptable risks". Surely that means that they want more than Just RA Aus aircraft not flying over built-up areas.

 

PPSS And I suspect that the LAME lobby & the other forces of darkness will be in there kicking RA Aus as hard as they can.

 

 

[facthunter]

Safety.

 

Bad Vibes from the start. We may have put up a poor show on occasions but broad brushes do not paint masterpieces. The safest form of flying is when all the planes are on the ground and the self-regulated airlines oil their propaganda machines and Pollies have post Canberra Club, free flights into perpetuity. Nev

 

 

[GraemeK]

Not surprising - the new CASA director said some time ago he wanted to put CASA staff inside the "self administering organisations". To help, of course, as in "we're here from the Government ....".

 

Despite all the soothing rhetoric, the actions (much louder than words) of the new CASA speak to a controlling culture - and I fear for its impact not only on RAAus but also on GA.

 

 

[Powerin]

Excuse my ignorance but I often wonder why recreational aviation (or aviation in general) is subject to such hysterical scrutiny. I mean, how much damage can a RAA aircraft actually do in a crash? If you come down on someone's house I dare say there might be a bit of damage and maybe even death or injury to someone on the ground.

 

But people are killed or injured, and damage caused, every day by cars or trucks. Many are "non-participants" and their property. And hardly anybody bats an eyelid. You get an ultralight aircraft down out in the bush with one person on board and it makes the national news. What is it about aviation that scares everyone so much?

 

Peter

 

 

[facthunter]

Why?

 

C'mon, The airlines have been in his ear. (where he comes from) We don't want adsb. Lee Ungermann stood up against that. Rightly so in the form and cost that it was to be. They want to land straight in even when the rest of the circuit is going in another direction. Some of us might end up in their windscreen. Shoo -- go away.

 

Does it really matter that we will probably have to import pilots in the future the way things are going? How things can change in such a short time. I sold the Citabria 2 days ago. Even I know when I am beaten. Slow learner. Nev

 

 

[Mazda]

I think you are jumping to conclusions. John McCormick wants to encourage participation in aviation, including RA-Aus.

 

As for the Government's White Paper, why not read it?

 

 

[facthunter]

Possibly.

 

Maybe I am. there is always that possibility. I can only make a judgement on the picture as I perceive it. I would like to be wrong. Perhaps you know something that I don't. Nev

 

 

[Powerin]

How things can change in such a short time. I sold the Citabria 2 days ago. Even I know when I am beaten. Slow learner. Nev

Wow. Are things that bad? I really better start learning to fly before it's too late!

 

 

[skeptic36]

and a safety forum introduced to assist information exchange within the sector itself and between it and the safety regulator

Perhaps the safety regulator could just log on here and that would be one less thing they had to organize.

Regards Bill

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

My moneys on our ex-CEO ending up in the new CASA 'Sport Aviation Office'. Anyone care to match me ?..............................................................................................

 

 

[HEON]

There are pigs and pigs...cannot stay here on the forum any longer as I have to rush off and reread "1984".

 

 

[Admin]

My moneys on our ex-CEO ending up in the new CASA 'Sport Aviation Office'. Anyone care to match me ?..............................................................................................

I'll put $10 up against you mate! ;)

 

 

[Vev]

I read the White Paper and my take is there is a solid recognition the RAA's self administering model has been a success and this model could be extended to allow CASA to focus on “higher priority passenger carrying operations”.

 

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

 

The paper recognises the fact recreational aviation is growing and GA is declining owing to over regulation and slow reform by CASA. The paper says there has been a wide spread call to extend the self administration for private GA and would only be contemplated if a body could demonstrate it can competently manage regulations and improve safety….. again this is said in the context that the RAA approach has been successful and is only subject to external audit by CASA to ensure compliance.

 

<o:p></o:p>

 

To put things in context re JR’s 1<SUP>st</SUP> post .. It’s my opinion the introduction of a Safety Strategic Framework and a Sport Aviation Officer is an investment as well as an endorsement that self administration has been a success and has a green light to grow.

 

<o:p></o:p>

 

The RAA has and will always be subjected to CASA audit .. in my view the White Paper is about putting in place sufficient resources to allow self administration to grow and allow CASA to show due diligence around safety and aviation regulations. The other good piece .. this formalises and hard wires the RAA’s access onto CASA’s agenda when we are seeking reform e.g. MTOW increase and controlled air space etc.

 

<o:p></o:p>

 

I think this is good news and its clear the RAA have done a good job in lobbying and position our sport in such a positive way in the White Paper.

 

<o:p></o:p>

 

Have a read and see what you think?

 

<o:p></o:p>

 

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/nap/index.aspx

 

<o:p></o:p>

 

Cheers

 

Jack

 

 

[cazza]

hello concerned pilots. I think RA-Aus has to be vigilant so we are not caught with our proverbial pants down. Foirtunately, Jim Coyne, the new manager of the Sports Aviation Sector at CASA is coming to Natfly at Temora and he is addressing these very issues you have raised from the white paper. Come on down (or up depending on where you live) to YTEM at Easter and meet the man who has the answers we all want.

