CASA White Paper presentation NATFY by Jim Coyne.

[Guest sirius]

For anybody that attended these presentations you will have noted a common thread espoused by Jim Coyne, CASA, which went along the lines of;

 

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

 

1) there are grants available to RA-Aus.

 

2) There was a Risk Assessment Company engaged by CASA and Airservices and others to conduct risk assessments that CASA TOOK NOTICE OF.:big_grin:

 

3) Organisations presenting a “wish list” without a risk assessment were basically ignored.

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

This obvious hint did not stop the assembled from asking what has happened with the weight increase and the flight into controlled airspace and the monotonous reply was, “saying what I would like without a risk assessment would basically be binned”. This is what appears to have happened to date.:confused:

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

I don’t know how dumb or ignorant or how much you don’t understand “bureaucratised” words, the end result was so “in your face” that I have difficulty in understanding my fellow man, (woman as the case may be), or any director.

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

So directors please take note!

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

Apply for 2 grants to conduct a risk assessment by "that" nominated company for flight into controlled airspace and a weight increase. If the grants are knocked back, you know instantly CASA have no intention of making these exemptions.:thumb_up:

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

If you get the grants, you are in with a better than even chance and it costs RA-Aus noting except individual input to that company conducting the risk assessment. This can be done in conjunction with any new operating standards which should embrace a risk assessment to these levels. Steve Tizzard has a wealth of knowledge and should be able to assist here before he goes back into retirement.

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

If this line is not taken, and I am not in the least inferring “that company” has any better experience than the RA-Aus team, I fear the two EXEMPTIONS will be ignored and will drift into oblivion.

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

My opinion for what it’s worth.

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

<o:p> </o:p>

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

Sounds like excellent advice Sirius, but, as you say, good advice can often be ignored for reasons political...