Jim McDowall

The liability argument is an absolute furphy! CASA is not at arms length from government in legal liability terms. Any decent legal attack on CASA would prove that once and for all.

Have a look at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG and jog your memory AND the biggy - the infamous Defence Materiel Organisation that presided over the waste of billions of taxpayer dollars

Actually the Government can put a genie back in the bottle - remember ATSIC?

Plain fact of the matter is that they (CASA) do not want more than one SAO for each rec aviation sector - see discussion docs as part of Part 149 NPRM. This has been policy since about 2004. Watch the video of CASA at the RRaT hearing a few weeks ago and see how they proposed to suck AOPA into this vortex of doom.

Does anyone know if CASA was actually called back before the committee as foreshadowed towards the end of their Nov 19 appearance?

In any event CASA may have been outside its powers for the registration audit. The CAO says that an aircraft must be registered with RAAus. The agreement of the day gave no audit powers to CASA so how was it that RAAus let them conduct the audit? Remember RAAus is a private body holding no delegations etc so where did CASA get its power to audit apart from a bureaucratic over-reach?

Were the audit failures about the registered characteristics of the subject aircraft or actual defects picked up on inspection of the aircraft? My recollection was that the audit turned up RAAus system failures not actual airworthiness issues. But I could be wrong......................

In the US holders with sport pilot licences (RAAus equivalent ie drivers licence medical) with appropriate endorsements can fly in properly equipped aircraft in Class B airspace which includes the airspace around all the major international airports like LAX (which has 5 VFR transit routes that I understand do not require ATC clearance below 10,000 feet). It may also be that US training is more rigorous. That given, the argument about collisions would seem to baseless)

Pardon my ignorance but what is the role of RAAus in the management and operation of CTA? The pilots who want a CTA endorsement will pay for it just like every other endorsement.

Isn't it amazing the number of grass fires started by "angle grinders" or people who are unaware of their surroundings!

I am reading the graph correctly? It seems that Mining and Public administration and safety experience roughly the same proportion of worker fatalities. Clearly the safety business aint safe!

As a "contracted service provider" to the Commonwealth, Raaus is quite possibly in breach of the Privacy Act The RAAus Privacy Policy say: 5.3.Use and disclosure of personal information RAAus will only use and/or disclose personal information for the purposes for which it was collected (the primary purpose), unless an individual has consented to another use [APP 6]. There are certain limited circumstances in which RAAus may use or disclose information for a different purpose (a secondary purpose) without consent, such as where the secondary purpose is: • directly related to the primary purpose for which the information was collected • required or authorised under an Australian law or has been ordered by a court or tribunal • necessary to lessen or prevent an immediate and serious threat to the life, safety of air navigation, health or safety of any individual, or public health or safety • to facilitate the investigation of an occurrence involving an RAAus registered aircraft and the death or serious injury of one or more persons • a permitted general situation or health situation, as defined by the Privacy Act; or •an enforcement related activity and the use or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary. If RAAus uses or discloses personal information for a purpose other than what it was originally collected for, RAAus will keep a written notice of that use or disclosure as required by the APPs. Clearly the "primary Purpose" is the purpose for which it was originally collected and the envisaged "secondary use does not include passing it on to a third party private company without specific consent.

Most are small businesses who are simply cutting and pasting to fulfill a legislative or contractual obligation - probably with their fingers crossed. It is only large companies (and government - checkout how much your local council spends on WHS) that can genuinely implement SMS. And BTW the ubiquitous yellow (orange sometimes) and blue are only worn as they are cheap and they get you on to work sites without a fuss. I doubt that, because they are so commonplace now (ie functional blindness) they improve a workers visibility.

Could not agree more! CASA is a great example.

Just like in the building industry where most people just tick the safety paperwork off as "done". It is very rarely read much less interrogated with any vigor.

Perhaps it illustrates the pressure they were feeling.

And the question remains - if you can fly an 850kg glider (ie no operable means of support like an engine) in CTA without a transponder, on a drivers licence medical certificate and without a PPL why not another non-VH aircraft being flown on a drivers licence medical certificate? I am not advocating anything just pointing out the inconsistency of the regimes that have evolved from the silo approach of CASA by endorsing the RAAO recreation aviation management system. In respect of the CASA testimony, the selective approach to informing the committee demonstrated the contempt CASA has for the parliamentary system. For example, the shorthand description of the UK and US medical system was designed to mislead, not to mention the reliance of Carmody on Ben Morgan's regrettable enthusiastic response to the Basic med announcement before the details had been released. Selective obfuscation is not going to endear CASA to this committee.

It appears that nothing is scheduled for the Senate: https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Events_Calendar/Events_Search_Result#range=daily&display=list&from=2018-11-19&to=2018-11-19&senate=1&house=1&estimates=1&sb=1&sa=1&ss=1&committees=1&sh=1&hh=1&jh=1&sc=1&ir=1&visit=1&tr=1&se=1&ex=1&od=1&general=1&pubhol=1

Hi Ian, have a look at https://www.lastpass.com/ Jim

I use LastPass for automatic logins which used to work on the old platform but now my username is not picked up from LastPass (field is blank) so login info is incomplete requiring manual input of username. Password is OK. Can this be fixed?

I agree - My point is the same as yours - the "industry" that surrounds the concept. After all, none of us want to die or kill anyone. An analysis of the ICAO Safety Management Handbook illustrates that it is a "how to" for bureaucrats to build their empire, particularly if applied to a relatively defenceless sector like ours.

This whole safety thing is going to bog our society down and destroy its spirit. ICAO Annex 19 is the source of CASA's thrust in this regard. Annex 19 is supposed to only apply to International operations and "approved training organisations" and not aircraft under 5700kg. This is being reflected in changes to EASA rules where maintenance and training operators will not be required to have SMS. In this country we have laws that relate to the operation of aircraft and system for training people (inc flight reviews) to fly safely. Imposing a subjective safety system with the associated arbitrary review is tantamount to a totalitarian system. After all, a private operator of a VH reg aircraft flies in the same airspace under the same air law WITHOUT an "surveillance" by a private body. If CASA wants to surveil or audit let them do it, as they can do in the VH system today. Experience has shown that they are very loath to do this as there is little in the way of justifiable outcomes.

You would appeal to RAA under their rules, fail, appeal to CASA, fail, appeal to Administrative Appeals Tribunal (by this time you've sold you plane(s) lost your home, wife and sanity) then perhaps at the same time try Australian Securities Commission for oppresive conduct against a shareholder (best of luck on that front).

Maybe 544kg = 1200lbs

If only it was that simple. There is a point where potential customers say "no way can this be justified" and sell their aircraft or choose to fly outside the rules (really only a short term solution that will give us all a bad name). Another point I sought to make is that we are now reaping the cost of deleting competition from the education system. Competition is the fuel that feeds the fire that burns in every small businessman's (person?) belly. If you don't grow up in an environment where it is OK to succeed you dont learn to compete. And now with the atmosphere of mindless conformity that social media breeds it takes an unusual amount of guts to swim against the tide and buy your boss's business even if the terms are great. Today a colleague told me about his client who has a business that turns over $150million p.a.and employs over 100 people. The kids work in the business, take home well over $100k each and basically want for nothing. The succession plan which has been in place for many years has failed as the kids don't want the responsibility even though the business is pretty much debt free. It appears the business will be sold up in its various parts for not very much to the incumbent management - I suspect the kids will end up well provided for but out of work. This is not an unusual story.