 

Cazza

 

 

[facthunter]

Sale

 

Yes it was sold privately. It was a 7-ECA model built in 1976 and recovered in 1998. I am not happy about selling it but it has gone to a good home, I have been stuffed around with by the medical fraternity and the postponement/CANCELLATION of the 760 Kg thing was the last straw. There are very few aircraft available to me that I really want to fly now. The Citabria was very nice to own. I am surprised that they are not more sought after. People used to get around it and ask me what it was, so I put a Transfer on the side. I guess they just don't know. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

Yes, the 7ECA is certainly under-rated. My friend has one recently refurbished, engine has nearly 2400 hrs TBO.

 

 

[Methusala]

Re re-regulation of the recreational sector.

 

"If it aint broke...." My friends and I who have been active in the ultralight movement since the (very) early 80's have been dismayed as the AUF (aviation friendly) gradually morphed into the RAAaus. The principals of this organisation have been haranguing the membership with 2 basic messages; 1. That we have never had it so good, and, 2.That we had better try harder or we may find ourselves in gaol, courtesy of CASA and it will serve us right! This leads some in the recreational area to overreact as in the case of an unregistered float equipped scout being found abandoned after a mishap. Who was harmed? It is well to remember that such aircraft struggled to climb much over 300ft!

 

Now some of you may think that I'm being "a bit harsh" in this judgement but I think that with a large membership base it wouldn't have hurt to be a bit reactive to CASA pressure. I do think that the organisation would have been in order to register some public disapproval when, for example, a CASA run safety briefing used a Drifter photo to illustrate the germ of airspace problems.

 

I was speaking to an ATPL rated bloke yesterday who told me of a near miss at a major airport which involved senior personnel including ATC. We all know that many aviation disasters occur under the perhaps over regulated public sector. My point is that more regulation leads only in one direction... less aviation.

 

It is time, I think, to consider splitting recreational aviation, (that is pilots who merely want to fly) from quasi-GA type flying. Increased regulation in the form of ADSB, transponders and glass cockpits could then proceed where it may do some good and we true ultralight pilots could go back to "paddock flying". That is outside controlled airspace and perhaps below 5000' or with 1500' clearance above terrain in weight limited aircraft.

 

This is my hat in the ring, Don

 

 

[turboplanner]

Tiered Groupings with specifications and regulations which each achieve the same end safety standard (targetted injury/fatality rate) would take a lot of the pain out of the present situation.

 

I've mentioned before that this works well in Speedway - for example the owner/driver of a Standard Saloon has nowhere near the level of regulation and cost that the owner of a Sprintcar has, but they all maintain outstandingly successful safety records - much better that football for example in terms of nett numbers.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I think John McCormick got off to a bad start and I hope the response has shown him that GA is not the military.

 

The changes to airspace (GAAP to Class D) were rushed and the process was not supported by adequate consultation beforehand. It wasn't even apparent what version of the rules they wanted to put in place at the outset let alone how AirServices was going to staff the towers. But it's being sorted now.

 

His reported comments about flying being a costly business and the inference drawn by many that he therefore had no time for complaints about excessive regulatory costs were also disappointingly bereft of understanding that a lot of us are ordinary folk who aren't wealthy but have a passion for what we do and what we do it with.

 

But he is a keen aerobatic pilot who owns a military bird and he is new in the job so we should probably give him time to find his own feet and offer him encouragement to come and see for himself how we conduct ourselves.

 

I doubt life will be dull these next few years!

 

kaz

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

But he is a keen aerobatic pilot who owns a military bird and he is new in the job so we should probably give him time to find his own feet and offer him encouragement to come and see for himself how we conduct ourselves.kaz

Wouldn't it be great if he turns up at NatFly? He could then see RA doing what it does best.

 

 

[cazza]

Hey burbles1,

 

Great minds think alike. John McCormick has been invited to Natfly to address the

 

members, or to just hang out and enjoy the excitement. It would be good if he came.

 

Cazza

 

 

[Methusala]

Hey, fellows...I aplaud optimism when I see it. It is entirely possible that John McCormick is a thoroughly likeable human being. But the reality is that he happens to be the head of regulation in a very emotionly charged public arena. He is the person who makes the decisions when the professional lobbyists for the airlines, LAMEs, GA flying schools etc.have made their case to the pollies either privately or, more often, through the media that loves a scary story.

 

We can put our trust in "fairness" or the belief that the good blokes always win the argument. I think that we should be asking our reps at RAA Aus to take the facts to the big boys and ask them to show why non-government regulators need behind the scenes puppeteers to fix what clearly aint broken. They should be forced to "put up or shut up".

 

Evidence of laxity in standards leading to demonstrably poor performance is the bench mark.

 

Previously in this thread I have given an example of the professionals' actions leading to a near catastrophe at a major airport. The incedent is not isolated and there is plenty of evidence that more regulation will lead to less aviation, not safer skies.

 

 

[Yenn]

How do RAAus operations compare safety wise with the other types of aviation. I would expect that RAAus has a better track record than GA, on a per hours flying basis bit I may be way off the mark. Surely that is how CASA ahould be judgiong us.

 

 

[turboplanner]

How do RAAus operations compare safety wise with the other types of aviation. I would expect that RAAus has a better track record than GA, on a per hours flying basis bit I may be way off the mark. Surely that is how CASA ahould be judgiong us.

Yenn, if only it was that simple - the real decider is who pushes his agenda the strongest and who wins the politics.